She said “blood libel”. BBC hacks begin the pile on:
Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds used the same phrase earlier this week and has explained why to Politico’s Ben Smith. However, I’m not expecting nuance from the BBC on this one.
UPDATE 17.30. BBC Twitter Tutor Sue Llewellyn retweets Guardian.co.uk editor Janine Gibson. There’s a PDS epidemic in the leftie echo chamber.
UPDATE 18.50. The National Review lists previous uses of the term “blood libel” in American political discourse.
It’s been over four days now. Has the BBC had anyone on anywhere across their spectrum of broadcasting to put forth an opposing view? Thought not.
Yes; to repeat:
Mardell STILL fixating on Palin again, today!
He can’t help it: he’s politically obsessed with her.
He deliberately obscures the story, which is about murders in Tucson, isnt it?
Mardell’s mind is closed; he doesn’t meet the criticism of his dogmatic, ad hominem, daily politically spleen, which serves only some extreme leftist cause.
Well, actually yes. On 08.01, as the story was breaking, Stephen Nolan had Charlie Wolf on who to my mind lent some excellent perspective and balance.
Mardell says “Palin won’t be muzzled “. Why should she be ? Doesn’t the USA have free speech ? Is she a dog ? If anyone should be muzzled it is that vile scumbag Mardell.
The fat shit needs to lose a bit of weight.
Grant, fantatic observation. Mardell unintentionally reveals he wants to shut her up and treats her like a dog. I know there are a lot of posts here now on this matter – all of them well deserved – you’re observation merits one by itself as well.
Cheers, Hippie !
Beeboids, and their fellow-travelling Lefties, do not see women like Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher as human beings.
On the other hand they believe that monsters, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
etc. ,are cuddly.
Lefties are seriously mentally deranged.
Cheers, Hippie !
Beeboids, and their fellow-travelling Lefties, do not see women like Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher as human beings.
On the other hand they believe that monsters, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot
etc. ,are cuddly.
Lefties are seriously mentally deranged.
I imagine the truth will come out at the trial. It will be interesting to see how the BBC cover it up. But, of course, the damage has already been done.
The BBC really don’t give a toss about bias anymore, they have almost given up even pretending.
Whatever the truth that comes out of the trial, the BBC will filter it and reshape it so its audience thinks what it wants it to think.
I tell you what, something stinks here, really stinks. I’m betting that mong Sheriff knew exactly who this twat was and therefore needed to create something to divert attention, so he shot his gob off blaming Palin and the Tea Party and his liberal mates did the rest.
Honestly, mongs in the media think a map on Palin’s website of ‘target’s sent this twat over the edge when in fact the Police knew for years (and other authorities) that this guy was a fruit cake and did NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to stop him.
That is the real scandal yet the BBC and other liberal media are ignoring it.
That wanker of a Sheriff should be getting a verbal kicking off the press, yet not a thing (other than Fox News) is said.
Can you imagine here if it turns out the killer of Jo Yeats was known to the Police? There will be mayhem in the press.
I’ve just watched the whole Palin spiel. I can’t believe how mild and moderate she was, in her case I’d be spitting blood. I’ve never been a particular fan of her, but in this she appears to have shown statesmanship and an honesty that must totally repel the BBC.
Just by the way-
The BBC article about “what does blood libel mean?” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12176503
contains this.
“Blood libel myths run counter to Jewish theology which prohibits murder.
The Torah also forbids the consumption of animal blood – Kosher meat is drained of blood. Many Jewish scholars interpret the relevant Torah passage to also proscribe human blood.”
What do they mean by “Many Jewish scholars….”?
Do some disagree? Are there some Jewish scholars who interpret the passage differently? Maybe non-scholars think consumption of human blood is OK.
Does “many” mean some, most, all ?
I think we should be told. If there are any Torah scholars who do not proscribe human blood, I want to know who they are.
It’s rare for the BBC to draw attention to anything that exposes a monumental injustice against Jews. I suspect the article was put there for the specific purpose of making Sarah Palin’s blood libel analogy seem crass.
I thought Alan Dershowitz said the only sensible thing on the matter because he took the context into consideration. ” Harvard University’s Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer and free speech advocate, told the website Big Government that there was nothing improper or anti-Semitic about Mrs Palin’s use of the term, saying it had taken on “broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse”.
“Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish people, its current usage is far broader,” he said. “I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the state of Israel.”
Indeed the phrase is “fraught with pain in Jewish history,” but that doesn’t mean it can never take on broad metaphorical meaning.
This reminds me of something. I saw Ann Leslie on Dateline the other day. She was so bedecked with patterned clothing and glinting accessories to the point of terminal distraction, but I was startled when her gravelly sixty a day voice suddenly piped up with this criticism of Jews. :”Jewish people mistakenly say Shylock is antisemitic” she opined, knowingly, and Gavin Esler nodded with approval.
Not really, Ann. It’s antisemites who use the Shylock character as an illustration of the miserly nature of the evil Jew.
I know this is not a parallel with the blood libel issue, but it’s the misappropriation of sensitive things by people with agendas that they have in common.