Sarah Palin attempts to score a First Amendment point for a selfish reason: to save her political career. Yes, it's true that Sarah Palin has a right to target congressional districts with rifle sights, but should she? With rights come responsibilities.
Sarah Palin is defiant:
“We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults."At another point, Sarah Palin says that criticism of her is a "blood libel." Sarah Palin is intolerant of criticism, of differing opinion, and cries shrilly, and hurls insults. Sarah Palin hopes to muzzle a discussion of the responsibilites that come with rights. Sarah Palin hopes that you will imagine her among the victims of this massacre.
Sarah Palin's statement is an unprincipled stand on principle.
Sarah Palin's Facebook post is here, or it can be read at The Huffington Post, here.
The New York Times' The Caucus blog has "Palin Calls Criticism 'Blood Libel,'" which contains a link to some thoughtful commentary at Politico's "Palin's 'blood libel' defense fair?"
Posts
5 comments:
From "Palin charges critics with 'blood libel:"
Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” — which refers to the anti-Semitic lie from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover — touched off an immediate backlash.
“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews. The comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”
In her statement, Palin said:
“When was it less heated? Back in those ‘calm days’ when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?”
She may be referring to the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Duels were never, commonly, a way for political figures to settle their differences. At the time, it wasn't considered an appropriate way to settle personal and political differences: Burr was indicted for murder. The duel ended Burr's political career as well as Hamilton's life.
Several Jewish groups have responded to Sarah Palin's use of the term 'blood libel,' here.
Notice the threat in Palin's "Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn."
There is another article about the use of 'blood libel' at The Atlantic.
It's difficult to tell whether this woman simply enjoys playing with fire, or if she's simply too stupid to understand the implications of the scripted words that come out of her mouth. "Blood libel"? Is she trying to up the ante? I still remember this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/28/us/sanity-of-confessed-slayer-at-issue-in-seattle-trial.html
The Goldmark family of four was murdered on Christmas Eve in Seattle, at home, by a deranged anti-Semite looking for Communists/Jews.
Post a Comment