Over at USAToday, Cathy Grossman calls attention to an editorial by the Washington Times that defends Sarah Palin from her critics regarding her unfortunate, and historically feeble, use of the term "blood libel" to describe those who have criticized her polarizing language. Hard enough to defend her use of the term, given the fact that a few bad days of press coverage does not compare with the murder of Jews for which the real blood libel served as an excuse. But, the editors say that Palin has been subjected to a "pogrom" another historically loaded term linked to persecution of the Jews. To be clear, Jews were murdered in pogroms. Jewish women were raped in pogroms. Jewish property was vandalized or destroyed or confiscated in pogroms. Being chided by Keith Olbermann is not the same thing as a pogrom.
Why is it that conservatives have such a fetish for identifying their so-called "persecution" with the persecution, the real persecution, without quotation marks, of the Jews? I have never been a fan of comparative victimology, but I resist the idea that Palin is a victim, and I find the comparison offensive in its stupidity, its moral and intellectual stupidity.
I have a modest proposal: From now on, let's leave the Jews alone and suggest Ms. Palin has been thrown to the lions. Why should Christians be denied a share in the sufferings of Sarah?