Stupid Palin And The Meaning Of Words.
We tend to expect politicians to be conversant with words. To know of their usage, to be aware of their affect, yet not unsurprisingly Sarah Palin’s continued ignorance precludes that literate self-awareness.
Frankly, we shouldn’t be surprised at anything that Sarah Palin says, despite the fact she was almost one heart beat away from being President of the United States. She makes George W. Bush seem like a Shakespearean scholar.
You would be hard put to find a bigger ignoramus on the American political scene at the moment and there’s a lot of competition.
Still, you would hope that her advisers (who presumably can walk and chew gum at the same time) will be capable of looking up a reference to blood libel after they written her speech, and appreciate its sensitivity.
But no, they couldn’t even do that.
It is frightening to think that she could have been Vice President of the USA.
If she or her aides read this, then try this link it might help to explain exactly what the Blood Libel is.
Next time, she should follow Samuel Clemen’s advice:
“It is best to keep your mouth shut and be presumed ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Update 1: Rebecca has a good piece on this issue, including Pat Buchanan’s intervention, but I particularly liked this:
“Far be it from me to disagree with the distinguished Professor Dershowitz, but the fact that he used it in the case of his criticism of the Goldstone Report hardly validates the use of the term outside of the proper historical context. At various times when I’ve been living in Israel I’ve heard Israeli politicians use the phrase to protest against other people’s (usually correct) criticisms of their (often corrupt) behavior. This metaphorical use has always struck me as an absurdly exaggerated attempt to play on the sympathies of the audience.
I would prefer to use the phrase “blood libel” to refer to actual blood libels.
The first recorded blood libel was the accusation in 1144 that 12-year-old William of Norwich had been murdered by Jews for ritual purposes before Passover. The Medieval Sourcebook has published the first written account, from 1173, by Thomas of Monmouth, of the supposed torture and death of William at the hands of local Jews. [Warning: not for the faint of heart]. Accusations of ritual murder by Jews for religious purposes have been made since then, including up to the present in the Arab world.
Not a phrase to use lightly.”