Sarah Palin, for columnists, is the gift that keeps on giving.
She's in the news this week for using the term "blood libel" to describe comments by those who tried to link conservatives to the Arizona shooting outburst that killed six and wounded thirteen, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Palin said it meant being "falsely accused of having blood on our hands."
Well, no. Wikipedia defines blood libel as "the claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in...religious rituals," like making matzos for Passover. This isn't true, of course, but it also isn't what Ms. Palin said it meant.
Last year, I think it was, she enriched the language with "refudiate," a fine word except that it doesn't exist.
Many politicians are dull. Many political speeches are boring. You surely can't accuse Ms. Palin, or her comments, of that. I don't know that I'd vote for her but, if I were still a television news reporter, I'd make sure the cameras rolled every time she opened her mouth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment