Mystery score

Mystery score

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Dear Quitter:

Yes, I mean you, the former Governor of Alaska. Do you have any idea what the term "blood libel" refers to, and why it's just plain wrong to use it in connection with the discourse surrounding the shooting of a Jewish Congresswoman?

Criticism of the terms of discourse: not the same as false claims that Jewish people kill Christian children to make ritual use of their blood. You can't, and should not, be taking on the mantel of the oppressed. You're not oppressed; you're not being falsely accused. You had the crosshaired map on your web site and took it down within an hour of the shootings in Tucson.

You have, indeed, contributed to poisoning the discourse, both before and after that terrible event.

8 comments:

Joe Barron said...

She is the queen of fake indignation, as Bill Maher has said. She is also deeply ignorant. It's hard for me to work up any indignation of my own over anything she says, because I feel as though I'm listening to a child.

Lisa Hirsch said...

I believe it is possible that "blood libel" was intended to be a coded message of oppression and victimhood to her followers. I know exactly why you feel as though you're listening to a child; I do too. But I try to keep in mind that in the late 70s I believed that Ronald Reagan could never be president.

Joe Barron said...

I think you give her too much credit. She probably just heard the phrase "blood libel" somewhere, and it popped out of her mouth the way things do. It must have seemed appropriate to the occasion, containing, as it does, the words blood (relevant to a shooting) and libel (relevant to her own sense of victimhood).

Lisa Hirsch said...

One of the WashPost writers has an article about Palin and her advisors, and "blood libel" came from one of them - but Glenn Beck was also heard using the phrase earlier this week, and I am SURE that was deliberate and with intent.

Joe Barron said...

OK, so maybe I was wrong. Apperently, according to Olbermann, the use of the phrase in its latest context started at the WSJ.

Lisa Hirsch said...

I saw that too, and I am shocked that the WSJ would publish that - it was in an Op-Ed piece, but still.

Oh wait, Murdoch paper.

calimac said...

It didn't just pop out of her mouth, because she was reading from a teleprompter. You can see it reflected in her eyeglasses. As one commentator put it, you see that instead of into her eyes and soul, because she doesn't have a soul.

Joe Barron said...

I always thought that if you looked into her eyes, you'd see the back of her head ...