How to Misuse a Term.

There has been a lively debate in the US as to the potential causes leading up to the shooting of Ms Gabrielle Giffords.

One of the more disturbing responses to accusations that the polemics from the Right Wing were at the root of the shooting was Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel"

I have to give credit where credit is due, she has a decent speech writer. Unfortunately for the writer I don't think Ms Palin understands the meaning of the term. Yes some use it to mean false accusations of murder-but this is incorrect.

It was originally used by Jews to describe anti-Semitic accusations which were intended to incite mobs to violently attack and even kill Jews. If Ms Palin understood the concept of irony it would almost be an interesting use of the term, , but that would give her far more nuance than I believe she has.

No, I believe she has been intentionally positioned to twist its use such that she becomes the victim and turns her accusers into the very howling, violent mob that she herself has been breeding. And using such a potent term certainly appeals to the anti-Semitism lurking in more than one reptilian brain.

Strangely however, I am less concerned with her use of the term specifically, but much more with the way people invoke ideas and terms which have no real relevance to the situation they are reflecting.

The other day some demonstrators were frog-marched away by policemen, all on camera, firmly yet civily. Later when they were interviewed they told of their ordeal of being hauled off by the Gestapo. Oh really?

Or how the term genocide is used to explain anything from serious attempts to exterminate a people to moving villagers to make way for a highway.

No, I yearn for a time when people actually reflected on what they were saying, before they said it, recognising the power of speech. This goes for Sarah Palin as well. Maybe she should follow her own advice and take responsiblity for what she says.