« people of the book | Main | making them proud »

January 12, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Her other mistake is that she is misusing the phrase blood libel. It normally means the antisemitic trope that Jews kill Christian children to use their blood for matzos. (We don't of course, at least not in my circle.)


Some random reactions to the video:

Palin doesn't do sincerity well. The tactically timed head-shakes, the lip-biting and odd emphases, remind me of the host of an infomercial, not a national figure of some stature.

Who is the congressman who introduced a bill to muzzle free expression, just days after Rep. Giffords read the First Amendment in Congress? If it matters, why doesn't Palin make this clear?

She says the an act of violence begins and ends with the person who committed it. Does this idea make sense? "No man is an island," remember?

Her critics "mock America" by trying to rein in political speech. Maybe her critics are on the wrong track, but it would have been good form for her to show a bit of respect for differences of opinion, rather than once again impugning the patriotism of others.

Could "blood libel" possibly be some sort of dog whistle for Christian fundamentalists? Otherwise, it's just an embarrassing mistake.

I agree that it's as if she's trying to crash a funeral.

reviewer us laptops

Palin doing well truthfulness. The logical head shakes over time, the lip biting and odd accents, told me a variety of commercial, we determine the country of some renown.

Who is the representative present barrel invoice expense of concept, but time after Rep. Giffords study of the First Conference of change? If it grants, why not make clear Palin?

She says the action begins and ends with the associated individual attack. This concept is to create a feeling? "No man is an island," remember?

Experts' lie in America "the government trying to arrange an interview. Perhaps experts monitor wrong, but it would be an excellent kind to demonstrate that a little looking to change sides, then individualized the patriotism of others have.

Can "blood libel" is probably a kind of dog whistle Religious fundamentalists? Otherwise it's wrong but uncomfortable.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics


my other places