Blood libel? Wierd way of putting it. That normally applies to an ethnic group.
seems very apt to me.
Partially correct - “Blood libel” refers to the medieval Christian accusation that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood for matzos. But, today it is often used to describe False Accusations, which is the way Sarah used it.
Several conservative Jewish writers used the term in this context this week, but you are right in that some of the accused will claim that it is historically an accusation against Jews killing non-Jewish children in something of a Jewish sacrifice.
Still, here’s some more context:
“Blood libels are sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.
Some of the best documented cases of blood libel focus upon accusations against Jews , but many other groups have been accused, including Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, Witches, Christian heretics, Roma, Wiccans, Druids, neopagans, and Satanists. Despite the increasing tolerance of diversity, accusations of blood libel continue to be advanced by and against various groups today. Overcoming the fears and resentments of different cultures, and developing the understanding that we are all part of one human family, is needed to dispel these notions and end such persecution.
.
.
.
Contemporary blood libels
Accusations of ritual murder are being advanced by different groups to this day. One stated that physicians in the People’s Republic of China who perform abortions consider the fetus a delicacy and eat it. The story, reported from Hong Kong by Bruce Gilley, was investigated by Senator Jesse Helms, and gruesome artwork reminiscent of traditional depictions of blood libel was featured in several anti-abortion campaigns. Eventually the story was proven to be false.[12]
Another contemporary blood libel in the United States alleged, falsely, that both neopagans and Satanists used human blood, sexual abuse, or ritual murder, especially of children, in their rituals. Often Satanism, all of the diverse neopagan religions, the role playing game Dungeons & Dragons, and sometimes Roman Catholicism and liberal or non-fundamentalist Christian denominations, are portrayed as expressions of one monolithic and ancient global conspiracy of Satan-worshipers.[13]...”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Blood_libel
It is blood libel.
She has been libeled. Which I know is almost impossible to prove against a ‘public figure.’ Yet, she was specifically mentioned (repeatedly) by name...WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTUAL PERP EVER READ HER WORKS OR FOLLOWED HER POLITICS.
The quote, ‘blood libel’ maybe the new ‘death panel.’
Well done, Madame President.
Welcome to the enlightened modern world, where blood libels are only aimed at that small, recidivist section of the population who don't believe in socialism. Surely we can agree those people deserve whatever they get /lib
Welcome to the Balkanized America, brought to you by federal government reverse-racism.
Actually she is right.
It was a propagnistic slur. Has been used against Christians and Jews. The first known one was against Jews.
It is the arrogance of the lie to gin up the "cult" against a particular group. She and a few others are equating this level to the level of blood libel.
What is Blood Libel? While normally taken as a Jewish issue, it is actually the false accusation of the use of murder and blood in aspects of religious rituals and holidays.
In this case though Palin is using the term to point out, the false accusation of the use of murder and blood in aspects of political campaigns.
The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel
So as the usual talking heads begin their "have you no decency?" routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
What’s far more odd is the use of “Ms.” Palin.
It is a blood libel because the media has done its best to stir up a literal lynch mob!
There s absolutely nothing connecting her to the crime in AZ, nothing.
She appears to have borrowed the “blood libel” term from law professor Glenn Reynolds, whose Jan 9 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is titled “The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel”
- JP
Brilliant use of words. Memorable, accurate and effective IMO.
Not a wise use of the word. It is the same as calling something that was done to you a holocaust.
It's the correct way to put it. This particular blood libel applies to a demonstrated majority of the American electorate.
It needs to be said over and over and over again until liberals lose control -- as we know they will. Our opposition is ruthless and unprincipled and they are going for our throats. We just resist and we must call their tyranny of words exactly what it is.
It is, in fact, a blood libel.
She wasn't the first to use it. See here:
“That normally applies to an ethnic group.”
Seems to me that “democrat” IS an ethnic group...
Glenn Reynolds column Monday apparently started use of the term in relation to this event:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html
“So as the usual talking heads begin their ‘have you no decency?’ routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?”