Loughner's Family Mourns as Sarah Palin Continues to Point Fingers with Blood Libel Remark
Sarah Palin accuses media of manufacturing a "blood libel."
President Obama will address the nation tonight at the memorial service for the victims of the shooting in Arizona, but the parents of gunman Jared Lee Loughner have already spoken. They issued a statement yesterday saying, “There are no words that can possibly express how we feel. We don’t understand why this happened. It may not make any difference, but we wish that we could change the heinous events of Saturday. We care very deeply about the victims and their families. We are so very sorry for their loss.”
It’s clear that Loughner’s parents feel some level of responsibility for what happened in Arizona on Saturday. Loughner’s father reportedly questioned him about a black bag he was carrying the morning of the shooting, but was unable to stop his son from fleeing. Loughner was also stopped by police for running a red light Saturday morning, but was sent away with a warning due to the fact that he had no prior convictions.
Much has been written about Loughner’s mental state and whether or not his actions were politically motivated in any way. Many pundits, including our own Katie Allison Granju, pointed to Sarah Palin’s hit list as an example of the vitriolic rhetoric that has created a climate ripe for violence in this country. Not surprisingly, those on the right have pointed to the fact that Loughner listed “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” as some of his favorite reads. Palin’s initial reaction to the tragedy was simple – in fact, too simple. She left a message on her Facebook page Saturday that reads, “My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.”
Today, Palin spoke publicly for the first time since Saturday, releasing a video entitled, “America’s Enduring Strength.” Looking tired and clearly reading a speech she did not write, Palin not-so-subtly tried to defend her crosshair-covered map and accused “journalists and pundints” (her pronunciation) of manufacturing a “blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn.” She goes on to suggest that heated political discourse is not to blame for the shooting, and she has the gall to ask, when was political discourse less heated? She then answers her question with a question, adding, “Back in those calm days when political leaders literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?”
In a subsequent breath, she says, “We must condemn violence if our republic is to endure,” then goes on to spew a lot of nonsense about freedom, prayer, God, and – of course – 9/11.
From the video:
“There’s a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those that kept the victims alive and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman. Like many, I’ve spent the last few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After the shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern and now with sadness to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.” It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them. Not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle.”
The problem with Palin’s argument is, pols on both sides of the aisle did not use maps covered in crosshairs during the last election. I’m not saying Palin is to blame for Loughner’s act – I don’t know that anyone has said that. What people have said is that a map filled with literal targets contributes to a violent society – and I’ll add – Republicans like Palin allow a violent society easy access to guns. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that Loughner was ill and disturbed, and one of the positive outcomes of this tragedy could be greater awareness about the mental illnesses that are prolific in young people today. But I’d like to ask everyone this: what comes first? A violent society or mentally ill young people? Heated political rhetoric creates an atmosphere that makes people feel ill at ease and on edge, and those of us that are deeply sensitive and susceptible to mental instability – especially young people – are going to feel that collective pain more intensely.
You cannot deny that American values – especially as Republicans see them – have a callous edge to them. Palin is spouting off about personal responsibility and how Loughner is an evil man who acted alone, but I don’t hear her taking her share of the responsibility for the kind of vitriolic rhetoric she spews. This speech might have meant something if in addition to condemning a lone, deranged gunman she had acknowledged that she and others like her (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) are issuing the type of rallying cry that deranged gunmen are going to want to respond to – even if Loughner’s act was apolitical. (Also, how is shooting a Congresswoman not politically motivated? Loughner may have seen himself as an outsider, but clearly he was upset with and paranoid about the U.S. Government.)
I’ve thought a lot about personal responsibility in the wake of my divorce. When I left my husband, I had nothing. No home, no money, no job – and a kid. Thankfully I have a mother who was able to provide me the support I needed to get back on my feet, get a job, pay down my debt. During the last two years, I’ve developed a deeper sense of personal responsibility than I’ve ever had, and an intense desire to be able to provide for myself and my daughter without any outside help. As a single mother, I think not only about being responsible for my own health and happiness, but my daughter’s. And therefore every time something goes wrong in my daughter’s life, I think about the ways in which I am responsible for it. My daughter had an accident while we were out shopping. Did I offer her an opportunity to go to the bathroom before we left? If I did, the responsibility lies squarely on her shoulders. If I didn’t, then I am partially to blame, because it’s my job as the mother of a 5-year-old to encourage her to have good habits.
That may seem like a silly example to draw from, but I don’t think it’s a stretch. Sarah Palin and all of the insane right-wing pundits of the world are not responsible for the fact that Loughner killed six people in Arizona and wounded many others any more than video games and violent movies are responsible for the acts of all those who’ve participated in school shootings in the last few months. But we are all responsible for what we say and the energy we put out into the world, and if that energy is negative and mean-spirited with violent overtones, people are going to react to that. We are all reacting to that every day. It’s all well and good to preach personal responsibility, but Palin’s personal responsibility is to examine the ideas she’s putting out into the world and determine if they’re fit for consumption in the context of fair political discourse.
While reading about Loughner’s family this afternoon, a quote from one of their neighbors really struck me. 70-year-old Wayne Smith described Loughner’s parents as “devastated and guilt-ridden.” According to Smith, “Loughner’s mother has been in bed, crying nonstop since the shooting rampage on Saturday,” ABC reports. Smith says, “I told them they didn’t fail. They taught him everything about right and wrong. We all know you can teach someone everything and have no control how it works out.” And yet, Loughner’s parents are surely feeling some level of responsibility for his actions, as is normal. To me, it’s Palin’s reaction that’s abnormal here, distancing herself from any wrong-doing of any kind, even unrelated to the shooting, pointing fingers at those she accuses of pointing fingers.
Palin is not the only one refusing to see the light, though. TIME magazine reports that since the shooting, the FBI has seen a 60% increase in background checks for handgun purchase in Arizona compared to the same time last year. Fighting guns with guns will only lead to more gun death, a fact that depresses me to no end. My instinct is to write something snarky here toward gun owners about their kids taking personal responsibility when they bring those guns to school, but I don’t want to fight fire with fire, either. Violence is serious, and the only way to fight it is with love.
I couldn’t agreed more with Carolyn. No one has ever blamed Palin for the tragical event that Mr.Loughner did on Saturday. I share your opinion on your quotes.. .
” What people have said is that a map filled with literal targets contributes to a violent society.” “we are all responsible for what we say and the energy we put out into the world, and if that energy is negative and mean-spirited with violent overtones, people are going to react to that.”
Very well said. This was a real opportunity for SP to behave like an adult (for an example, see Jon Stewart, Monday night’s monologue) and she didn’t.
I can’t believe she used the term “blood libel” in an attempt to paint herself as a victim while commenting on the attempted assassination of a Jewish public figure. That woman is either evil or as dumb as a post (or she has Jewish speech writers who are secretly out ot sabotage her). I cannot imagine a poorer choice of words. Also, CC, the Nazi’s were right wing extremists, not left wing. I do wish people would stop perpetuating that particular item of misinformation.
Correct. I’m not suggesting the Nazi’s were left-wing, but rather that right-wingers are trying to align this guy with Hitler and not their cause. They’re trying to paint him as a nut job. If you have time, you should read this post on Daily Kos about how people like Palin and Beck stir up lone wolves: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters. It’s fascinating, brilliant and true.
In case anyone is confused:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Bloodlibel.html
Nazism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
It seems pretty obvious that he is mentally ill. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he focused on Giffords because she is Jewish, and I’m surprised that this notion hasn’t received more press (newly shorn head anyone?). It doesn’t excuse Palin from being a complete idiot though. I’ve never seen a public figure so lacking in the ability to think things through and consider her words. It’s downright disturbing. “Blood libel”? Really? REALLY???
Your theory about the Jewish speechwriters may not be accurate, but it is hilarious. I guess we’ll never know – or maybe we will find out! I had honestly never heard the term before, but it was clearly a very poor choice of words.
LOL. Well, it WAS a joke… and a girl can dream, right?
You don’t know that anyone has blamed Palin for the shooting? Have you seen the comments from people like the Daily Kos guy, Jane Fonda, and other liberal luminaries? How out of touch are you? And for heaven’s sake, the obsession with trashing Sarah Palin on this blog is getting old, and so is the lecturing from the left about the need to be more civil in our political discourse. Have we already forgotten about the vitriol that was aimed at President Bush for 8 years? Neither side has a monopoly on hateful rhetoric, and it’s time for liberals to grow up and stop blaming everything that’s bad in the world on Republicans.
Also, equating the responsibility that Loughner’s parents SHOULD feel for not getting him the help he needed with Palin somehow needing to take responsibility for something that literally had NOTHING to do with what happened is so twisted and disgusting. The fact that some liberals are trying to use the murder of 6 people, including a child, and the assassination attempt of a member of congress to attack conservatives for things that had nothing to do with the shooting at all is just sick.
I’m a conservative Republican, and I cried when I first heard about the shooting. I had just watched Rep. Giffords on Fox News the day before talking about her bill to cut congressional pay by 5% to save money. And I remembered her as the person who got to read the 1st amendment when the constitution was read on the House floor. I cannot believe that some many people are trying to make this a partisan or ideological issue! The guy who did this is mentally deranged. He didn’t even vote in 2010. He wasn’t some wacko Tea Party member who lost his mind over the fact that his guy lost. Seriously, I cannot understand why so many in the media, including bloggers on a parenting website apparently, are making this about politics and using it as a opportunity to go after Palin once again.
Ok, one more – I’m sorry if I seem angry or defensive in my posts. But for some reason, it’s hurting me personally that some people are acting as if the party I belong to and the political ideology I subscribe to had something to do with this. That’s all.
Amanda, both sides have it’s blowhards but the blowhards on the right have been thoroughly embraced by Republican leadership. Really, Jane Fonda and a blogger whose name you don’t even know??? These are not the defining voices of Democrats or progressives or leftists. You can’t even argue that they are prominent. But Rush, Sarah, Beck, Hannity? No mistaking who the titans of the right are…
Mistress_Scorpio – You do know that a few years ago, the Dems. had a website with targets on certain GOP states, right? And that former Rep. Kanjorski said that Gov. Scott should be shot? And that former Rep. Alan Grayson said that Republicans were against Obamacare because the wanted people to “die quickly”? And that Chris Matthews talked about how Rush Limbaugh should be blown up in some weird analogy to some Bond movie? And that President Obama made some reference to bringing a gun to a knife fight? Seriously, the rhetoric can sound war-like and violent on both sides. Singling out the right and ignoring the left is intellectually dishonest.
And this post never said his parents should feel responsible. In short it said that it would be an understandable response, unlike Palin’s response. For her to invoke such a phrase as “blood libel???” I mean the parents of this dead little girl display less self pity than Palin!
Mistress_Scorpio – How would you like it if the media kept bringing up something that you said or did, that people on the other side of the spectrum also do, but you alone were singled out as having some kind of connection to a mass murder and assassination attempt? Think you might feel the need to defend yourself a little?
Really, Amanda? You can’t see why Jews would be outraged over her idiotic word choice? Or do you just not care? It was so completely and blatantly inappropriate that I can’t bring myself to have an iota of respect for anyone who would defend it. It’s not a blame game over the shooting, but her response, which was either intentionally inflammatory or stupid as all hell. Which was it? You’re her fan, so you tell me.
Amanda, I think the fact that you are ignoring the actual TOPIC of this blog post is intellectually dishonest.
Linda – http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
Linda – I’m just sick and tired of leftists blaming this shooting on conservatives who had absolutely NOTHING to do with this!
The fact is, you do belong to a party that is playing a zero-sum game in riling up it’s base. The fact is Obama’s oft-pointed out, “knife to a gun fight” comment was a QUOTE from the movie The Untouchables and he was having a conversation about SPORTS, not his political opponents. The fact is that Giffords political opponent offered his supporters an opportunity to shoot an M16 as part of a campaign rally. There is only one party that this rhetoric plays well to. Was Sarah Palin responsible for this Tuscon massacre? Of course not, and NO ONE CREDIBLE on the left is claiming so. If you are hurting, it is because you associate yourself with a party that has embraced torture of our enemies, invokes racist imagery of Mexicans and Muslims, whose elected officials are STILL working at a futile attempt to prove that our President is not a legitimate citizen of the United States, whose grassroots party constantly, persistently, incessantly invoke violence.
Mistress_Scorpio – Your words are incredibly out of line. I have nothing further to say to someone like you.
Who is spewing the hateful rhetoric now???
“Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.” – George Packer, New Yorker
What did I say that was hateful? Do facts have a liberal bent too?
Back to the topic at hand, I don’t think Palin knew what “blood libel” meant. I’m sure she will double down defending her use of the phrase though. Another funny… since she now claims to believe that horrific acts are solely the responsibility of the persons that committed those acts, I guess we should hear her endorsing the “Ground Zero Mosque” any day now. (i’m paraphrasing something I’m too tired to attribute properly)
Negative opinions about the other party don’t equal facts. I guess some people are so blinded by ideology that they can’t seem to grasp that concept.
Amanda, I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement. Best wishes to you and yours. Good night.
Okay, Amanda, so the answer is that you don’t care, Thanks for clarifying that you are not worth having any sort of discourse with.
I don’t like Sarah Palin, but I think it is unfair to bring her into the conversation about a mass killing by a crazy man. And I feel sorry for the parents of the crazy man and the victims of his actions and their families.
This is ridiculous. Blood libel refers to ANY time one is accused unfairly of having blood on their hands. Yes, it has historical roots in accusations against Jews. I’ve also seen it used utterly without controversy in school-related text describing Romans’ accusations against the early Christians, Christians against Pagans, etc. Alan Dershowitz, a very left-wing guy, has pointed this out, too. There’s not a thing improper about using blood libel in this context and nothing wrong with her responding to repeated calls for her to make a statement; MANY people had accused Palin explicitly of being responsible for the shooting in AZ, including the Democratic sheriff of Pima County, Kos (no I don’t remember how to spell his full name, but he’s well-known as Kos) and more.
But hey. If we can’t use words that have a similar historical origin, I’m sure we can all quit using “fascist” “Nazi” and “Holocaust”…which should expand Olbermann’s vocabulary.
As far as whether the left’s rhetoric is restricted to fringe and bloggers…um, bullshit. For starters, it was an official Democratic Party website that had a map like Palin’s (which actually was on her own PAC site…hmmm) with targets on districts and referring to democrats in “battleground” districts as being “behind enemy lines”. Obama himself, as a sitting President, recommended that supporters of the healthcare bill deal with people who oppose it by “getting in their faces”, “pushing back harder” and (while campaigning) “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun” and very recently referred to Republican lawmakers as “enemies” and “hostage takers”. A TV ad approved by a candidate in AZ actually showed Republican JD Hayworth, himself, in rifle crosshairs…not his district, the man himself. And then, oh yeah, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County…
Only one party has a TV host claiming that the President is a threat and a menace? Well, yeah, now. But when Bush was in office, weren’t Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz (who is the sort of hateful that Bill O’Reilly maybe is in nightmares) all calling him a threat and a menace? I recall specifically Maher saying that it would be a good thing if Dick Cheney were shot. Alec Baldwin actually advocated that Henry Hyde be stoned to death for pity’s stupid sake!
This whole thing is ridiculous. A madman did a terrible thing, after fixating for YEARS on a beautiful, accomplished woman (not an unusual thing for madmen to do). This particular beautiful, accomplished woman had political opponents on both sides of the political spectrum, to the extent that she had a bullseye placed on her district by both noted facebook poster (!) Sarah Palin and noted blogger Markos name-I-can’t-spell, Kos, and certain people just could not fucking wait…I think Kos waited, what, an hour….to exploit the tragedy for political gain and now are jumping on Palin for defending herself. Grrr. Stop making me stick up for Sarah Palin, babble!
I just lost what little respect I had left for you, Jenny. As a part of the Jewish community, I can assure you that Alan Dershowitz doesn’t speak for me or any of the people I know, many of whom are lifelong Republicans, who were deeply offended by Sarah Palin’s use of “blood libel.” If you can defend that, you don’t have any credibility left as decent human being. You know, I basically go through life trying to pretend that the world isn’t full of antisemites and that people are more open minded than they actually are, but I’m starting to see that it’s bullshit. You people just don’t care what you say or how you say it and it sucks completely and I’m sorry that my kids will have to grow up and attempt to share the world with your kids. It’s just sick. You’re horrid.
Um…so the writers of textbooks that use “blood libel” to describe anything but one particular lie are horrid, too? I’m sorry. No one owns the term “blood libel” and it’s beyond ridiculous to pretend that I, Palin, or anyone else is an anti-semite because of the term. And, for the record I didn’t imply that Dershowitz speaks for the Jewish community; but he is an example of the many people without an anti-semitic bone in their bodies, and who also have no great respect for Palin, who can agree that the term blood libel is perfectly fine here.
So, just to clarify, you think that it’s perfectly decent and apprropriate for Sarah Palin to equate her minor harrassment in the media over the past several days, to the murder of millions of Jews from the middle ages through WWII? And you have no earthly idea why Jewish Americans might be offended when these words were used when referring to the attempted assassination of a Jewish public official? We’re just being oversensitive, right? Go on, say the words.
I never said no one had to right to be offended, or that the original use of the term blood libel is equivalent to its use here. What I AM saying is that to label someone an anti-semite for using a term outside of its original context is ridiculous, and that Palin is hardly the first to do this, as “blood libel” has been accepted by many people to include other instances of libel besides the original one perpetrated against the Jews. I’m futher stating that to pick on Palin’s use of blood libel while not challenging the hyperbolic use of terms like “Nazi”, “fascist/fascism”, “Hitler” “Holocaust” or “pogrom” or “inquisition” by other pundits (and there are MANY) is bluntly partisan and motivated mostly by your own disagreement with and dislike for Palin.
If you’re offended by the use of blood libel or my insistance that no one group owns the term, I really am sorry. I don’t want to offend anyone of any religion or identity…and I don’t imagine Palin does either.
For your own attacks on me and my character…Linda, you’ve already stated on another thread that you’re sorry that your children will have to share the world with the likes of mine. I’m starting to wonder if you don’t like me and other people who disagree with you…. or something… But, as much as your dislike for me doesn’t faze me I will stand up for the fact that I am NOT an anti-semite. I do take care to not offend people in my daily life (which is one reason I don’t tell people I’m sorry that my kids have to live on the same planet as theirs) and one reason I probably wouldn’t have used blood libel or the other terms I listed above. But I’ll still stick up for people who are being unfairly harassed even when I dislike them as much as I dislike Sarah Palin.
Linda, once you labeled jenny an anit-semite you lost the argument.
On this very blog, I’ve openly challenged every person I’ve seen using the term Nazi to describe anyone, ever. And I disagree with your assessment of yourself. Your own words prove otherwise and you clearly don’t care, so just own it and move on. You can’t have it both ways. If I’ve offended you by pointing out that the views you’ve expressed on this topic are abhorent, good! And, wait, Sarah Palin isn’t being “harassed”, she’s being “blood libeled.” You’ve stated clearly that you’re good with her use of the term, so why waffle now.? Use the words and own them if they’re perfectly fine and appropriate. Tell your kids they’re fine, then act all perplexedas to why I wouldn’t want my family anywhere near yours. Gosh, it’s such a mystery.
Remarking that Palin’s use of a term is acceptable for her does not mean I would use it myself. Sorry. And you know, I kind of think I know myself a little better than a hysterical blog commenter whose found my use of consequences in parenting another good reason to say that I’m a blight on the planet.
Have a good one.
What’s the correct term for someone who is bringing up their children to believe that it’s reasonable and appropriate to equate their minor life challenges to the persecution and murder of millions of Jews? When you come up with a label you find more appropraie, you let me know. And don’t think I’m not enjoying the irony of being told to watch my words. Simply priceless.
JTTH, I don’t think you’re an anti-semite. I respect your opinion in spite of our political differences. I will tell you what I think is offensive though.
Alan Dershowitz is not Speaker of the Jews any more than Al Sharpton is Speaker of the Blacks. I wouldn’t refute something offensive to you by saying Carlos Mencia validated it. It is offensive when someone pulls out the opinion of one prominent (insert group here) in order to tell someone that the use of a historically loaded word or term is sanctioned for use in all situations. That Palin would use the term indicates profound ignorance or a profound disrespect.
*looking for the space where I told Linda to watch her words, other than objecting to being called an anti-semite…*
Scorpio, thank you for agreeing that I’m not an anti-semite, and I respect your opinion as well.
But, I will point out that I didn’t mention Dershowitz because I think he speaks for Jews; I don’t and I actually particularly dislike people who set themselves out to be spokesmen for their race, a la Sharpton/Jackson recently. I clarified above, he’s just an example of someone who is definitely educated (and I’ll admit, I’m not incredibly educated about Jewish faith/history) and clearly neither an anti-semite or a Palin fan.
All I can say is that reasonable people can disagree here about whether the term is appropriate without calling anyone an anti-semite.
You’re right, Jenny. I am pretty “hysterical.” There was just a huge massacre in my home town ~ the place where I was born and grew up. And happened right down the street from where I used to live and go to school. After it happened, I spent the days calling trying to get a hold of my elderly parents who live down the street and shop at that store, in addition to my other family members and friends. Add to that the fact that the target, someone I have met and whose hand I’ve touched, is a fellow Jew and the perpetrator openly professed an affinity for the literary works of Hitler and has now shaved his head. Now enter Sarah Palin and her blood libel remarks which at best, were ignorant beyond belief considering the circumstances, and at worst, were intended to incite. Then I got the pleasure of hearing you defend that trash.:/ I do hate to focus on you, but we both post here, and the things I see you write pretty much encapsulate everything I believe is wrong with this world, so there you go. Is the person who merely defends the use of the “N” word but ‘wouldn’t use the term themselves” any less of a racist than the person who openly throws it around? Which person is more dangerous?
I was addressing Jessica.
“(and I’ll admit, I’m not incredibly educated about Jewish faith/history)” You don’t say. :/
wow, this is a spirited comment thread! can’t we all just chill out and enjoy the simple pleasure of making fun of sarah palin for saying “pundints”? i mean, really, that’s a hard word to say, but palin sure rises to the occasion!
I called you hysterical because you tend to go straight from “I disagree” to “you’re a horrible person/parent” not just on this but on other issues ranging from Boy Scouts to gay marriage to potty-training and use of consequences in parenting, and you know that.
Re: the N word…well, now, that’s apples and oranges. The n-word is a dehumanizing word, while Palin’s use (or misuse) of blood libel is (if you accept the notion—I don’t—that blood libel has always been used exclusively to describe the original lie perpetrated against the Jewish people) about equating her current dilemma to a quite clearly much graver one. A better comparison would be the way that some people fighting for gay rights liken their struggle to that of the civil rights activists of the 1960s or to slavery. I don’t particularly like it when people do that; I think it’s overdramatic and I wouldn’t do it myself—but if someone were to say that anyone who draws the gay rights/slavery comparison is clearly racist, yes, I would disagree about as loudly as I am now.
Now, the use of the n-word or an anti-Jewish slur always says something terrible about the person saying it; I definitely agree with that. But that’s not what the improper use of “blood libel” is. I will always defend the RIGHT of people to use slurs, because that’s free speech, and because we may as well know what people really think, and I don’t think that makes me a racist; I think that makes me able to live on a planet without imposing my views on other people. I will never defend the character or the “value” I guess of using those slurs, though, and I’ll call it out wherever I see it…but again, not the same thing as defending Palin’s use of blood libel here and pointing out that the term HAS been applied to other instances of libel, regarding blood.
Clearly I was correct in choosing to spend the last hour cleaning my toilet, cat box, and scummy fridge bottom.
Hahahahahahaha Tim! That gave me a chuckle.
I am not sure what part was addressed to me. You need to be more specific.