The Palin outrage du jour. Yawn.
Because everything Sarah Palin says or does is “controversial,” of course this is controversial too; she used the term “blood libel,” which, it is now alleged, cannot be used, ever, except in reference to the Jewish population which was first slurred by the original “blood libel.” (No word yet from Keith Olbermann on why she can’t say “blood libel” but he can say “Holocaust,” referring to attempts to block the Ground Zero Mosque; but I’m sure he’ll come up with one.)
Geraghty is already refuting this typical, brain-dead ankle-biting by saying the use of the term in other contexts is “more common than you think,” which is wrong in my case, because I already did think it was very common. But his Nexus/Lexus search is more authoritative than my hunches.
This is in fact blood libel, and this is now, officially, the Stupidest Shit I’ve Ever Heard In My Whole Fucking Life.
A big, fat amen to that. Go look and see who the very first disingenuous-screaming-hysteric target (yeah, I said it, fuck you) on Geraghty’s list is. Three guesses who.
Know what the most hilarious thing about all this is — aside from super-genius grammarian and all-round lunatic freak Loughner’s repeated malapropism, “conscience” dreaming, when he evidently meant CONSCIOUS dreaming, that is? How nakedly the chickenshit, cowardly poltroons of the Left are revealing what really terrifies them: Sarah fucking Palin.
For all their big-talk puffery about how much they’d just looooove to see her run for president, their smug dismissals of her as a dolt, how ineffectual and clownish she is, they are publicly pissing themselves over literally every word out of her mouth — quaking and weeping in girlish fright at her every utterance. They seem to think that her thoughts, ideas, and speech are so powerful that weaker, more impressionable minds — y’know, like yours and mine — are helpless to resist acting on the violent impulses she’s planting in our psyches.
The term “blood libel” has taken on a 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. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim.
It’s okay, libs; hush your crying, now, little ones. We know you’re afraid. It’s okay to be afraid. Naturally, you want to lash out, any way you can. It’s only human, we understand. Here’s a nice bottle; now, let’s change your dipeys and put you back to bed. We understand.
Believe me, we understand.
THAT didn’t take long update! Some folks were going out of their way the last couple of days to laud the two or three seemingly reasonable liberals who held back from jumping on the “Palin did it” bandwagon; not to insult those folks or break my arm patting myself on the back for knowing better, but I declined to join ’em. I knew it was only a matter of time.
Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase.
As someone who has argued that linking her rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughner is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs.
In other words, according to Howlin’ Howie, she should have just gone ahead and admitted that the scurrilous, baseless, nakedly political charges against her were, in essence, correct. Dammit, she could’ve owned up; she could’ve, and should’ve, just admitted that we were right, even though there isn’t, and will never be, the slightest shred of evidence attesting to it. Instead, she chose to defend herself against our blood libel.
Head spins update! After this, I ain’t posting anything else today; just go read Ace. The man’s ripping it up over there.
Do you see that next argument taking shape? Taking shape? Having taken shape, I should say, past perfect. Krugman and all the rest of them, having called this as a deranged right-winger (and been proven wrong) simply make their argument more all-encompassing. They’re no longer arguing that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on right-wingers who hear it.
Their new argument is that right-wing invective can have an unbalancing effect on non-right-wingers — left-wingers, even — who don’t hear it.
That’s how insidious this all is. That’s how dangerous this all is. Right wing chatter can now drive left-wingers who don’t even hear it to kill people.
Don’t miss this one, either. I think I’ll go take a nap or do some laundry or something.