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.

**she was in a no win situation.  So she stayed true to her form.  I have no
issue with this at all.

> http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/video-journalists-and-pundits-sh
> ould-not-manufacture-a-blood-libel/
>
> Update: Some are criticizing Palins 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 Politicos 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.

**true

> . . . and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murthas
> accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. Its 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.

**they are saying the blood is on her hands.  Comes close.

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.

**As I said, she was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t.

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