Mayhem in Tucson VI: Sarah Palin and Bloody Libel
As a relatively literate and informed person, I was initially mystified, and annoyed, at the latest brickbat tossed Sarah Palin’s way, until it all started to make devious, sick sense.
It wasn’t nearly sufficient to continue to accuse the former Alaska governor of the canard of almost singlehandedly causing fruitcake Jared Loughner to go berserk in Tucson. She now is being accused of anti-Semitism because she used the common term “blood libel,” a charge as patently ridiculous and baseless as the allegation that she in any way influenced Loughner or his rampage.
Historically, the term was applied against Jews and related to the ancient myth that they murdered innocents, usually children, for the purpose of ritualistically drinking their blood and making matzohs. However, it’s not unusual today to employ the term to mean a degrading falsehood as Palin used it in saying her detractors “manufactured a blood libel” against her.
A more sane reaction to the “blood libel” insanity came from none other than Jewish activist and arch-liberal attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who asserted Palin used the term correctly.
It’s relevant to quote Dershowitz at some length on the subject: “The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse . . . its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.” Dershowitz added, “I myself have used it . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3409)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment