Besides of the occasional remarks about her 'brilliancy' I didn't want to talk about her - because it by itself would give her the 'legitimacy' she so strongly demands from the witnesses of her act.
It was the case until a few days ago when she used the term 'Blood libel' in her speech right after the Arizona Massacre. I could have even let it go if not for the overwhelming reaction of the members of the press attacking her (and rightfully so) for it's use. However, my angle is a bit different, than what I hear from the most of the passionately speaking attackers.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," she said.
To unfamiliar with this term and it's history (like obviously Sarah Palin was, when she used it) let me quote from the "Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary":
"The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type. The blood libel is a phenomenon of medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, but spread to the Middle East as early as 1775, when there was a blood libel in Hebron.(...)There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial."
Most of her attackers argued that by the use of the term 'Blood libel' she brought an Anti-Semitism to the table, and offended Jewish part of the population. The confrontation went as far as quoting (by both sides of the quarrel) statements by the leaders of the Jewish organizations. Was it really the legitimate direction of the polemic? Not to me, and fortunately not to some others like Time's Alex Altman. She could have apologized and buried the matter for ever. But no, she 'reloaded' and heated the debate once more.
But again, the debate had in my opinion a misguided direction. 'Blood libel' however painful for those who were falsely accused of the religious bloody practices, is a part of the Language the same way a Holocaust is. If not abused, it may be used in many a context - to prove the point. We use the parallels and metaphors in the art of the argument to make it more explainable, easier digestible, sometimes stronger. So, by these means Palin's use of the term was not offensive. (I am positive that she didn't mean to use an Anti-Semitic card in this argument - it was just not a very prudent thing to do).
When I heard her saying these words it woke in me a strong disagreement because of a little different aspect. She proved again that she perceives herself as completely wrongly accused martyr, whereas the whole liberal America conspires against her. She dared to put herself in the same category as the wrongly accused by the Christian Authorities Jews. Her lack of perspective when considering herself a part of so deeply suppressed and misunderstood entity, that only the term 'blood libel' could fit to describe it is scary to say the least. Her and other members of the Tea Party (or other conservative organizations) responsibility for the Arizona Massacre is disputable, I understand it. But at the same time is not a matter of a myth - completely unfounded and sick - it's a matter of interpretation of the inflammatory remarks uttered so often in the past by herself, or Sharon Angle or others.
When the abortion doctors were attacked and sometimes killed, when the clinics where they worked were cowardly targeted and destroyed we as a society didn't have too much difficulties with associating such acts directly with the inflammatory and very graphic statements by the anti-abortion activists. Although often they couldn't be charged with the crime, the moral condemnation was strong and unanimous.
Why can't we apply the same standards to Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle?
It was the case until a few days ago when she used the term 'Blood libel' in her speech right after the Arizona Massacre. I could have even let it go if not for the overwhelming reaction of the members of the press attacking her (and rightfully so) for it's use. However, my angle is a bit different, than what I hear from the most of the passionately speaking attackers.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," she said.
To unfamiliar with this term and it's history (like obviously Sarah Palin was, when she used it) let me quote from the "Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary":
"The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type. The blood libel is a phenomenon of medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, but spread to the Middle East as early as 1775, when there was a blood libel in Hebron.(...)There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial."
Most of her attackers argued that by the use of the term 'Blood libel' she brought an Anti-Semitism to the table, and offended Jewish part of the population. The confrontation went as far as quoting (by both sides of the quarrel) statements by the leaders of the Jewish organizations. Was it really the legitimate direction of the polemic? Not to me, and fortunately not to some others like Time's Alex Altman. She could have apologized and buried the matter for ever. But no, she 'reloaded' and heated the debate once more.
But again, the debate had in my opinion a misguided direction. 'Blood libel' however painful for those who were falsely accused of the religious bloody practices, is a part of the Language the same way a Holocaust is. If not abused, it may be used in many a context - to prove the point. We use the parallels and metaphors in the art of the argument to make it more explainable, easier digestible, sometimes stronger. So, by these means Palin's use of the term was not offensive. (I am positive that she didn't mean to use an Anti-Semitic card in this argument - it was just not a very prudent thing to do).
When I heard her saying these words it woke in me a strong disagreement because of a little different aspect. She proved again that she perceives herself as completely wrongly accused martyr, whereas the whole liberal America conspires against her. She dared to put herself in the same category as the wrongly accused by the Christian Authorities Jews. Her lack of perspective when considering herself a part of so deeply suppressed and misunderstood entity, that only the term 'blood libel' could fit to describe it is scary to say the least. Her and other members of the Tea Party (or other conservative organizations) responsibility for the Arizona Massacre is disputable, I understand it. But at the same time is not a matter of a myth - completely unfounded and sick - it's a matter of interpretation of the inflammatory remarks uttered so often in the past by herself, or Sharon Angle or others.
When the abortion doctors were attacked and sometimes killed, when the clinics where they worked were cowardly targeted and destroyed we as a society didn't have too much difficulties with associating such acts directly with the inflammatory and very graphic statements by the anti-abortion activists. Although often they couldn't be charged with the crime, the moral condemnation was strong and unanimous.
Why can't we apply the same standards to Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle?
