Search This Blog

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Media: Blood thirsty jews

This is one of the cruelest ironies of recent times.

The Arizona shooter was obsessed about the meaning of words. He made Youtube videos about them and even asked a question to about one to Rep. Giffords just before he shot her in the head.

Immediately, people in the media started questioning whether violent words had anything to do with it. And they focused on politicians like Sarah Palin and others who have used violent rhetoric in the past to question whether they share any of the blame.

After only a few days of media coverage, polls showed that most people thought Palin did not deserve any of the blame for this. And not a shred of evidence proves that the shooter was actually influenced by her (even if rhetoric by people like her may make things generally more likely to happen).

So what does Sarah Palin do?

She unnecessarily issues a videotape of her defending herself and uses another term that has stirred up much controversy -- blood libel (a term used by Christians to accuse Jews of kidnapping and murdering children for their blood so they could drink it.

To Sarah Palin, being criticized for her words is like Christians accusing Jews of kidnapping and murdering children for their blood so they could drink it.

I guess to her the media are a bunch of "blood thirsty Jews"???


  1. Well I do not know that she meant what she said to be taken in its historical form, but I know if I was getting inadvertantly blamed for something that I had nothing to do with I would stand up for myself as well. Anyone can take anything that anyone says and turn it around to make it seem like it has a totally diferent meaning then intended. Also the meanings of words change over time, not only in how we interpret them, but also in the way we think of them. For example, the word gay, until recently it has the meaning of happiness and glee, but now when we hear it we think of someone who likes the same sex!

  2. Good point. Still too ironic to ignore though, IMHO.

  3. I agree completely with littlebit in that I don't blame her for trying to stand up for herself. She isn't trying to make the shootings about her in any way but when people are openly saying she is the cause of it, Palin has no other choice than to defend herself. Sure she could have chosen her words more carefully but everyone has a slip up now and then. Liberals and conservatives are constantly trying to blame one another for situations and outcomes that they may have had nothing to do with. It's almost like the shooter is getting off the hook because of his alleged mental illness. Just maybe the Arizona shootings are his own fault!

  4. Good points Katefrance.

    The question is not whether Palin should have responded, but how. Most people think she is making it worse using that language. Personally I think she did not need to respond, even though I understand why she did.

    As for mental illness, he will not get off the hook. Even if he is found not guilty by reason of mental defect, he will spend as much time, if not more, incarcerated for his crime. That is what typically happens in such cases.