Sarah Palin Learnt About The Blood Libel From The New York Times’s Blacks
SARAH Palin is implicated in the murders of six people and the shooting of 14 more by a nutzoid press reacting to nutzoid Jared Loughner. Obama puts his gun away to take nutzoid praise for rising above the partisan politics.
Palin wasn’t to blame. But she reacts to the barage of criticism by saying:
Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
Michael Tomasky writes:
Okay, I guess I have to do this, but I’ll keep it short. I think she probably didn’t fully know what “blood libel” means, historically and culturally.
Peter Stanford writes:
The real question is, did she have any idea what the phrase actually meant and therefore of the offence it might – and has – caused?
Stanford illustrates what an idiot he thinks Palin is by quoting a couple of her gaffes. But he forgets to mention Obama’s gun nor the President’s note that there are 57 States in the US of A. And let’s not get onto “British Petroleum“.
And blood libel is a phrase people have used before without being condemned for it. Like Andrew Sullivan:
[New York Republican nominee for governor Carl] Paladino speaks of “perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives.” This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.
“During the yellow fever plague a form of blood libel is imposed on the blacks in Philadelphia; they are said to be both responsible for and immune to sickness because of the color of their skin.”
Palin might well be a fool – but let’s not single her out for special treatment – it just makes the media look biased and stupid…
Posted: 14th, January 2011 | In: Key Posts, Politicians Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
