“Blood libel”? Really?
In her seven-and-a-half minute video, Ms. Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term has been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews, and her use of the phrase itself has caused the video to go viral, attracting criticism of her description of the controversy. Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.
Hey Bill Kristol, how’s your love affair with Sarah going now?
UPDATE: To be fair to Palin, it appears that Glenn Reynolds got there first. Jonah Goldberg has this hilariously understated take on conservative victimhood’s new favorite phrase.
I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood – usually from children – in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.
“Isn’t ideal.” I suppose that’s accurate.
Rep. Clyburn got it right yesterday when he said she is intellectually incapable of handling this. She really is that stupid. Oy.
Palin wasn’t exactly polling well with Jews or even Gentiles in areas with Jewish density, nor was she polling well with citizens with advanced degrees in history, religion, etc. Those are just about the only folks who will know the context of “blood libel” and for the peoples who’ve never heard it, even that little paragraph isn’t going to change their minds about Mrs. Palin. Perhaps independents in Massachusetts will primary for Palin as well, helping her win delegates in the crowded field.
<
p>The fact is that she isn’t popular as a candidate, but she’s entertaining as a citizen.
What it does is change the narrative of the media, which, in turn affects the mushy middle “independent” voter. Palin will never poll nationally above 30%, or so, ever again. (JMHO)
No, she won’t be President and GOP operatives are perhaps aware of the danger of nominating her.
<
p>Sarah Palin has enormous influence over the national dialogue, what’s discussed and in what terms. She uses colorful language. She has a perch at Fox. The Press can’t wait for her next tweet.
<
p>It doesn’t matter than a prerequisite for a full appreciation of her language is advanced degree in ignorance. { Insert P. T. Barnum quote here. }
And rather than continuing to retweet her ghostwritten comments as legitimate discourse, you will begin to see her cast with disdain – that actual disdain that Palin has heretofore only imagined.
<
p>As time passes she will become much more of an Oliver North type figure than that of a spokesperson. As her political star fades, the people who enable her to function on the national stage will begin to disappear.
<
p>David is right. She will be defined by these past few days. She is done.
Hearing Palin whip out the “blood libel” phrase certainly made me do a double-take. I mean, it is such an absurd non sequitor, such a flamingly moronic line of argument to pursue, that I am now forced to recalibrate my opinion of Palin. Not that this would be the first time, but it may be the last.
<
p>Before this latest screed, I found Palin to be grossly obnoxious, yet still able to maintain a connection to the real world. I felt there was some rational motivation behind her actions, albeit disconnected from the things she actually said out loud.
<
p>Now she sounds like a cornered animal with some major “fight or flight” reflexes kicking in. This is a valid response to something that she is knee-deep in, but despite her denials, her attempt to make this about anything except her own actions is so very telling. “Out, damn’d spot! out, I say!” She has now put some real distance between herself and… well, everyone else who wants to be taken seriously. She sounds like a creepy basement conspiracy theorist, the kind of person I really would cross the street to avoid.
<
p>“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow’r to accompt? – Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?”
<
p>What we are hearing is the ranting of someone trying to figure out how it all went so terribly wrong.
She has the blood of a child on her hands. She knows it.
<
p>We hear the shrieking of guilt. Nothing more, nothing less.
Blood Libel is used to describe the disgusting false accusations that Jews used christian blood in ritual sacrifices?
<
p>Sarah Palin has been wrongfully accused of causing a man to kill someone, a man who by the way under recent reports, never watched the news, didn’t listen to political radio, and didn’t watch television. That seems about right to me.
with this statement, a complete inability to appreciate historical context, nuance, and the power of connotation.
<
p>The world is not black and white, and sometimes decency, sensitivity, and wisdom is found in the grey. Alas, however, I suspect that observation will, too, be lost on you.
You are so used to making false equivalences you have lost perspective.
What a surprise.
Guess I should be grateful, then, for my 3? Gotta love it.
So he has decided to demonstrate his maturity by giving me zeros.
You are beginning to sound like your hero, Olbermann. Statements like yours in quotes are totally worthless to any intelligent discussion.
for you to model intelligent discussion rather than to give a virtuoso performance in peevishness?
peevishness in all of us>:)
You are making stuff up. I don’t even have cable and the few times I have heard him, I thought Olbermann came off as a bit of blow-hard. You must be thinking of someone else. Still that mistake just further highlights your tendency to simply lump all people who disagree with you together. Olberman is a Liberal, many Liberals like him, HR’s Kevin is a Liberal, therefore HR’s Kevin likes him too. That is faulty reasoning and only detracts from so-called “intelligent discussion”.
<
p>I also don’t see what is wrong with pointing out that you have lost perspective when it appears to be true.
I am pretty sure that I have never given you a zero. I cannot recall any comment that you have made that deserved to be deleted. I probably have given you 3s or 4s but only based on my perception of the comment itself, never to get back at you for some perceived slight.
<
p>If other people are giving you zeros, I don’t condone that.
<
p>
I just went through the first three pages of ratings on your comments. No zeros. The BMGers seem to be failing your expectations in that area.
… is the zeitgeist of the right – they can’t escape the POV.
… if I accused Sarah Palin of killing my child and cooking with his blood for religious reasons.
<
p>If you cannot fathom the difference between criticizing her political methods and accusing Jews of making matzoh out children’s blood, you are being willfully ignorant.
<
p>Nobody is organizing an Assembly of God pogrom in Alaska.
By using that term she seems to be saying that she is being accused of something far worse than she is actually being accused of. Many on the left (including at least two of the MSNBC evening lineup) have made very clear that they are only making the words matter argument in context, not that she has blood on her hands or is responsible directly for what happened in Tucson. Medieval Christians literally believed and spread the lie that Jews were sacrificing Christian children for their rituals. I think Josh Marshall’s comment quoted in the first comment on this thread sums it up quite nicely.
It demonstrates, once and for all, the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of the philosophy you espouse. Well done.
Conservatives think everything is personal and individual. They think all these liberals are accusing Palin (or Beck or Savage or whoever) of having a direct, almost criminal responsibility for Loughner.
<
p>Wrong.
<
p>In fact, the accusation is that Palin along with a lot of other people has contributed to a climate in which an assassination seems expected and unsurprising and where the Secret Service has been kept busier.
<
p>Palin is being blamed for contributing to the climate and doing nothing to rein it in. Only the simple-minded are saying she has any direct responsibility.
<
p>This is like discussing hurricanes and climate change. Exxon did not cause Katrina, but—
Conservatives see responsibility as a binary thing. If one person is responsible, another cannot be. I’ve encountered this time and time again, it’s eerie. So any responsibility assigned to anyone but Loughner means that this somehow exonerates Loughner, and that is viscerally wrong.
<
p>This is similar to how they view the economy — if you ever claim that our economic system influences how people perform economically, to a conservative, this means that this exonerates every ill-performing individual. Since they know, in their gut, that the lazy drunk down the block is clearly responsible for his own economic fate, this proves that the economy is not responsible at all for anyone’s performance, and therefore all failure is solely individual.
Step one: try to have some idea what you are talking about before you voice an opinion. Wikipedia:
<
p>
<
p>Come to think of it, the Dropout Governor could benefit from the same advice.
From Alan Dershowitz http://biggovernment.com/publi…
<
p>
<
p>Seems as if the moral equivalency I’ve given the meaning is exactly germane. Phrases take turns, they mean different things over time. Perhaps it is not I that is being binary but you.
<
p>Here are multiple examples of liberals using the term figuratively as well. Where was your outrage when they did it?
<
p>So you see the term has taken on the exact meaning in which Sarah Palin used it. BDS has truly transformed into PDS hasn’t it?
… friends get their arguments from Breitbart.
disavowed that he stated this. I would think Breitbart would be open to being sued if he attributed this to Dershowitz without his permission.
<
p>Also the other article has cites from actual sources where people used the term. Not Breitbart.
<
p>You guys have dug yourself into such a hole and are flailing to get out. If the circumstances weren’t so serious it would be tragically funny.
… Dershowitz has an opinion from which he differs from the majority of the left. He also thinks there should be a legal framework to allow torture.
<
p>Finding an outlier isn’t news
<
p>Breitbart is the drug in this case.
what Dershowitz thinks. And let’s just leave it at that. Even Jonah Goldberg, who otherwise is perhaps the nation’s leading apologist for absurd right-wing talking points, found this one a bridge too far.
I think it’s pretty effective. I can’t imagine Palin will actually run for president, but is demonstrably willing to fleece suckers and punters out of any dime they will give her. To do so, she has to pretend to lower herself to their level, using their techniques and language. Like any Republican, she pretends not to be educated or with any real awareness of history except as affecting white “real ‘mericans”.
<
p>She’s carrying the modern Republican Party to its logical conclusion — fleece the proles by the most direct means possible. Her genius is to avoid the bothersome political process and chumming with the finance sector who can put you on their corporate boards or lobbying payroll. Instead, just get them to buy your books, and watch your tv show.
<
p>Why should she apologize? It’s great for her bottom line. The apologies need to come from the media that pretends that she matters at all. Aside from a part-time losing campaign, her accomplishments pale next to (just among retired Republican women politicians) Christie Whitman, Linda Lingle, and Elizabeth Dole. Instead we hear from this mildly photogenic failure.