Palin and the blood libel revisited
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach thinks that Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” was both appropriate and justified.
I said it was, from the start. I also have made it clear that I believe she knew full well what the term meant.
But why would so many people—even some who supported her—think her unaware of the meaning of the phrase when she used it so pointedly (and accurately, I might add) in a major statement? It may be just another example of what George Bush might have called the misunderestimation of Sarah Palin’s intelligence; they really do think she’s stupid. But as a devout Christian and a friend of Israel and Jews, she just might be one of the very people most likely to know the history of the term she used, perhaps even better than those who Googled it hurriedly in order to excoriate her for saying it.
Ah, but that’s the problem, say others, the ones who credit her for at least knowing what she was talking about, but who criticize her for using the phrase as a “dog whistle” signal to evangelical Christians, who feel themselves to be a persecuted minority like the Jews.
It’s a wonder Palin’s critics don’t get whiplash when they talk about her.
Right now, looking at the categories on the right sidebar of my blog, I notice that when this one is published I will have written 58 posts about Palin since she burst on the national scene two and half years ago. That an awful lot about a person who hasn’t even held elective office for quite some time. I would wager that, if I were to go back and glance at them all, the vast majority would be concerned not with Palin herself, but with analyzing the depth of the hatred so many people harbor for her, and what gives it such remarkably vitriolic force.
[NOTE: Barry Rubin has some good commentary and historical background on blood libel (hat tip: Bob from Virginia).
What is the modern incident that comes to my mind on hearing the phrase “blood libel?” Why, Mohammed al Durah, of course. Richard Landes has used the phrase many times in connection with the allegation that al Durah was killed by Israeli soldiers (for example, here), and quite correctly at that (Landes is a historian, by the way).
Another occasion of blood libel that comes to mind (although I haven’t heard the phrase used in connection with it) is something I read many years ago, as I was just beginning on the long road toward my “change.” I initially believed it and was horrified by it. It’s the well-known piece “A Gaza Diary” that appeared in the October 2001 Harper’s, written by Chris Hedges and alleging that Israeli soldiers—well, you read the passage for yourself:
Hedges, in one passage in the 11-page article in Harper’s, said that he was at the refugee camp on Sunday afternoon, June 17, when a voice came over the Israeli loudspeaker saying, “Come on, dogs, where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!”
Boys, most no more than 10 or 11 years old, according to Hedges, responded to the taunts by throwing rocks over an electric fence at two armored Israeli jeeps.
The fence separates the camp from a Jewish settlement where the “whitewashed villas and manicured lawns and gardens look as if they have been lifted out of a southern California suburb.” A percussion grenade scattered one group of boys, writes Hedges.
The soldiers, shooting with M-16 rifles equipped with silencers, sent bullets that “tumble end-over-end through the children’s slight bodies,” killing 11-year-old Ali Murad and seriously wounding four more, three of them under 18, according to Hedges. On the previous day, he writes, eight were shot under similar circumstances, six of them under 18.
Hedges writes he has seen children shot in El Salvador, Guatemala and Sarajevo, and mothers with infants lined up and massacred in Algeria, “but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
Here’s a lengthy refutation of many of the “facts” in Hedges article. But the blood libel had worked its magic and the damage had been done, as Hedges well knew; many more people read Harper’s—and believe it—than read CAMERA.]
Goebbels showed the way, and the Left got the message: there’s no point in telling small lies. A lie is a lie, so might as well go in for a whopper.
As mentioned here, the Left doesn’t really care about the facts, but rather about what works. Smears — which are essentially verbal graffiti – work because like graffiti, they take longer to expunge than they do to promulgate. In the time it takes to eradicate one, half a dozen more appear.
Neoneocon,
You write: “. . .analyzing the depth of the hatred so many people harbor for her. . . .”
Is it really “so many people” who have hatred for her or perhaps is it a small(er) number who just happen to be in a position to control the national conversation?
I ask the question rhetorically because I don’t think anyone is in a position to really know one way or the other.
Perhaps the only way we could know for sure would be if she ran for national office and was elected in a landslide or sorely trounced.
http://tiggergrey.blogspot.com/2003/11/bush-hate-jew-hate-success-hate.html
Comment didn’t go?
The Left enjoys the “circle dance” unity of joint, combined hating. Nixon, Reagan, Bush 43 (not so much 41), and now Palin.
Pro-life Christian pro-capitalism Republicans are slandered and vilified and blood libeled by American socialists, much like Jews were treated by German national socialists.
In that metaphorical sense of the term, which I think Palin used entirely appropriately, the whole 9/11 Truther movement is a blood libel. Specifically I’m referring to those who claim either of two things:
1) that the government knew 9/11 was going to happen and let it happen
-or-
2) that the government (specifically the Bush administration) planned and carried out 9/11
I guess 2 is worse than 1 but either qualifies and either is entirely repugnant.
Chris Hedges has been unhinged for quite a while.
T: It is absolutely “so many people.” I am in a position to know. The day after her nomination and her first address, and even before she spoke at the convention, I happened to attend a social function. The women there were all liberals except me, and they went on and on and on with extreme invective about her. This was, remember, right at the very beginning, before the smear machine had time to get going at all. They hated her and had contempt for her. It was all from the women, which surprised me at the time but no longer does.
Anyway, it has not let up since. Most of the people I know detest, despise, hate her. And they seemed to do so spontaneously, before they were told to by the media. Very strange. Really really got me thinking.
By the way, these were not good friends of mine at the function I describe. But some of my closer friends seem to feel the same way. Most of them, though, I have not discussed politics with, because they know my politics and most of us don’t talk about it any more.
The thing that gets me as much as the obvious hatred and fear of Palin from the left is the ‘polite’ criticism she gets from the right.
Not that she shouldn’t be criticized; just that she always is…if not on one point, then on another.
Her speech was too long; or too late; or not becoming; or not Presidential; or slightly wrong in tonal delivery; perhaps the setting was not quite perfect; and did she really have to…; and the ubiquitous, ‘I wouldn’t have chosen that mode’; and how can we forget, ‘She’s great but she’ll never be President because [and there are any number of faults she has, although the virtues of the others are never mentioned].
I’m starting to see this as evidence of an enormous strength and vitalism she has. She is the football player on the field. She is the basketball player on the court. She is the manager on the floor. Her foes are crying ‘Get her!!!’. Her fans are saying, ‘Did she really have to make that move? She should have made another’.
They are like spectators. She is the participant. They are the sons of Israel looking at Goliath. She is like David walking out to fight him. Both sides are laughing at him. That story is told that way.
She is just fighting. She is on offense and defense.
At this point I think she must run for President. She must. Win or lose, she now almost has a duty to run. And I think she will and if she wins the primary I’d vote for her in a flash. She simply cannot, as a person, or even ethically, retreat now. She cannot show that if you are vicious enough and small enough and shallow enough, then you can drive anyone you want out of the race; then you can say anything you want; then all smears are okay.
She can’t do that. Poor thing has had something thrust on her she never asked for. She never started any of this. McCain did. The rest is history. All she ever did was say, ‘Okay, I’m in’.
Mike @2:08.
YES, very well said. I’ve been trying to explain the constant focus on Palin. I think you’ve expressed it perfectly. (She has my vote as well.)
And the sad, sad irony of being lectured on “right wing hate” “fueled” by Palin(!!) by someone you’ve personally watched make retching noises and gagging motions at the mere mention of her name.
Someone who, when asking “why, oh why does the media keep giving her this platform, she’s not worthy of the attention” was told “because they absolutely, uncontrollably hate her, to the point of making gagging noises when she’s brought up” and sadly didn’t have the self-awareness or attention to the reply to realize she fit in that category.
Seems that many people I know have feelings of disdain, to outright contempt and hatred for Palin. When I ask them why she evokes such a response the answers boil down to “because she’s Sarah Palin, that’s why”. Attempting to get people to qualify that further with something she has actually done seems to get them madder still.
But this exercise can be entertaining, just to watch steam blowing out their ears.
When I ask them why she evokes such a response the answers boil down to “because she’s Sarah Palin, that’s why”.
Of course. She’s a:
successful woman
with a large family
who loves her husband
and did this all without the largess granted by the Democrat Party
Now she lives in their heads, rent free…
Some people are doomed to be a focus of widespread irrational hatred not for what they do, but for who they are. That is because by mere fact of their existence they inflict never-healing wound to some cherished worldview or belief. This was exactly the situation in which early Christians in Rome were, or Jews in Middle Ages. Now, Palin is a wrong kind of feminist, so some excuse need to be found to hate her.
@Mike Mc
I really want Palin to run, partly for the reason you suggest, i.e. to personify “I won’t be cowed or stopped!” Also, I might vote for Sarah Palin. She might be my preferred candidate. She has the instincts, about what is right for America vs. what is wrong for America, which I want in a candidate. And she has the courage and resolve which I want.
For the same reason, I really wanted Palin to respond to the accusations after the Arizona tragedy. I wanted her to say: “I will not be stopped from speaking out, we will not be stopped from speaking out, we will not be cowed.” And she did, and I am well pleased by her response.
As the Repub politicos in D.C. now meekly acquiesce, to a horse manure call for civility, in a nation which is already massively civil: those Repub politicianss show themselves to be frightened of being labeled by their political opponents and/or by media. Those Repubs show themselves to be cowed, and cowards. Those Repubs show themselves to be strategic dupes: a call for civility is a set up. In such a scenario, the only option for conservatives will be to either shut up or to change our opinions.
When the top of the Repub Party are cowards, those of us who advocate limited government are in need of someone with guts and resolve to step in and be POTUS.
@Sergey
I agree that much of the insta hate has to do with cherished assumption that the first female President simply must be the right kind of feminist; simply must profess that she NEVER could have become President w/o the wonderful feminist movement having paved the way for her; must stand as a shining personification of the glory that is femism. Palin will be none of that, will stand for none of that, in fact will stand for personal responsibility and fighting spirit above all else. Fighting spirit is so masculine. They detest her beyond all reason.
If you support Palin, let her know and stick up for her in public because actions speak louder than words.
Contact info:
http://www.sarahpac.com/contact
N E O,
There are teams of lawyers going after bloggers. Please protect yourself.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2011/01/13/law-firm-suing-those-who-comment-on-blogs/
http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/p/participating-newspapers.html
One reasonable liberal friend of mine dislikes her intensely because of the way she ‘wraps herself in the flag.’
One cannot reason someone out of a place that reason didn’t take there in the first place.
I’ve often thought the way out of America’s political mess may come in a short period or peak moments when liberals get undeniably exposed as truly bad people with ill will for America. Sarah Palin has a gift to expedite that process.
Maybe liberals know this about her too on some level. Their level of hatred isn’t directed at the Sarah Palin who won’t make agreeable policy as a politician. Their level of hatred reflects the threat she possesses of exposing the emptiness of their core being.
I’ve often thought the way out of America’s political mess may come in a short period or peak moments when liberals get undeniably exposed as truly bad people with ill will for America.
I sometimes think of the deus ex machina solution: a Red version of the Pentagon Papers/ Zimmerman telegram/ VENONA decrypts/ Mitrokhin archive/ Wikileaks that reveals a full-blown hard leftist conspiracy by Soros & Co., aided and abetted by assorted journalists, educators, and Dem politicians. Think “JournoList” raised to the nth power.
What a day that would/will be!
Regarding the hate and level of hate directed towards Gov. Palin. Often we see logical explanations for this irrational behavior, e.g. she’s the wrong kind of feminist, etc. I suspect the real reasons are more primal than that, she is touching something deeply personal in the haters. Isn’t hate an admission of inferiority? Maybe they are jealous because she has so much they want but can never hope to have, starting with a loving family and masculine husband? Perhaps the haters spent a whole life living according to fashionable social and political norms and now, at some level, realize that it has prevented them from getting what they really want?
For whole cultures and subcultures to be neurotic haters isn’t unusual. The Arab culture deflects it’s politically enforced failures by hating and blaming Israel. The Europeans compensated for their disasters by contempt for and hatred of the US. Where there is hate there is failure, not logic. So again the question, what do the Palin haters hate in themselves, because is the source of their hate for her.
JuliB Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Well, actually she did once.
That photo was in my 2009 Sarah Palin calendar. The caption said that it was taken a few days after 9/11.
Bob from Virginia Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I agree. I’ve said before that it’s one thing to oppose her policies, or think she would be a bad President; but people who hate her need to take a good hard look in the mirror, because something is seriously wrong with them.
Mike Mc. Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Outstanding comment, and it’s not far off from my remark a couple of nights ago about her being “America’s Joan of Arc”.
I know I’ve mentioned this a number of times, but I commented on another blog in mid-September 2008 that “PDS has already gotten worse in two weeks than BDS did in eight years.”
On the other hand, I also said around that time that I wouldn’t blame her a bit if she went back to Alaska, got on with her life, and never bothered with politics again. I still stand by that statement.
But I think she’s running.
Did you all see this at Gateway? It’s all about sex and jealousy!
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/frances-fox-piven-the-tea-party-is-all-about-sex-audio/
Far too many Americans expect their President to be some kind of superhero who can fix all problems. What we need in a President is a competent and intelligent executive who knows how to run an organization.
I have great hopes that Sarah Palin will be that kind of leader. So far, she hasn’t made any mistakes that I can see. She ran Wasilla and Alaska effectively. She’s a high-energy person, so she can use her day efficiently. She has respect for the military and knows how to lead it (she already did so as commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard).
What more could we possibly want from a President?
I believe that people hate her because (1) she didn’t abort Trig, (2) she has a country-style accent, (3) she’s talented in so many ways, and the light-weights are jealous.
If you think about the Presidents this nation has already had, she certainly is equal to most of them and could even be one of best.
If the loathing was against Sarah Palin, then the loathing would have dissipated by now. The loathing remains because it is self-loathing projected onto Sarah Palin.
somehow, I thought your sentence was going in this direction: (3) she’s talented in so many ways, and looks good in jeans.
Looks good in jeans is a fair reason to hate anybody.
gotharn . . .
I almost said that. If I didn’t look so good in jeans, I would hate her too. 😉
Promethea, you are looking for rational explanations for irrational behavior. Most people do and it does not work.
“”At this point I think she must run for President. She must.””
Mike Mc
I don’t see that as the logical progression of Palin. Sort of like taking your star quarterback off the field in his prime because you want to make him coach.
We already know she’s a great culture warrior and one sorely needed. But we only assume that transfers well to being President.
The thing that I don’t understand is why so many women hate her. I freely admit that I don’t understand women, period. That’s why I’m 53 years old and live with two cats. (One of them is female, and we get along fine.)
Back during the 2008 campaign, I ran into a woman I knew but hadn’t seen in a while. I knew she was liberal but naively assumed she would be happy that a woman was running for Vice President. I said, “So what do you think of Sarah Palin?” She gave me a look like I had just called her the “c” word. I’m probably lucky she didn’t throw her drink in my face. I was really taken aback.
Dunno about this. Hatred could result from contempt, too.
I’ve wondered about this. It may be politically incorrect to say so explicitly, but I’ve wondered to what extent the vituperation heaped on Palin from the distaff side arises from jealousy. From a feminine perspective, I could see how they might conclude that Palin’s got it all: career, kids, husband, fame, power, confidence, popularity (in some quarters), looks, and they’ve got…bupkis (in many cases), despite being “good girls” (i.e., meeting the norms of their social circles).
This crabs pulling other crabs back into the bucket response strikes me as peculiarly feminine. I don’t hate Bill Gates (unless I’m grappling with his effed up software at the time) for being rich, I don’t hate MLB players for being faster, stronger, more talented, (and God knows) younger than I am, I don’t hate Rob Lowe for being better looking (OK, this is a close run thing /g), but I get the impression that women (and especially girls) commonly do hate other women/ girls who outshine them in such respects. Is that just me, or is there something to that tentative observation?
Good point. It’s a maladaptive response. If someone else is outdoing you in some respect, either adapt and step up your game (if that’s possible, which is not always the case), or accept it.
(Personal anecdote: I was once called on the carpet for refusing to disclose to my university how much outside money I’d made during a sabbatical (I’d already reported on my academic activities; this was strictly financial), and therefore how much of my university pay I would forego. (Answer: zip. But I digress.) My chairman (who knew the answer, but was a socialist, and therefore thought that this was a reasonable demand), trying to convince me to comply, cited the case of an economist who consulted for a Third World country and picked up a few hundred grand while on sabbatical. What did I say to that? “Damn, I wish I’d become an economist.” Turns out that was the “B” answer.)
Occam’s,
It takes a bit more than having someone outshine you. The person also has to disregard your standards of taste. You have to wear the right clothes, eat at the right restaurants, be bored to death by the same plays and books, and decorate your home in the right way. The woman who says she doesn’t care about the arbiters of taste will be devastated by them. And all the lesser status women who are hoping to rise will follow their leaders in cattiness.
expat:
So Whiskey was right, then. I was afraid of that.
The Election Results: Go Hunk, Avoid Women
Good God, every woman on earth must hate me. I couldn’t possibly care less about anyone else’s standards of taste, their clothes (if any), their choice of restaurants (Burger King or Carl’s Jr.? I’m eclectic on this one), or indeed anything else. Hell, on another thread I teed off The Beatles! /shudder
I like the Beatles, but it’s not a religious thing with me.
As long as you don’t tee off on Bob Dylan, we can still get along.
I wonder when this “copyrighting” of phrases began. “Blood Libel” can only be used in reference to the medieval libel against Jews, not for accusing an innocent person of complicity in mass murder, “holocaust” can only refer the Jews in WWII, not what has been going on in the Sudan, “decimation” can only refer to the Roman practice of killing every tenth man, not to a large killing of human beings, “targeting” means planning to kill someone, not focusing, or, in the case of Sarah Palin, using surveyors’ symbols for places on map.
I suppose I am not allowed to use the words “idiots” and “morons,” let alone “communists” as those have been “copyrighted” by the demoncrats and other liberals to refer only to themselves.
rickl,
There are certainly women who feel that Palin has given them a voice, but the Behars have a large group of adherents. I think a lot of women probably read a few pages of Franzen for their book club and then go home and curl up with chick lit. It’s easier to shop at Whole Foods than figure out something about raising food. I’ve heard women in my town complain about the terrible offerings of our local theater, but they wouldn’t dream of passing up a performance. They just have to show their faces to show how culturally aware they are. One of the nice things about being an expat is the leeway I get when I show deviant behavior. Of course, this probably feeds any latent anti-Americanism.
Here’s a post I wrote way back before the 2008 election about why many women hate Palin. I think it still hold up pretty well.
But I want to add to it the fact that I don’t think most women who hate Palin are motivated by envy, although that might be true for some. A lot of the women I know who hate Palin are successful, married fairly happily, and have kids who are doing pretty well. I think some of the hatred stems from what I said in the 2008 article, some of it is a class thing, which I wrote about here, and the rest of it is something hard to define. If envy is part of that last “something,” it’s an envy in the past rather than the present, an envy that goes back to junior high or summer camp or even grade school.
Don,
Sarah’s use of targeting is especially bad because she might be referring to a real gun and a wolf.
As long as you don’t tee off on Bob Dylan, we can still get along.
Bob Dylan is a Beatles wannabe. ‘Nuff said.
Neo, neo, neo. It’s not whether these women are successful, etc., or not (i.e., objective reality), but whether they consider themselves to be. Perception > reality. Self-perception >>>> reality.
Some of the most tormented and driven academics I know are, in fact, highly successful. They just don’t consider themselves as such. They’re scratching where it doesn’t itch.
On reflection, this is what I was talking about above. I have only the dimmest recollection of anything much before grad school. Envy someone from junior high? Hell, I can’t even name someone from junior high. Seriously.
Palin in jeans
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zfai0H7c8io/SRE9MVw6P5I/AAAAAAAACCk/IZGkgkIVboc/s1600-h/untitled.bmp
totally relevant
Occam’s Beard:
They consider themselves highly successful. Of course, one can always speculate that deep inside they’re insecure, but that can be used as an excuse and an explanation for anyone and anything.
totally relevant
??
But the correlate here is sex, not class. So that hypothesis does not explain the facts. As you pointed out, middle/upper class women detest her, but at least in my experience, middle/upper class men do not. They might not vote for her, but they don’t evince the same visceral, primal hatred. That’s the part I’m trying to understand.
Actually, he was an Elvis wannabee, in his younger days.
Actually, he was an Elvis wannabee, in his younger days.
What’s the difference?
What’s the difference?
That he ended up outshining both of them, on his own terms.
There was a tribute concert for Frank Sinatra on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Many performers played their versions of Sinatra songs. Bob played his own song, “Restless Farewell”, and when it was over he said, “That’s my way, Mr. Frank.”
The camera switched to Sinatra in the audience, and he looked genuinely moved.
Around the same time, Sinatra held a small, intimate gathering in his home for his 80th birthday, and Dylan was an invitee. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall there.
Occam’s Beard: but that’s the part I’m talking about when I say there’s “something” else going on for these women, the ancient history of rivalry in schoolyard, camp, and junior high (plus I guess I’d add high school). Also, there’s the feminism angle I wrote about in my linked post from 2008.
For example, one woman I know detested Palin for winking during her speech to the convention. I talked to her about it, but I never got really clear on what it was about the wink that she so detested. The best I could understand was that she thought it was manipulative in a sexual way, perhaps sort of like flashing a bit of leg to stop a car when hitchhiking. She felt it was a demeaning and trashy gesture, I think, unworthy of a woman in public office. I think quite a few women felt that way about Palin. It wouldn’t be something that would bother men, would it?
Also, for some women their dislike of Palin harks to (as I’ve written in my 2008 post about women and Palin) the fact that Palin is not just attractive, or even pretty, she’s beautiful. But it’s not envy of her beauty per se; believe me, if she were beautiful and liberal, it would be just fine. It’s the combination of everything. She’s perceived as the wrong class, the anti-feminist because she’s conservative (actually, a traitor to feminism at the same time she exploits it to get ahead), stupid, and one who uses her beauty in a trashy way to get ahead, sort of like a starlet who sleeps her way to the top.
She’s perceived as the wrong class, the anti-feminist because she’s conservative (actually, a traitor to feminism at the same time she exploits it to get ahead), stupid, and one who uses her beauty in a trashy way to get ahead, sort of like a starlet who sleeps her way to the top.
Interesting. So…in their view she’s indistinguishable from every single female who’s ever set foot in Hollywood, except conservative.
Oh, and happily married.
PPS: and hasn’t yet had her sex tape “stolen.”
I think the reason so many people “hate” Sarah is because she is agressive, smart, good looking and has “natural court sense”. IUf you have ever played basketball natural court sense means that someone instinctively knew exactly where they were in relation everyone else and the ball. There are things about Sarah that I recognize because I have run into this type of predjudice myself. For instance, Sarah is not afraid to out work and out hustle everyone out there including her own team mates (women and Repubs). Sweat, blood, sorrow and fear are endured relatively stoically and worked through without Sarah crying “Poor me!!” like all the rest of the girls. If there is something that has to be done then she will do as she must. Sarah shows a strength that most do not have and does what she must with the best possible face on that she can muster. Athletes call it putting their game face on. Sarah’s game face is very good and most are intimidated by it. They are all envious of her and hate her because they cannot do what she does so naturally. Those who hate Sarah without a logical reason are just trying to pull her down and give her the “comeuppance” that they feel she needs for being an unashamed beautiful agressive woman. Liberals are more frightened than most by her. She is what they are too weak to be and they hate her for it.
Go Sarah!!
Occam’s Beard: I wouldn’t say these women are admirers of Hollywood stars, either.
I wouldn’t say these women are admirers of Hollywood stars, either.
Then there’s hope…
Just out of curiosity, whom do they admire?
Occam’s Beard: excellent question. I’ll hazard a guess and say they admire women and men who are intellectuals, scientists, writers, artists, professors, researchers, social workers, therapists, doctors, some lawyers (public defenders, for example), judges, maybe police and firefighters (I think so anyway, at least to a certain extent), some teachers, Unitarian ministers, certain liberal politicians, and the downtrodden.
This is a generalization, of course. I also might add that I know quite a few women who hate Palin and yet are not especially liberal (although they generally vote Democrat), and were not Obama fans. I also know one woman who is a liberal Democrat and yet likes Palin. She also happens to know and like a lot of people from the rural part of New England, and does recreational shooting herself. So everyone is hardly predictable. But I’ve noticed general patterns.
There is a trend on the east and west coast to look down on anyone with an accent of any kind, unless it is European of course. Ive had that conversations with several people who stated she was stupid, when I confronted them on it, they stated, “well she just sounds stupid”
The female thing involves other things I am sure but this may be a part of it.
I love Sarah Palin, and I envy her amazing talents and good looks. My husband is a lot like Todd Palin, though in a different field entirely.
The funny thing is: my son-in-law looks a lot like Todd Palin. When I mentioned this to him and to my daughter, they both said “Ewwwww.”
They’re marxist wannabees. This is my big failure as a mother. Oh well. They’ll have to live in the brave new world that Obama is making.
Promethea, some things take time 🙂
There were lots of studies and speculations to understand and explain anti-semitism and other forms of xenophobia or irrational hatred in general, but none look to me satisfactory. All give only some part of the answer. The most usual explanations include:
1) resentment and envy;
2) frustration and feeling of failure;
3) need to scapgoating somebody for one’s bad conscience and/or failures.
All this plays some role, but are not enough to explain visceral hatred and murderous rage. The later is more akin to vandalism with its manifest irrationality and destructiveness, unprovoked aggression and insanity. That is why I feel need to add a more compelling reason for it:
4) Aggression is often provoked by some embodiment of excellence which by mere fact of its existence denies and refutes some cherished belief, worldview and self-conscience of the attacker. That is why Vandals tried to destroy or at least deface Rome. Such irrational impulse needs rationalization, that is why the most vile libels are invented and fabricated to make one’s insanity look rational.
This is psychodynamics behind antisemitism, medieval and current, and behind Palin Derangement Syndrom. (Andrew Sullivan is an example of such hate driving someone clinically mad.) Blood libel, indeed.
Sorry for hijacking the thread earlier. Glad to see it got back on track (no thanks to me).
Darrell Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
I was born Ohio, went to college on LungIsland, and have lived most of my life in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never been anywhere near Alaska, but I find her accent endearing. I simply don’t understand why anybody has a problem with it.
I’ll take another stab at it.
Sergey mentioned Andrew Sullivan. Sarah is a Christian. Lots of people are not Christians, but don’t have any particular animosity towards that religion. I was raised as a Christian but am agnostic now.
I can’t help noticing that the people who exhibit blinding, white-hot, spittle-flecked rage against Christianity tend to be homosexuals.
The most radical Islamic terrorists don’t hold a candle to them.
As for Sarah’s accent:
I was a big fan of Monty Python when I was a teenager, and I learned a lot about the different regional accents in England as a result.
English is a rich, complex language, and there are a huge variety of regional accents and dialects all over the world. So I guess that’s why I don’t find Sarah’s accent to be a big deal.
I always like when Rabbi Boteach gets back to business and takes a break from his more pop-culture endeavors like TLC’s “Shalom in the Home.” That said, I recommend a perusal of the responses/comments to his WSJ article. It backs up neo’s point exactly. Palin is one of those people (like Jews, actually) who are damned it they do, damned if they don’t. As an extra bonus there were many comments quoting scriptures proving that the Jews really did kill Jesus /, b/c Pilate asked them what they wanted to happen…and it goes on and on. Well, thank G-d we live in a free country.
neo-neocon Says:
January 14th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I wondered about the winking too. It’s not something she normally does when she speaks.
Back in the 1960s the USS Pueblo was captured by North Korea. They released photos of the sailors, and many of them showed the middle finger to indicate they were under duress. (They told the NK authorities that it was a good luck symbol or something, and of course they were beaten when the U.S. media revealed the true meaning.)
Could Sarah have winked every time Joe Biden told a whopper? He’s known for that.
Clarification: She winked during her debate with Biden, not during her speech at the Republican convention. I don’t remember anyone remarking about her winking at the convention speech, but I’ve never looked that closely at the tapes.
rickl: I remembered one wink at the convention speech. I Googled it just now, because relying on my memory is not always a good thing, but in this case I believe I was correct. See this, for example. Apparently the first wink during a national address of Palin’s was the convention speech (I recall a single wink), but during her debate with Biden she winked many times (by some accounts, six) and therefore that’s the one people remember.
My friend was specifically talking the convention speech, the first time she saw the wink.
I personally took her winks as “Yea i’m standing up here debating dumbasses who’ve become unhinged from reality, and can’t help but finding a bit of humor in it all”
“I can’t help noticing that the people who exhibit blinding, white-hot, spittle-flecked rage against Christianity tend to be homosexuals.”
rickl,
Not these ones, for sure.
In fact, they DESIRE for her to be President. One of them even now writes at Conservatives for Palin. (Don’t be fooled by the heading, though.)
newton,
Before I even clicked the link I knew it was Hillbuzz. Very entertaining site, sorta the gay version of Debka if you get my drift.