Re: oh please.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Karl wrote:
> Considering they went after her directly, I think her response is 
> actually fairly measured.

Yes, like I said, this could have been worse.  But it could have been 
better, too.  She didn't have to give her enemies more ammo etc.

> http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/video-journalists-and-pundits-should-not-manufacture-a-blood-libel/
>
> Update: Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that 
> it refers to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews 
> supposedly used the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual 
> food. But as Glenn Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel 
> uses “blood libel” today to rebut charges of deliberately killing 
> Palestinians . . .

Well, no one's going to complain if Jews repurpose the word for whatever 
reason.  Especially if the whole *point* of the repurposing is that they 
were once accused of deliberately killing Europeans and now they are 
accused of deliberately killing Palestinians.

> . . . and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s 
> accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. It’s a functional 
> political term.

Unfamiliar with the Blankley column.  Although it should be noted that no 
one was accusing Palin of actually *committing* the murders here.

Note, BTW, that I do not say that Palin herself was being anti-Semitic 
when she used this term.  It's just loaded rhetoric, is all, and she 
should really, really be trying to tone things down right now, not 
throwing extra grenades into the public discourse.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot