Posted on 01/12/2011 5:42:46 AM PST by reaganaut1
Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, on Wednesday issued a forceful denunciation of her critics in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of blood libel in their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.
Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own, she said in a video posted to her Facebook page. Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
Ms. Palins use last year of a map with crosshairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Gabrielle Giffords, had increasingly become the symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In and interview with The Caucus on Monday, potential 2012 rival Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.
But in the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, casting it as a broader indictment of the basic political rights of free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.
She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.
Not with those who listen to talk radio, she added. Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their first amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
They also object to Sarah Palin. Usually for reasons that cannot be convincingly articulated.
Fact is, 'blood libel' is having the same effect as 'death panels'. It is unhinging the left...and stiffening the resolve of most on the right...because it is true.
And, if it is true, how can it possibly be "inappropriate"?
I included that because it was a point in your favor. But wikipedia’s use of the term was simply to indicate that on occasion, the charges of murdering children for their blood was leveled against people who were not jewish, not to suggest that the term had another use that was somewhat common that didn’t include jews.
The phrase ‘always’ would rarely be correct if taken literally, and therefore should be interpreted in most cases as a virtual or predominant statement. After all, Palin just used “blood libel”, and not against jews, so it obviously isn’t “always” used against jews.
But it’s use is virtually always to discuss jews being persecuted by other faiths through the false accusation that they were killing children. That a few instances exist of others being so falsely accused doesn’t really change that, nor is there any evidence that the term has EVER been used as a common way of describing the general false accusations that a group has contributed to a culture of violence.
Which may NOT have been your argument, but without such an argument, the wtc911 argument is largely unscathed by pointing out that the use of “always” was imprecise.
“”If she had simply written libel, the likely response would have been snarky comments about her ignorance of libel laws. Really, she shouldnt have to walk on eggshells with her choice of words. Her point was clear, especially the context within which it was written.””
_____
Well stated.
The American public also sees the leftist media and politicians are engaging in blood libel. CBS conducted a poll and even a majority of the Democrats see this leftist vitriol as blood libel.
I didn't know that. In fact, Jews are last thing on my mind when I hear that term. But then I don't indict Jews and don't hang around with those who do.
Why Sarah Palin's use of 'blood libel' is a great thing
On the other hand, Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term "blood libel" should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion -- about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis -- will serve to enlighten and inform.The author says that by mis-using the term, it might remind Christians of our history of murdering jews, and that would be a good thing.
...
I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.
The Feminist Blood-Libel Against Men
Mar.23rd,2007 by Daran.
There are many more if those with PDS wanted to do a little research.
I think this is a very appropriate term & analogy to use, especially with the dimturds & their liberal partisan media hacks saying everything they can to throw more gasoline on the angry vitriol & rhetoric that libturds do constantly and hypocritically accuse conservatives of this.
Case in point is ex-Representative dimturd Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today in which he calls for civility, yet on Oct 23 he declared "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him".
I think Republicans should just be hammering the dimturds & the media with this type of angry rhetoric & threats used pretty much exclusively by the left.
Mark 141 for later.
Those looking for good arguments for the word, as well as a better way I think to have introduced the word, should read this blog. I'll quote only a small part.
To blame conservatives for the actions of an individual who has been described by his school acquaintances as either an apolitical pothead or a left-wing pothead is the worst kind of dishonesty. In fact, it bears a remarkable similarity to the blood libel that has for centuries been a staple of anti-Semitism. The truth or even plausibility of the charge seems irrelevant the charge seems presumed true from the fact that conservatives are just bad people. Their reasoning is ultimately circular conservatives are bad people, therefore they are responsible for the Tucson attack, therefore that proves what horrible people they are. This is bigotry, not analysis.By using the phrase "bears a remarkable similarity", the author can invoke the emotion of the phrase, draw a parallel, and introduce the analogy without appropriating the phrase or suggesting equivalence in degree.
So if Palin had simply said "remarkably similar to blood libel", rather than just using the word, I do think she would have avoided a good deal of criticism.
I agree. Call a left-winger a socialist and they’ll roll their eyes, call them a communist and they’ll yawn, call them a fascist and they’ll turn purple and make gurgling noises.
Only because it doesn't need to be that any longer -- for those who would be affected by it, they've already succeeded in setting that bit. Now it's on to something else -- the "blood libel" accusation serves to confirm existing prejudices about Palin.
Shes knocked them off-message in just one speech.
That's where you're wrong. This little flap actually helps them with their overall "message" about Sarah Palin. The media "opinion-shapers" want to paint Sarah Palin as a shallow, irresponsible person whose political pretensions pose a threat to the country.
"Blood libel" helps them to do that.
And just a note: for all the discussion on this thread about what the term actually means, I think most folks' first impression of the term is similar to mine: that the media have committed a libel that demands blood as repayment. That really does sound unhinged.
‘Blood Libel’ is a brilliantly accurate definition of the Left’s inflammatory and hate-filled rhetoric over the Tucson murders.
Also: the Left really, truly does want Palin dead: political assassination and even mass murder have been the hallmarks of the Left since Robespierre. Whenever the Left can kill or imprison their political opponents then they do so. That’s what the Left is: raw immoral power with a acceptable facade.
They don’t just want her murdered of course: some of the Left have openly called for Palin to be raped by black people. This is because the Left are unhinged sociopaths who worship power and license.
Have you been living in a cave that you do not know these things?
I notice that you couldn’t answer MrB, preferring instead to shriek abuse at him. Are you sure you’re on the right forum?
The Campaign Spot
The Term Blood Libel: More Common Than You Might Think
January 12, 2011 9:51 A.M. By Jim Geraghty
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/256955/term-blood-libel-more-common-you-might-think
I've often thought of blood feuds as when the descendents of one side continue fighting the descendents of the other side long after the original people involved in the dispute have passed on.
In this case, the constant left/right sniping (did I say that?) is a blood feud.
-PJ
I suggest you look up Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Dan Maes, Carl Paladino... just to name a few.
Gov Palin’s statement was well thought out and illustrates her empathy for the victims of this horrific tagedy. I also note that the truth of this ‘blood libel’ puts her detractors off their game and they can only scream their disapproval. The truth hurts. The truth is that a deranged nut killed six people in Arizona including a precious 9 year old girl and a Federal Judge. He also wounded many others including a Congressman whom we all have praying for. To Blame Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement for this is indeed blood libel.
Regards,
Liberty
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.