Well if you'd like to ignore the context of blood libel it's fair. If you look that the stories that were made up about jewish people were done in order to round them up, and kill them, or imprison them. What's happening to Sarah Palin is in no way comparable to the persecution of the Jewish people.
to palin's congregants, any criticism of their priestess is exactly the same as any horrible thing that has ever been done, whether it's the holocaust, slavery, etc. that's why we all hate special needs kids remember?
In both cases the goal of the accuser is to destroy the reputation of the accused. In the case of the Jews, they wanted to destroy their reputation to justify slaughtering them and in the case of Palin they just want people to not respect her belief system. That difference doesn't make her use of the phrase incorrect or inappropriate. She is still being accused incorrectly of causing the death of a child for the purpose of destroying her reputation.
I don't have a beef with discussing her statement per se. It just seems to be of somewhat minimal importance and bringing it up seems to be more of an effort to point out one more thing "the other side" does wrong. So I'm asking people to ask themselves whether that's the case. If you don't think it is, fine. By the way, I noticed this quick blurb from Ezra Klein in my Google News feed that made sense to me. Quoted is his comment on "blood libel". [rquoter]... Moreover, I just don't care if Palin thought "blood libel" was a vivid way of saying "nasty smear" instead of a description of the once-common anti-Semitic trope that Jews murder Christian children because their blood is needed to bake matzoh. I'm Jewish, so I know the term well. But I imagine the history of it is more obscure to those who didn't attend Hebrew school. This is not worth the headlines it's been getting. ...[/rquoter]
Actually, most propaganda against jews has been attempt to de-humanize them to justify attempts of genocide. Sarah Palin's reputation is already set in stone... there is nothing to ruin. She is a polarizing political figure that is loved and hated by many.
Really? I always thought they said they were crosshairs, but that they were metaphorical. Although even if they weren't supposed to be crosshairs I guess the original point stands. The fact that they look like crosshairs is enough reason to pull the image down out of respect.
but she doesn't have enough respect to not use the term blood libel when discussing the assasination attempt on a jewish person.
Dershowitz 1, Fisher 0. -- The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.
Reminds me of Rocket River v. the BBS regarding the comparison of the persecution of homosexuals to the enslavement of blacks. I can see Jews being upset at the idea of comparing a political slander to wholesale genocide. But, we do this all the time: making comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, gulags, Purges, communism, slavery, Apartheid, etc. It might be a little delusional but everyone by now should have the perspective to recognize it as hyperbole.
Well, given her history I'm guessing the PR explanation is the more likely one for taking the image down. She seems much more conscious of defending herself and showing (and demanding) respect for people on her side than she does of showing extra respect for the feelings of people she would say are against her. And I'm not sure she even knew of or considered the full connotations of the "blood libel" phrase before using it, although that kind of reinforces your point.
I don't think it's the jews who are that upset. It's mainly the people who'd never heard the term before. You guys (and the blogs you read) spend a lot of time dissecting Palin's words. That's got to be painful.
Dude, she totally did. She turned herself into a media circus. Her attacking the media is a joke. She is a PRODUCT of media. She's a paper thin personality that doesn't have the knowledge or credentials to be involved in political debates. She sounds like an idiot. If it were not for the media she's be a relatively unknown governor of Alaska. Not a wanna be celebrity. To say she doesn't bring this stuff upon herself is laughable. She's not responsible for what happened in Tuscan, but she definitely brought this upon herself. Maybe she should take responsibility of her predicament instead of comparing herself to Holocaust victims.
One of the many courses she nearly failed and/or dropped in one of her six community colleges was surveying. She was considering a career in road crews... If only she had passed that class! "Oh, you betcha, Frank! This tennis court. It is about as level as an Obama organized community! (*wink*)"
it's just the hate meme du jour. caught (blood) libeling Palin, and conservatives in general, they're anxious to get back on their moral hoppy horse. but cha can't ride a mamma grizzly.
