Blood Libel Meaning
Sarah Palin put out a Facebook statement regarding the horrific events in Arizona and the death of far too many innocent people at the hands of a madman at Congress woman Giffords gathering. Having actually read the whole speech from Sarah Palin I honestly have to say that I think she was actually right on message. And this opinion is from a true blue blood Democrat.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, 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 they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. – Facebook
We live in a time when politics and the debate of just life in America is very harsh and cold. Political pundits with a microphone or television show will spin it to blame an opposing political party for the actions of a madman simply because they can. The pay for such so called political valor is high. I have to say that I have followed Sarah Palin online to see what she has to say and she used the term “Blood Libel” appropriately to describe the idiots behind the microphones. I believe that would be a “bitch slap” to Rush Limbaugh from the former Vice President Candidate from Alaska. She wasn’t looking to hurt anyone with the statement other than tell the shock jocks to shut the hell up.
Even Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law Proffesor agrees with me...
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. – Big Government
Sarah Palin said nothing that was offensive unless you speak a language that is lost to the ages. Now I have to go throw up for defending her speech. I hope that she never has a more clear and to the point speech ever again.
***Crooks and Liars linking in... Thank you Mike!