But, first... couldn't Ms. Palin have just said "You, know I am sorry that my graphics back in 2010 were mis-construed as meaning that these people needed to be shot. That was certainly not my intention and I apologize if that is how that was taken." But, no... Ms. Palin has not said anything like that at all. And as Amy Sullivan points out on Time.com's Swampland, Ms. Palin thinks that others are inciting hatred and violence:
- Palin's words are obviously just words and could never ever influence anyone's actions. But the words of her critics are irresponsibly provocative and have the power "to incite hatred and violence"? Time.com
Blood Libel. Interesting choice of words. As defined in WikiPedia.org, it is that " Jews murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays." Not sure exactly how Ms. Palin thinks that accusing her of inciting the Arizona shootings is just like using children's blood for religious rituals.
And she is being dragged over the coals for the use of the term.
But in all fairness, and so like Ms. Palin anyway, she stole it from somebody. "The term was initially used in the context of the Arizona shootings by conservative pundit Glenn Reynolds, who in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Monday characterized efforts to link the attacks to rhetoric on the right as a “blood libel.”" CNN.com
So, let's not give too much credit to Ms. Palin. Heck we've already given her too much ink. And definitely come November of 2012, let's not give her any votes.
No comments:
Post a Comment