Uncategorized — January 12, 2011 at 11:24 am

While the world watches, Sarah Palin misuses the term “Blood Libel”


Now that all eyes are on Sarah Palin waiting for her to respond to accusations that she has a role to play in the amount of political violence in our country recently , she steps into the fray and does something else completely idiotic. In a video comment/response released on her Facebook page today, she had this to say:

“Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions … “But, 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.”

Blood libel. How many people know what blood libel is? Clearly Ms. Palin does not. Blood libel is the false accusation against religious minorities, most often Jews, that they murder children to use their blood in religious ceremonies. It’s an odd phrase, one you don’t hear often. It was odd enough that I decided to look it up on Wikipedia. Clearly this was something Sarah Palin and/or her staff did not do.

Blood libel…refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.

The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise.

Why would Palin use this phrase? Did she read it in conservative pundit Tony Blankley’s essay that mentions it and think to herself that it sounded good? Or maybe she read it in the Wall Street Journal essay by Professor Glenn Reynolds and decided it had that “certain something” that would get attention and make her sound smart?

Who knows why Sarah Palin does what she does? While most people would look up an odd and uncommon turn of phrase like this one to find out what it means before using it in public, this is an instinct Palin does not possess. Like a child that utters every thought they have, Palin just seems to latch on to anything that sounds good to her, whether it is factual, accurate or intelligent or not.

In my opinion, it’s simply another example of how much of a rank amateur Palin is. From her crosshairs-on-the-Congressmen imagery and her use of nonsense words like “refudiate” to her reality television show and now this completely incorrect and nearly offensive use of a religiously-charged phrase, Palin, her husband and her staff prove time and time again that they are all but clueless about what it takes to be considered legitimate. Other than her Tea Party fans who generally sneer at educated “elites”, almost nobody that gives a damn about the direction of politics in the USA takes her seriously as a professional politician. While her stupidity may be idolized by her considerable following as proof she’s outside the system, for the rest of us, it is just proof she’s not ready for prime time.

Some of us, of course, actually had that figured out in the summer of 2008.

Also, too: It’s further evidence of her myopia and self-centeredness that she believes the accusations against her are equivalent to the anti-Semitic accusations of a true blood libel: accusations of the murder of children.

I’m just sayin’…