Blood Libel: The Sarah Palin Defense...

Politics is a heated business at the best of times, and rhetoric is often emotive and extreme. There is undoubtedly consequences from this continual ratcheting-up of the rhetoric and the anger. Whether or not the recent mass-killings in Tuscon, Arizona, are proof of this remains a contentious issue of debate. However, Sarah Palin, the one-time Governor of Alaska and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, is at the center and forefront of this debate.

Sarah Palin makes up for her deficiencies as a politician by using extremely emotive language that disguises the fact that she does not know much about what she must know about to ever become President of the United States. In the lead-up to the recent mid-term elections in the US she was responsible for producing a map that had cross-hairs marking marginal congressional seats that she believed the Tea Party could "target" and win. One of these seats was that of Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords was shot and critically wounded in the Tuscon shootings.

The point of this post is not to question whether that sort of action is an incitement to act that requires some individual who is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic basket to go buy a gun and kill a few people. To each their own on that one. This post is about how Palin has responded to the accusation that her extreme rhetoric is a trigger to this violence.

Palin stayed quiet for several days. In hindsight, she should have stayed quiet. Palin posted the following video on her Facebook page:



The argument that "acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own" is only true to the extent that the person who commits those crimes, in this case pulls the trigger, is responsible for their actions. However, it would be naive to suggest that every action is independent of every other action. It would be remiss to just accept that people cannot be incited to act when they might otherwise have not acted. Although, in this instance, it would seem that Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, had serious issues way before Palin started bandying around maps with cross-hairs.

Yet, Palin was not willing to leave it there she then went on to say this:

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Blood Libel is an emotive term. It is a loaded term. It has a very specific meaning that is linked to anti-Semitism. Blood libel in essence is a myth that Jews sacrificed Christian children in the lead up to Passover. The blood of these Christian children was then used in medicinal rituals and to bake unleavened bread (matzsos). The blood libel myth has been used throughout history to justify pogroms against Jews and is an underlying piece of the propaganda puzzle that has been employed to justify some of the most heinous atrocities committed by humans against their fellow human beings.

A blood libel is not simply just a false accusation, but rather there are very specific understandings that go with the use of the term.

What is even more bizarre about this line of defense is that Gabrielle Giffords is a Jew. Surely, Sarah Palin and her people are not that stupid that they did not do the hard research yards to firstly find out what the term meant and secondly to think about the context in which they were about to use it, or are they?

Let's assume that she or her minions are not that stupid, then this is a cold, calculating, and deliberate attempt to inflame and incite this situation even further. It is only fair to question Palin's motivations for using the term blood libel. Is Palin suggesting that like the Jews she is being falsely accused or is she suggesting that it is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine her?

I am all for freedom of speech. As much as it sometimes pains me, I do believe that there is a freedom of speech that we all enjoy. But, I believe that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The freedoms that we enjoy to speech and expression must be used responsibly. When one chooses to exercise their freedom of speech and expression irresponsibly then they must be brought to account.

In this instance, there were so many other ways and terms that Sarah Palin could have employed to have made the point that she thought she was being unfairly criticised with regards to the Tuscon killings. However, she chose to use a term that was designed to prolong the controversy and to keep the news cycle running and to keep her name at the front and center of that news cycle.

I wonder if the next news-bite from the Palin camp will be about exercising a few of her rights under the Bill of Rights, perhaps she might start exercising her Second Amendment rights not just to keep and bear arms but start using them to return America to exceptionalism?

I am shaking my head at the thought of a Palin run for the presidency of the US...

Religious Tolerance in Indonesia...

The past week has seen the President, SBY, supposedly send a letter to President Obama asking him to prevent a clown pretending to be a pastor somewhere in Florida from going ahead with a plan to burn the Koran. Supposedly, the letter talked about religious tolerance and the need for Obama to show some leadership on this front. This post is not going to be a critique on the pros and cons of burning books, or even more particularly religious tomes, but it will pick up on the religious tolerance theme.

If religious tolerance is such a concern Mr. President, then why do you remain silent when your citizens are finding themselves victimised and the victims of violent attacks because they follow a minority faith in your country?

Mr. President, if you are a real leader of men and women, then why is it that you cannot ensure that the constitutional rights your people have to practice their faith is not only enforced but protected from those who seek to create an Islamic state?

Mr. President, religious tolerance is a two-way street. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! If you want to talk the talk, then perhaps it is time to walk the walk. I wonder, if President Obama was to send you a letter asking you to be more pro-active in promoting religious tolerance in Indonesia, maybe even specifically President Obama may mention a Batak Christian congregation being hounded and victimised in Bekasi, would you do it? Would you take a principled stand and enforce the Constitution and the prevailing laws to ensure that these fellow human beings of the Christian faith were protected from those seeking to do them harm?

The truth be told, religious tolerance in Indonesia is quite often nothing more than an intellectual academic debate among elites...those at the coal-face see every single day the ugly side of religious intolerance. It is time, Mr. President, to practice what you preach.

Ho hum...

Brad Pitt, Religion, and Gay Marriage...

I like Brad Pitt. I think that he is a good actor and the man speaks his mind. Besides he is married to Angelina Jolie and raising a whole bunch of kids. So, what's not to like? Well, perhaps if you are not so into a liberal agenda that questions religion and those who practice a religion trampling on the rights of others, someone who is an open supporter of gay marriage, and who is pro-marijuana, then Brad Pitt is probably not your cup of tea.

Pitt did a spot on Bill Maher's show the other day (video at the bottom), and prior to that gave a lengthy interview to Parade magazine where he also laid out some of his ideas on a range of subjects.

It seems that the main beef is that those with an active and practicing religion are often at the forefront of arguing that some people should not be afforded certain rights because of their beliefs. The Pitt philosophy is that the same freedoms that those practicing religion enjoy must be enjoyed by those with different beliefs.

This is a valid point. I have always argued that if you want to believe in a religion and you think it makes you a better person then go for it. However, if your beliefs impact on my rights not to believe in the same religion then there is likely to be a problem; a respect problem. I respect you and expect in return that you respect me. Simple really.

Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, there are a couple of realities to be confronted. The first would be that if you truly believe in God and you believe that God disapproves of gay marriage then God will at the appropriate time make those disapprovals known to the parties concerned. Second, don't people have a right to happiness? And, who then has a right to take that happiness away?

It was interesting to see that Pitt calls himself a joint-rolling artist, but has given up the wacky weed since becoming a father because he needs to be alert. I understand the alert part with kids running around, but every one might need to relax now and then, even Mr. Pitt.

Logical Fallacies...

1. The best place for a child to live is with his or her biological parents.

2. Unless gays are banned from the military, no heterosexual military personnel will be safe.

3. Making condoms available in high school is like giving a thief a license to steal.

4. His repeated failure to find a job indicates that he lacks ambition.

5. Either you support anti-abortion legislation, or you're not Christian.

Just a few logical fallacies as thought provokers. Adapted from the Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers (1995).

Palin, A Stripped Moose, African-Americans, and Jews

If you fail to see the connection then you should feel comfortable with the fact that you are probably not the only one.

But here it is and straight from the mouth of Rep. Alcee Hastings (the Rep. standing for Representative and meaning he is a Congressman in the US) who is a Democrat and former Hillary Clinton supporter and now vocal Barack Obama supporter.

This is what was said:

“anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

This was a comment made to a group of African-American and Jewish Democrats and by all reports brought hoots of laughter and applause from all in attendance.

The idea that being able to shoot and strip a moose in any way reflects how one views race and religion relationships is about the same as Republicans claiming that Barack Obama's middle name says something about how he will deal with Muslims and Non-Muslims. Or that Obama's middle name in some way brings into question his Christian beliefs. It is bizarre and it is stupid!

Anyone who thinks that race and religion are not going to be important factors in this US Presidential race need to think again. Even with the US economy on the brink of free-fall into a recession (some might say the abyss of depression), the idea that race and religion keep coming to the fore says something about this historic moment for the US.

I am not an American. But, if I was I think there are more important things at stake in this presidential election other than whether Sarah Palin can strip a moose or the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussain.

Then again that's just me!