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.
Papamoka
***Crooks and Liars linking in... Thank you Mike!
Labels: American Politics, Arizona Blood Bath, Blood Libel, Congressmen Giffords, Democrats, Politics, Republican, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Talk Radio
posted by Papamoka at
8:56 PM
16 Comments:
Mat I disagree! :-)(yes your sistah from anotha motha disagrees!)
I think Palin was talking just to liberal pundits who are accusing her of inciting violence. I didn't hear any criticisms of her loyal followers and talking heads at Faux Noise! It was a total pity party speech which she had visions of looking presidential! Yikes!!
My compliments. The ghouls trying to politicize this tragedy are shameful. I think Bernie Sanders is even trying to fund raise off it.
Too many of the people trying to blame Palin have been exposed as using the same rhetoric themselves. This was not political and had nothing to do with politics or speech. He was sick and was threatening people and it was ignored and covered up.
A lot of shame to go around but it had nothing to do with politics or talk radio.
Sistah, I have to disagree with you if you just read the entire facebook speech as it was posted. Disregard any interpretation from any media other than your own reading of it. Just read it from the perspective that nobody is spinning it and your thoughts might just change sis.
This is what pisses me off on lots of the media both left and right. They all take stuff out of context and yes "Blood Libel" can be used in forms that are wrong. She wasn't wrong in her use of it. My interpretation of it was that she bitch slapped all of the media for spinning a hate crime into more than it was. I honestly think it was a RB EIB network smack upside the head though.
Hugs and love at ya sis
And... Sue, I am not a fan of Sarah Palin by any means. I just don't see it as fair game to just bash her because she has an R in front of her moniker. I honestly feel that her facebook statement was from the heart to end the madness of the current state of politics.
Trust me, she has plenty of stupid shit that I or you could bash her on that doesn't make a lick of common sense. Her thoughts regarding AZ and what happened were on the mark.... Sorry, little bit of throw up in the back of my throat.
What was wrong with Palin's comment is that she made herself a victim of a crime she wasn't a part of. Even if others were doing that to her, she is morally wrong to take any of this upon herself.
JMJ
What? The part that got me was "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." where she admits that words can incite hatred and violence, but only if they are not words coming from her and the rest of the vultures on the right. See, what they are doing when they use violent rhetoric is practicing the 1st amendment, but when journalists and pundits do it, they are inciting violence and hatred.
Great point!
JMJ
I have no clue how the comment you gave Eko is relevent? Help me out here. The first amendment has nothing to do with what the speech was about other than her telling shock jocks to stop inciting violence. What is your point? Read the full speech. And again, I am no Sarah Palin fan by any means.
My point is that Palin admitted that words can incite violence, yet she never assumed any culpability for her words "reload dont retreat" "Obama's a muslim" "Death panels" or her graphics with cross-hairs. Never once did she say that she needs to tone down her rhetoric, only that journalists and pundits who are calling her and others like her out for using violent rhetoric are the ones inciting violence. I think its pretty clear which journalists and pundits she is talking about. She is most certainly not calling out conservative ones, it was not conservative journalists and pundits that responded "hours" after this tragedy, it was liberal ones who decried this violent rhetoric for helping to create a climate of hatred and violence."Bitch slap Limbaugh"? I think you misread that entirely, after Limbaugh she is the one most responsible for the climate of hatred and fear prevalent today, did you not watch her on the campaign? As far as the first amendment, conservatives believe they should be able to use violent rhetoric because it is their 1st amendment right, and anyone who calls them out for it is trying to take away that right.
@ Machinist, of course this was political, he went to a political event and shot a politician at point blank in the head.
I guess Colebert came to the same conclusion that I did, Ha!.
Even Alan Dershowitz said that the blood libel palin is talking about is aimed at her "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." and I dont remember conservative pundits and journalists calling out palin, ergo she is calling out the left and saying they are inciting violence by calling her out for using violent rhetoric that she says does not incite violence. I hope all that explains my 1st post. Thank you for listening and letting me have my say, I like your site Papamoka, mine is at www.eko.aboni.com. Shameless plug. Seriously, thank you.
We love shameless plugs Eko! LOL
@ ekoaboni,
If it was political then it would be leftest hate speech that influenced him given his rather extreme leftest beliefs. His problems with the congress women go back to 2007, before he would ever have heard of Palin, and he certainly was not someone who listened to Rush. This freak was a Truther and believed the government was ruling through mind control using grammar and spelling. He threatened the congress woman because he felt she had slighted him at an earlier event. His friends and associates said he paid no attention to politics or the media.
I disagree with Mat that she was calling out the left, but I applaud that he did not jump on the hate wagon as so many of the folks on the left did. How many have come out and apologized or posted corrections after the truth about this nut came out? Kos used the same "targeting" imagery and speech about the same congress woman before Palin did. Have you blamed him? If not then aren't being hypocritical in denouncing Palin?
Did you miss all the violent imagery and hate speech directed at Bush for over eight years? There has been nothing to compare with it against Obama.
Look at some of the comments against Republicans on this blog two years ago or on the blogs of some of the commenters here today.
Moka,
You made really impressive points here. I am a liberal democrat who often defends conservatives against partisan attacks. It is especially absurd for anyone to use that Face book extract against Sarah Palin for two reasons, the one you mentioned and the fact that it was eloquently expressed and was not written by her.
This whole issue exploded into one about "violent rhetoric" and from there, "intolerance" of the political positions of others.
In the Violent Rhetoric debate, conservatives lost handily. They tried to list examples of rhetoric that compared to that of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin. They had plenty, some of them from people as famous as liberal journalists for newspapers with circulations that exceeded 10,000. In precious few instances were they able to cite media celebrities on the left who made statements similar to those made by the opinion-makers on the right. Republicans are known to be belligerent and aggressive, and when it suits them they boast about it freely, such as times when they accuse liberals of being weak and wimpy.
As for the intolerance of conservatives over liberals and vice versa, I see no difference whatsoever. The liberals not only lost that argument, but really made no argument, just a statement.
As for politicizing the tragedy in AZ, anyone who claims this was not done is a liar. The democrats used this tool, just as the republicans always use any tool to attack the other party. Truth is not sought on either side. Winning is.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home