Blood Libel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Washington Times editiorial defends the term "blood libel" and goes a step further (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/wash_times_criticism_of_palins_blood_libel_part_of.php?ref=fpb):

This is simply the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.

Do they know what pogroms were? Is the next step to tell us liberals we're "Christ killers"?

It goes on to say

Columnist Paul Krugman took advantage of the murders to tar conservative icon Rush Limbaugh and Fox News superstar Glenn Beck as "hate-mongers." It's this sort of reflexive and dastardly mudslinging that drowns out reasoned discussion of public-policy alternatives and poisons the well of political debate in America.

In my opinion, that statement by the WT is precisely the "sort of reflexive and dastardly mudslinging that drowns out reasoned discussion of public-policy alternatives and poisons the well of political debate in America." As usual, you can tell exactly what the Rove-trained are doing by looking at what they are accusing their opponents of.

Here's the thing. Everyone knows these pundits and politicians are saying a lot of hateful things. When they take this bait (we are not responsible for the tragedy) they are effectively saying "You can't muzzle us because of this. We want to go on saying this stuff". They explicitly AREN'T saying "our manner of communication is civil".

So this thrills the hardcore conservatives who watch their shows and love their Palins. That's why they like them to begin with.

But in the end, they lose the general public over it. In the coming months the public will forget who was right or wrong about Loughner. But they will remember the issue of civility. And they will remember that Palin gave a speech in which she, on behalf of conservatives, unabashedly defended the right to continue the kind of rhetoric they have been using. They will start keeping score on rhetoric not because of Loughner but because this week's events made them remember that hateful politics could have terrible consequences in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A Washington Times editiorial defends the term "blood libel" and goes a step further (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/wash_times_criticism_of_palins_blood_libel_part_of.php?ref=fpb): ...

Sorry, I meant to link to the actual editorial: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/12/blood-libel-against-palin-limbaugh/

[Anonymous]

I liked how Juan Williams said that if Palin used a semi-colon out of place at this point she'd get criticized. Personally, I like a classical allusion. To say it's anti-semitic in the context used is a stretch; makes her seem literate. Don't mind that a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I liked how Juan Williams said that if Palin used a semi-colon out of place at this point she'd get criticized. Personally, I like a classical allusion. To say it's anti-semitic in the context used is a stretch; makes her seem literate. Don't mind that a bit.

No one I have seen suggests that her use of the term is anti-semitic. It's wrong because (a) she has no idea of the real meaning of the term, and (b) for those who do know, they see it as incredible hyperbole to compare the few days of criticism she has received to the centuries of brutal oppression of Jews justified by the Blood Libel.

The Blood Libel was not a generalized opinion about Jews. It was specifically a pretext for killing them. Often when a young child would be found dead in a town, the Jews would be blamed for the death because of the Blood Libel. They would be rounded up, sometimes tortured, and killed en masse. That is WAAAAAAY different from how Palin was treated. For the comparison to be appropriate, a mob should have gone through a tea party neighborhood, running them out of their homes and into the streets, taking their belongings, and then executing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked how Juan Williams said that if Palin used a semi-colon out of place at this point she'd get criticized. Personally, I like a classical allusion. To say it's anti-semitic in the context used is a stretch; makes her seem literate. Don't mind that a bit.

No one I have seen suggests that her use of the term is anti-semitic. It's wrong because (a) she has no idea of the real meaning of the term, and (b) for those who do know, they see it as incredible hyperbole to compare the few days of criticism she has received to the centuries of brutal oppression of Jews justified by the Blood Libel.

The Blood Libel was not a generalized opinion about Jews. It was specifically a pretext for killing them. Often when a young child would be found dead in a town, the Jews would be blamed for the death because of the Blood Libel. They would be rounded up, sometimes tortured, and killed en masse. That is WAAAAAAY different from how Palin was treated. For the comparison to be appropriate, a mob should have gone through a tea party neighborhood, running them out of their homes and into the streets, taking their belongings, and then executing them.

And such killing was known as a pogrom, which is what the Washington Times says is being perpetrated by liberals on conservatives. Talk about hyperbole!

[Anonymous]

From the Rabbi himself. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Rabbi himself. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

You mean from "a" rabbi.

Getting Rabbi Schmuley Boteach to agree with you does not mean a thing to most Jews. He is known as the Rabbi to the Stars. He was the freaking spiritual advisor to Michael Jackson and Roseanne Barr. Yes, right after Michael Jackson died he released a book about him.. You should read "The Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments" , or "Kosher Sex", two of his bestsellers. He once said there is an eleventh commandment "Thou shalt do anything for publicity and recognition." His words.

As for actual religion, he's barely a rabbi, doesn't even have a congregation.

In other words, he's the Michael Steele of rabbis.

Next time you should be more careful about who you put up as an authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... In other words, he's the Michael Steele of rabbis. ...

The opposite would be the Jeff Steele of ..., right?

[Anonymous]

Jews did not kill Jesus. Sarah Palin did not kill Gabby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked how Juan Williams said that if Palin used a semi-colon out of place at this point she'd get criticized. Personally, I like a classical allusion. To say it's anti-semitic in the context used is a stretch; makes her seem literate. Don't mind that a bit.

No one I have seen suggests that her use of the term is anti-semitic. It's wrong because (a) she has no idea of the real meaning of the term, and (b) for those who do know, they see it as incredible hyperbole to compare the few days of criticism she has received to the centuries of brutal oppression of Jews justified by the Blood Libel.

The Blood Libel was not a generalized opinion about Jews. It was specifically a pretext for killing them. Often when a young child would be found dead in a town, the Jews would be blamed for the death because of the Blood Libel. They would be rounded up, sometimes tortured, and killed en masse. That is WAAAAAAY different from how Palin was treated. For the comparison to be appropriate, a mob should have gone through a tea party neighborhood, running them out of their homes and into the streets, taking their belongings, and then executing them.

It's an expression, in English, that can be applied to situations other than a 1,000 years of Jewish history. In this situation, I don't find it wildly inappropriate. Her critics were acting as if she incites violence like that in Tucson, which is a far-fetched accusation. Words like 'target' etc and aggressive imagery are common to every political party in every political race. She was reacting to these hysterical accusations with the term blood-libel. What's the big deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jews did not kill Jesus. Sarah Palin did not kill Gabby.

Gabby is not dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jews did not kill Jesus. Sarah Palin did not kill Gabby.

Gabby is not dead.

Good point. Sarah is even less guilty than the Jews who also are not guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jews did not kill Jesus. Sarah Palin did not kill Gabby.

Gabby is not dead.

Good point. Sarah is even less guilty than the Jews who also are not guilty.

Again, please don't equate her with persecuted Jews in the Middle Ages. By comparison, the woman lives a life of luxury, once occupied the highest office in her state, and makes scads of money on her books and speaking engagements. It's insulting to make any comparison between her and people who really suffered from persecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jews did not kill Jesus. Sarah Palin did not kill Gabby.

The Romans killed Jesus, but I thought he was prosecuted under local jewish law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, please don't equate her with persecuted Jews in the Middle Ages. By comparison, the woman lives a life of luxury, once occupied the highest office in her state, and makes scads of money on her books and speaking engagements. It's insulting to make any comparison between her and people who really suffered from persecution.

The red man suffered from persecution, he lost his land their nations mysteriously dwindled
The black man suffered, they got to be slaves, and even today they are not part of the wealthier classes in America