How many people will miss that point? How many will willfully ignore it? Hmmmmm.
She was giving a prepared speech, not taking questions. People being unfamiliar with the term blood libel isn’t a big surprise. But you don’t use the term if you’ve never heard it. Maybe I’m violating DNFTP here. DNFTP, people.
I can understand if they didn’t know the word, since I doubt they are too interested in Jewish history, and it probably hasn’t shown up in all those newspapers she is supposed to read. But they obviously had heard the term, and used it without understanding the context or its meaning. It is just another indication that Palin and her camp are a bunch of ignorant buffoons, spouting a bunch of good sounding soundbites without understanding what they mean. I don’t think it was anti-Semitic in context, just ignorant, and scary because her whole economic and diplomatic worldview seems based on a similar misunderstanding of the world.
“Blood Libel” is still a valid accusation, when “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and “Matzohs of Zion,” etc. are still being published in various languages on several continents.
I remember exactly where I was when I saw the “BLOOD LIBEL” ad in 1982, denouncing the charge of Israeli complicity in the massacre of Palestinian refugees by Lebanese militia.
Since some Iraeli patriots have devalued the cry of “Blood Libel” by conflating any criticism of their state & military with antisemitism, it’s no surprise that it’s been co-opted by anyone with a hair across his or her ass.
If the “Protocols” weren’t still being peddled, I’d have no problem with its being used as an all-occasion retort; refreshingly quaint, like calling a sexual-harasser a “masher.” But it’s still needed for it’s intended purpose. So everyone else please get your own damn excoriative.
Yes. He`s an idiot. It would be a terrible law, and make unwitting criminals out of all kinds of people just going about their business who just happen to be in the 1000 ft zone due to happenstance and happen to be armed. 1000 ft is a pretty big distance.
Its also clear that it would not stop a single crime of this sort, since the lunatic would still be able to buy the gun and carry it anywhere else. And if the lunatic is inside your 1,000 ft circle, I doubt that he cares about a law saying its illegal.
Its also a hysterical reaction that makes him look like a big ole fraidy cat.
Nevermind. I missed the Dershowitz mention above.
Please see posts 66 through 70, and pretend 67 through 70 are responding to you.
The question is most. If you, like John Mace, want to lump everyone … the politicians and pundits who started it with no evidence, those who are defending themselves and message board posters all together, then you and he are every bit as bad.
Let’s be clear … you’re talking about false equivalence to trumped up charges that should never have been thrown about ( by those who claim to want civil dialogue I might add) in the first place. Right?
If they are trying to score points, as I said, then that’s my vote. If that makes me ‘bad’, and ‘every bit as bad’ as John, well…I guess I was born to be bad.
That’s right, that’s right…I’m BAAADDDD! 
-XT
The Mild One
I have to add that this was a perfect example of a law made ahead of the mechanism that was needed to enforce it, as we still have no universal access to health care, we have many people that need help with no help or with very little. Even the NRA must had known that not much was going to change when there is little or no funding to take care or used to identify the ones that could not handle dangerous stuff.
And if this -in favor of gun control- site is accurate, the NRA sacrificed almost nothing.
http://www.lcav.org/states/ohio.asp
What I would like to see is conservative outfits that are willing to stand up and be counted on to tell the government to fund properly what still needs to be done.
"If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."
Former UK MP and Minister, Tony Benn.
Helping is much more expensive.
OK, here’s mine. Right-wing talk show host Michael Berry (KTRH 740-AM Houston) on his show this evening, characterized the crowd at last night’s memorial service, and I quote, as “…crackheads, welfare queens, drug dealers, and a bunch of college students looking for either their next hookup or a drug deal”. All 27,000 of them, apparently. This, it seems, because Mr. Berry took exception to the pep-rally atmosphere at the event. At least he qualified his statement by saying that he didn’t blame Obama for having such a collection of louts as his constituency; that’s just what the Democrats are, you see.
Way to help heal the country, Michael!
Forgive me if it doesn’t directly concern the shootings themselves, but it’s closely enough related, in my view.
The worst are the hypocrites condemning others for politicizing political events. Some in this thread. But take Jon Stewart for example. Ostensibly a comedian. He’s wringing his hands over this very issue. And yet just awhile ago he was stumping for the 9/11 responder’s bill and trying to shame the Pubbies into voting for it, sans any comedy. Wait, didn’t you just say you should stay above the fray? Way to politicize a national tragedy. 3,000 people died in a fire! HOW COULD YOU?!
Screw those BS crocodile tears. Politicize it the right way, IOZ.
Maybe it’s just me, but lately I have gotten the distinct feeling that media types (or wanna-be’s) are constantly upping the ante to make sure that they remain in (or get into) the spotlight.
I include Palin in the “media type” category, since I think she is less and less of a politician now that she’s quit her elected position, and more of a media personality with her own reality show.
This seems particularly prevalent among what passes for the Right at this particular moment. What happens is, that one of the media “stars” (Beck Limbaugh, Palin, etc) makes a vile comment about the left, or a Democrat politician or a perceived “enemy”. The comment is widely reported, and the “star” gets a lot of attention. Another media star feels the lack of attention. And them makes an even more outrageous statement. Publicity follows.
Enter the “B” list media wanna-be’s. They have to say even MORE outrageous things to get attention (see Michael Berry above). If this takes attention away from the top tier, then they have to pull out all the stops to keep attention focused on them.
And so it goes…
I don’t see how supporting help for first responders is politicizing anything. There’s nothing political about it.
I heard the term “blood libel” used in a context that had nothing to do with Jews* long before I heard it associated with antisemitism. The fact that I pay little attention to antisemites probably helps explain why.
- Specifically, it was used when referring to attempts to discredit research that indicated that certain South American tribes were warlike & violent by claiming that the researchers taught them to murder, torture and massacre each other just so the anthropologists could produce a research paper saying they were doing so.
As I thought, this misstates the case considerably. here is a relevant paragraph from a recent Time article, discussing Dupnik’s initial opposition to SB 1070:
Remainder of article here:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2041535_2042315_2041990,00.html
To the OP: got your wrong info from Rush or from Fox News, did you?
Your info doesn’t show that my info was wrong … only that Time Magazine found someone to defend him. I could be wrong though, but I’d like more evidence that the lady and Time are both fair and balanced observers.
To what do you attribute his going off half cocked about the motives of the shooter?