Blood Libel?

Having worn out "Mama Grizzly" and "death panels," Sarah Palin's latest buzz word is "blood libel," of which she accuses the media for linking her rhetoric to the violence in Arizona.

From Wiki: "Blood libel (also blood accusation[1][2]) refers to a false accusation or claim[3][4][5] that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.[4]
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints.[citation needed]
In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it.[7] These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time."


Really, Sarah? Really? You're going to equate getting your wrist slapped by the media for putting gun sites on a map with the justification for the persecution of the Jews? (The same accusations were also leveled at the early Christians) Accusing politicians and the media of negative rhetoric isn't libel, because it's true. And frankly, linking this to Giffords's shooting seems weirdly ironic, given that Giffords herself is Jewish.

But let me clarify. I do think the media plays a significant role in inciting uproar over various issues. The moment someone shoots his/her mouth off or shoots some poor innocent, the media puts it on 24 hour replay, with breathless speculation. Meanwhile, the continuing agony of Darfur or Haiti goes unreported because it's old news.

Do I think that Palin personally caused the shooting? No. I think that's a whole different kettle of worms that needs to be dealt with. Personally, I'd like to have certain politicians and shock jocks over for a few sangha nights. Some meditation on Right Speech** seems to be in order, and I think some Buddhist guidance would do a lot of good in this situation.

However, according to the news, the campaign in which Giffords was elected was marked by a very nasty negative campaign by her opponent. Do I think this might have influenced a mentally unstable young man to set his sights, literally, on her? Yes, absolutely. This could very well be the end result of Wrong Speech.

Words have power. The people who use them negatively, like Palin's claims of "death panels" or Giffords's opponent's smear tactics, know this. That's why they say what they do. And people listen to them. Why, I have no idea, except that they must strike some chord with them. To me, Sarah Palin comes off as confused and incoherent, saying anything that will keep her in the limelight. She's like a needy little girl acting out for attention. How anyone whose only political qualification is quitting a governorship can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate baffles me.

But I digress.

Blood libel, Sarah? Really?

**Right Speech is part of the Eightfold Path, which is basically the Buddhist code of conduct. In a nutshell, Right Speech promotes clear communication, understanding, and peace between people, even if they continue to disagree. Wrong Speech promotes negative outcomes, like division, hatred and discord. Often people practice wrong speech unknowingly, but that doesn't diminish the damage it can do. By stopping and examining our actions and motivations, we can change.