Look at this video of Afghanistan 50 years ago,…..the bright young women depicted there (if they still live) are now 70/75. How could they have known then that by the time they were old their country would have gone back 1000 years….

At last – are we about to wield an axe against the grasping tentacles of the  European Octopus?

MPs have overwhelmingly voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

The House of Commons’ decision is not binding, but could put pressure on ministers to go against the Strasbourg court’s decision.

Tory MP David Davis summed up the view of the vast majority of British people (outside the upper reaches of the BBC and, of course, the Guardian reading chattering classes of North London)

He told MPs that while prisoners had rights – such as the right to be fed and protected from harm – and they should not enjoy the same rights as “free British citizens”.

When receiving a jail sentence, they “sacrificed” rights such as their liberty and freedom of association and the right to vote should be removed as well.

“The concept is simple. If you break the law, you cannot make the law,” he told MPs.

Even in UK legal circles there is a growing resentment at what some see as a blatant attempt by the European Court of Human Rights which is based in Strasbourg. Many of the 47 judges are academics who have little or no experience actually running courts. They are also mainly grounded in a bureacratic and regulatory legal regime totally out of sync with the common sense approach of English Common Law.

A recent report summed up everything that is wrong with the ECHR

the UK has become “subservient” to the Strasbourg court………. it also ignores the traditional British freedom of the press.

The report claims the 47 Strasbourg judges have “virtually no democratic legitimacy” and are poorly qualified compared to Britain’s own senior judges.

Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, who wrote the foreword to the report, said Strasbourg has “taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states”.

In 1649 we cut off a king’s head as an assertion of the Sovereignty of Parliament – time, perhaps, to sharpen that axe again?

Polls are to the modern political media as chickens were to the Romans who would slice one up, throw it’s entrails onto the floor then predict the future from the colour of the liver and the crinkles on the heart.

Fortunately for our contemporary punditocracy opinion polls are far less messy – but are they more reliable?

Take Allahpundit at Hot Air – he caresses  the crosstabs and fondles the weightings then, just like a Roman seer, he divines the portents and pronounces the verdict of the gods. Other scribblers rush towards the forum and spread the word – X is down at 37%, Y is up at 41% while Z is only popular with bald headed bus drivers.

The strategists and consultants work their calculations in a frenzy and then panic or preen according to the positions of their clients in the pecking order. The political junkies give out whoops of joy or groans of discomfort as they see their favourites rise or fall..

And most of the population don’t even know it has happened because the nearest election is far in the future and they have other things on their mind

the vast majority of people polled will be those who pay attention to politics 2 weeks a year and all other information comes from soundbites and brief media reports, not by a regular interest in politics (non political junkies).

So it’s nice to know of someone else playing around with that idea in the matter of Sarah Palin. Her polling numbers are regularly produced as evidence of her unsuitability as a candidate for the Presidency in 2012. But Poll Insider is less interested in the entrails than the background of the chicken itself.

Sarah Palin is what I like to call “An Unknown Known.” While everyone knows who she is, opinions of her are mostly derived from media accounts of her, rather than by her own actions and words.

Moreover, oddly enough, until the campaigns begin in earnest, because she does not conform to the usual political stereotype she remains an unknown known.

The key thing to remember about polling is information changes minds quickly. Reality is, of all potential candidates for 2012, Palin has the greatest opportunity to greatly improve her standings, especially given that expectations for her have been set so low.

Since 2008 Palin has not been visible to the public in a major, unfiltered way. A campaign will change that especially if it is managed efficiently and effectively. Team McCain blew it. They had a Wayne Gretzsky who was kept well away from the ice.

In the few weeks between the conventions and the VP Debate between Palin and Joe Biden, Sarah Palin was heavily attacked by the media, and was constantly being questioned about her qualifications. Thus, when the debate actually happened, people were surprised she wasn’t an idiot. A CNN Poll after the VP Debate found that 84% of people thought Sarah Palin did better than they expected. (And who were expectations set by?)

Ed Koch has very little in common with Sarah Palin in terms of political belief. But as an experienced political operator he has never underestimated her.

It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin.  Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people.  A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium.  

Unleashed in a campaign that marches to the beat of her own drum I would wager that only a fool would claim to predict that Fortune would never choose to bestow her smile on Sarah Palin……

The oh so brave Katie Couric, gushes Kathleen Parker

Watching Katie Couric being harassed and shoved by a crowd of angry men in Cairo was especially jarring. Our little Katie? Make no mistake. Perky Katie is also brave Katie.

And those journalists – we can learn so much from their courage and dedication to bringing us the truth

For journalists, there’s no adrenaline rush like Being There. There’s something in the constitution of those who sign up for Journalism 101 that makes them want to be part of the action but also to do something of value. The bias so many recognize in the media is, among other things, a bias toward the underdog, whether that’s an unwed mother or an oppressed people.

The BBCs Jeremy Bowen, of course, is another of those fearless journalists. He went straight up to one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders and asked him if the MB wanted to establish a full scale Iran style woman stoning, gay hanging theocracy…and the guy said no.

Bowen was happy – this proved beyond doubt that the Brotherhood was now the party of unicorns and rainbows, said he….

Of course one or two cynical souls like Butterfly Dragon at Hot Air (or, as Parker would call them “posers, pundits…..along with klanners, clowns and clambering ninnies “) might have a different view about Brave Katie

They’re trying to make people believe they’re as important as the military and take just as many risks.

In other words, they think very highly of themselves.

Yes, some put themselves at risk, but the vast majority (like Katie Couric) think protesters trying to get in her camera shot is equivalent to taking sniper fire while on patrol.

Oh dear, how unkind….next thing he will say that if you want to find a really brave woman you might prefer to meet another Katie who, I suspect, earns considerably less than $14m a year…

Within the cloud girdled towers of The Daily Telegraph Janet Daley and Damian Thompson have now broken their chains and feel free at last to shout out something that recently they had been only willing to whisper to trusted friends.

Palin must not be the GOP candidate for President in 2012.

Daley says she has many friends who are “senior Republicans” and “highly regarded commentators” who feel the same as her.

She is not another Thatcher – nor is she another Reagan. She does not have the experience and substance of a Romney or the genuine warmth and charm of a Huckabee

Yes – Huckabee is warm and charming so eat your heart out, Tammy Bruce….

But, says Daley, she can make the coffee and play the cheerleader “for some more credible candidate”

Thompson, being very religious is a little more nuanced and intellectual in his critique of Palin…..she’s “nuts” and her supporters are “burger-chomping rednecks” (which is news to me who spent a weekend with 100 Palinistas in Chicago – but who the heck am I, after all I never wrote a thesis on the management of apocalyptic belief in a London Pentecostal church, I only spent 40 years teaching adolescents in tough London schools)

Americans might say – so what? What do we care if a couple of limey hacks diss the ‘Cuda?

The answer is, according to Daley and Thompson, because at last one of the most influential Republican websites in America has finally had the courage do go where no other has dared.

We live in serious times……………For these reasons, we need a strong, serious, decisive leader on the Republican ticket in 2012. 

Let’s face it. Sarah Palin is clearly not that leader. 

She’s fun. She’s attractive. She’s appealing. She’s down-home. She’s got a populist vibe. She shoots animals. But she’s not presidential timber. Not in times like these.

Thus speaks conservativehomeUSA – “Our goal is to cover the ongoing debate about the future of the Republican party and conservatism in America. And to help spur it along.”

ConhomeUSA likes to give the impression of being held in high regard by the American right – though I must confess that although I have, for many years, haunted the mean streets of the US right blogosphere searching for my regular political fix I have never seen it mentioned anywhere else – but then I probably lurk in the seedier precincts…..

It is edited by former Bush staffer Ryan Streeter – a towering figure in American conservatism, a giant of the Beltway who clearly has his finger on the pulse of Mr and Mrs Average Republican and a hotline to GOP activists in every state of the union. So when Ryan decides it is time to remove Palin from the equation you Palinistas and Tea Partiers need to wise up and listen to a man who knows what you want better than you do.

But Ryan is a modest guy – he realises that maybe his words on their own might not be enough to convince you so he turns to hard man Ross Douthat (private school, Harvard, The Atlantic, NYT)

Palin … officially despises the “lamestream” media. But press coverage – good, bad, whatever – is clearly the oxygen she craves. She supposedly hates having her privacy invaded, yet her family keeps showing up on reality TV. She thinks the political class is clueless and out-of-touch, but she can’t resist responding to its every provocation. Her public rhetoric, from “death panels” to “blood libel,” is obviously crafted to maximize coverage and controversy, and generate more heat than light. And her Twitter account reads like a constant plea for the most superficial sort of media attention … To Palin: You were an actual politician once (remember that?), but you’re becoming the kind of caricature that your enemies have always tried to make of you.

Ah yes, that horny handed blue collar 32 year old Douthat. He has had real life experiences, unlike Mrs Palin. He has pounded streets, glad handed voters, been a mayor and governor, been accused of faking his own pregnancy, inciting murder, betraying his wife, inflating expenses – and he has stood tall and not whined like you…and he has written real books which have been bought by really important people….

But, says Ryan, Douthat is not the only voice from the street.

Because of her popularity, many have been afraid to say openly about her what they whisper in private. But a few brave souls have stepped out and said about Sarah Palin what others think but are unwilling to say. 

We call this group the Truth Tellers – it’s hard to argue with their statements about Sarah Palin

Now gather round, guys and gals, because these are serious people who, like Ryan, have a feel for ordinary folk that Palin, isolated in her Facebook ivory tower just cannot hope to emulate – here are Streeter’s Truth Tellers…

Newt Gingrich, Ari Feischer, Charles Krauthammer, Jonathan Tobin, Pete Wehner, John Feehery, George Will, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, Mona Charen, Mark McKinnon, Peggy Noonan, Barbara Bush, Karl Rove, Daniel Larison…..and, of course, the staunchest defender of frugality and conservative principles – Lisa Murkowski!!!!

OMG what a galaxy of gods and goddesses. They were right by your side during the townhall debates and at the Tea Party rallies, every single one of them. They were solid during  NY23 and stepped right up to the plate microseconds after the left began hurling accusations at the Tea Party after Tucson.

Like you they were against any compromise over Obamacare or bailouts. None of them has any links with the legacy of George W Bush. They all dedicated themselves to highlighting Obama’s questionable Chicago antecedents and lack of executive experience during the 2008 campaign. They have no contacts with lobbyists, earmarks or pork. Nobody in that list has had any alleged links with corruption, dead bodies or infidelity

The Truth Tellers have spoken. If Sarah Palin wanted to be presidential, she might take the critiques to heart and begin to fashion arguments and a strategy that give voters the confidence she can lead the country. If she cannot do that, she should stay on the sidelines.

Ryan Streeter (who has said this all with the straightest of faces) pulls no punches – he and all these key figures want her off the bus even before the primaries (which some misguided people still believe is a competitive process where ordinary citizens can make up their own mind – the fools) otherwise she might seduce them with her fearlessness, integrity, common sense and straight talking – and nobody would ever want a leader like that – would they?

When I first read all this I thought for one moment that Ryan Streeter was doing an Allahpundit and snarking Palin for traffic (since his site appears to need some traction in the US) but then I looked at it’s poorly designed, messy appearance and  realised that “cunning” was not on their agenda. Essentially it is a site for political wonks which should come as no great surprise because Streeter himself is a wonk, a typical representative of the political class, an academic who “worked” in think tanks then got a job in the Bush administration and, presumably, would like to get a post in a future GOP administration under President Anybody But Palin.

So read the rest here and weep….

Or alternatively just, like me, stay upright in your seat in sheer astonishment that someone like Streeter can actually be paid a six figure sum to scribble such an ill thought out rodomontade based solely on the squeaks and squawks from a motley mixture of has beens, windbags and ponificating pundits who still imagine that the GOP needs to be directed by people who attend DC dinner parties and NYT editorial conferences.

Therefore, in the cause of fairness, in another post, I’ll take a closer look at Ryan Streeters team of all the talents by giving each of the Truth Tellers a Truth Test….should be interesting….Mau-Mauing the Truth Tellers..

Robert Stacy McCain has, once again, in his own initimable fashion, sallied forth from his citadel, clad in the armour of defiance and eager to poke his lance into the eye of any milksop evolutionist who happens to be strolling back from his or her laboratory clutching a copy of “The Origin of the Species”.

A minion had probably casually mentioned that Jazz Shaw had posted something about evolution and politics at Hot Air and clearly it was enough to set the Fedora on fire

I’m a six-days-and-a-rib kind of guy — a fundamentalist Bible-thumper — because (a) the Bible is true, and (b) saying so makes liberals’ heads explode.
One of the things that the Darwinist laity fail to recognize is how much of their supposed “evidence” of evolution is actually man-made. For example, go to the natural history museum and look at that display illustrating the alleged evolution of the horse. The fossil skeletons are all lined up in a row, purporting to show a direct line of ancestry.
But no such thing is proved by that display

Love it when people offer up that old evolutionist = atheist misconception….puts those Jesuits in a tight spot, doesn’t it. The trouble is that many good Christians and Jews and Hindus also quite happily accept evolution and also believe in a Deity/First Cause.

Science isn’t a religion – it’s a method of thinking based on evidence. No true scientist would say that any theory was 100% correct, they just say the weight of the evidence appears to indicate the theory provides a reasonable explanation.

Religion is not evidence based – it is faith based so comparisons with science are pointless. Genesis makes sense as a folk myth but not as a scientific explanation of the origin of humans.  However it would be difficult to debate this with RSM since he asserts that only one folk myth about creation (amongst thousands of similar tribal legends) is true.

Darwin (an agnostic rather than an atheist) also believed that religion and science demanded different thought processes….

Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities

Or take George Coyne – a Jesuit and, at one time, Director of the Vatican Observatory – who has fewer doubts than Darwin about the existence of God…

Although God transcends the universe, he is working in it through his providence and continuous creation. This stress on God’s immanence is not to place a limitation upon God. Far from it. It reveals a God who made a universe that has within it, through evolution, a certain dynamism, as seen by science, and thus participates in the very creativity of God. God emptied himself so that he could share his infinite love with his creation.  Such a view of God’s relationship to his creation can be found in early Christian writings, especially in those of St. Augustine in his comments on Genesis.

On the other hand maybe the creationist garland is part of the Runyonesque tough guy image that Stacy has invented for himself along with the hat….

Still, even when he is spouting nonsense he always does it in style (as I have admitted here when I caught him out on another rodomontade long on emotion but short on research) and if he ever came to England I would love to buy him a beer in my local pub  (“The Darwin Arms”)

Stacy, I  agree with you on a lot of political/cultural issues but I’m afraid I’ll have to nail my disagreement onto your door just as Luther did over that papal nonsense of selling indulgences in return for subscribing to the rebuild St Peters fund….

No doubt my criticism has RSM as worried as Manchester United are with the news that they are playing against a bunch of part timers from my home town though I am comforted that a right wing blog goddess has also attempted to knock his hat to one side in the comments on his post……very respectfully, of course.

My only worry is that my friend, the beautiful and gifted Cubachi, might take his side…..sigh….

Street Hill is a narrow road that curves down to the busy Balcombe Road (B2036) just a few hundred yards to Junction 10A of the M23. Even if one car is parked on the curve a driving hazard is created for vehicles coming down the hill to join the Balcombe Road so something like this is not at all helpful…

That’s right, a whole load of Sky vans parked the length of Street Hill…

Thanks a bunch, Mr Murdoch and Sky for regularly making life difficult for us. I note that your company is celebrating record profits so maybe it could afford to park it’s vans offroad. Goodness knows what the drivers are doing while their vehicles are left along there for a day but why should they worry about inconveniencing us once every few weeks – after all when Sky’s vans aren’t there a local dealer finds it useful to leave some of their stock on Street Hill.

Most of them in the picture happen to be Toyotas but I don’t think this has been done by a Toyota Dealer. These cars were stored here for most of the day last week, it’s a regular event and it is a favourite parking spot for employees of Crawley Audi so maybe we could look in that direction….after all it should be comparatively easy to trace the provenance of this car

Maybe worth contacting Sherlock Holmes?

Amy Chua, a professor at Yale caused quite a storm when her article about the superiority of Chinese mothers was published in the Wall Street Journal. Although I don’t agree with everything she said I loved the shrieks and screams it produced amongst the chattering classes both here and in the USA

First, I’ve noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children’s self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children’s psyches. Chinese parents aren’t. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.

As a parent and grandparent, and after forty years of teaching teenagers in some pretty tough schools I would say Amy has a point there. Children can usually recognise false praise within a microsecond of it being given and quickly become adept at using the self esteem card to ward off any attempt to defer their own gratification.

J E Dyer, a retired naval intelligence officer and evangelical Christian, was also impressed by Chua but felt that the debate sparked off by her article needed to be seen within a cultural context.

The narrower focus on whether children should be channeled, pressured, and denied recreation is unquestionably worthwhile, but it doesn’t fully illuminate the cultural context in which our choices about that are made. For Westerners, the maternal type is as much as about the mother as it is about the performance of the children

.
Enter Sarah Palin, according to Dyer, Mama Grizzly rather than Tiger Mom

The Western counterpart of the Tiger Mom—the American counterpart in particular—can arguably be identified as the Mama Grizzly. Palin is one instance of the type: a mother of five, she runs a family business with her husband, but raising her children is Job One. She doesn’t expect her children to be perfect; she teaches them principles for honest and honorable life, and accepts that the day will come when she must trust them to act on those principles. She does encourage the children to try new things, master the skills that mean survival in the environment they will live in, and find what they love in life and what they want most to do.

Chua’s message seems to demand a total focus on the relationship between parents and children and the need to fit in with society’s expectations, very much part of the Confucian tradition. But Sarah Palin exemplifies a more western approach to society,

In this culture, a mother’s business is to broker the moral project of society for her children. And, as with all brokerage, it’s a two-sided challenge: the archetypal Mama Grizzly is as determined to shape society for her children as she is to shape her children for society.

Hence Palin’s entry into politics was initially driven by a desire to improve the community within which her children would grow and develop. Chua spent hours pushing her children to score highly in their school assignments and perform flawlessly at musical recitals. Palin spent countless hours at PTA meetings trying to ensure that her kids – and others – got a better deal.

Dyer, quite rightly in my opinion, feels that differing cultures can learn from each other

There is much to admire and learn from in Chinese and other Asian cultures. The definitive features of Western culture—society as a moral project, women as integral moral participants—are echoes of the Law of Moses and the tenets of Christianity. But in other things—honoring parents, respecting the elderly, avoiding debt, resisting sloth—the Asian cultures often reflect God’s prescription for the blessed life better than ours.

Read the rest of Dyer’s piece here – and maybe you might, like me, imagine the most famous episode of Sarah Palin’s Alaska never made – the Palins and the Chuas go camping….

Sadly it appears that Allahpundit at Hot Air has finally come to the conclusion that Palin is toast. (see Allahpundit “Palin is toast” post #143) As he helpfully points out when you lose the support of such red hot Palinistas as Krauthammer, Gillespie and GOP “strategists” then your days are numbered. Even over here the creepy but incredibly influential Alex Massie (“we always read Alex Massie before we clear the dogs mess in the garden” says Mrs G of Pimlico) has to admit that only her hardcore supporters would ever vote for her now.

They are implying that she should really have adopted the deckchair ploy (“under pressure fold like a deckchair”) that has enabled so many conservative politicians on both sides of the pond to gain the approval of the chattering classes and their mouthpieces in the elite media. But her refusal to either keep quiet or accept some partial responsibility for the Tucson shootings means that she can never now attend a social event in New York, Washington or Los Angeles and be welcomed with open arms and thus be immune from obeying well established rules on a commercial flight.

That is such a pity because the initial reaction to her Facebook video response from Ed Morrissey and Hot Air readers, including many of those traditionally critical of Palin, was extremely positive. But clearly, just like British Communist Party members in 1939 when Moscow signed the Nazi/Soviet Pact, they must now obey the orders of their overlords and perform a political about turn.

Yes – Palin is toast, once again…….

Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph thinks Sarah Palin is “nuts” for using the term “blood libel” in her response to the Tucson killings and the subsequent media feeding frenzy.

1. She’s so ignorant that she doesn’t know that “blood libel” refers to the myth that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed children.
2. She does know what it means, and blurted it out anyway.

Interesting.

I guess the self styled religious expert Thompson is referring to the infamous Damascus Blood Libel of 1840. In that year a French monk, Father Thomas, vanished into thin air and the French consul in Damascus, Ratti Menton, claimed that Jewish merchants were responsible for the monk’s disappearance.

It was all part and parcel of a French attempt to re establish influence in Syria when it returned to direct Ottoman rule after several years of Egyptian control. The French were very close to the previous regime – indeed many Syrian Muslims feared that soon their land would eventually come under French rule. Once Ottoman authority was restored in 1840 some Muslims began advocating a policy of repressing the Christian minority so Menton needed an event to divert their anger elsewhere and the monk’s disappearance offered an opportunity too good to miss.

Until the early years of the nineteenth century traditionally relationships between Muslims and Jews in Syria had been relatively peaceful. But with the influx of many French priests and monks during the 1830s there came also a tradition of virulent medieval anti Semitism which expressed itself in dark tales of secret Jewish rituals which required human blood for the celebration of Passover rites.

Rumours began to spread through Damascus that Father Thomas had been murdered for such a reason. Within days an all enveloping frenzy of speculation led to the arrest, torture and subsequent confession of several pillars of the Jewish community with the French consul often at the forefront of the action.

However, when news of this event reached Europe and the USA many leading Jews used their contacts to publicise the plight of their co-religionists and strong diplomatic pressure from Britain, Austria and the United States persuaded the Sultan in Constantinople to order not only the release of the prisoners and a recognition of their innocence but also to issue an edict condemning the very nature of the blood libel frenzy

“…and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth…”.

For a while the Sultan’s words dampened the flames but during the rest of the century there were sporadic blood libel eruptions often fostered by  newspapers and pamphleteers throughout the middle east. Now, even in modern times, in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, taking an anti Israeli slant, the ferment is still bubbling away.

Thompson is obviously taking Palin to task because, he claims, the term can only refer to a specifically Jewish context.

Is he right?

Not according to Jim Geraghty at NRO who has dug up several examples of “blood libel” being used in the context of exploiting an incident involving death or the danger of death for political gain by making accusations against individuals or groups without any factual evidence – interestingly most of these come from the political left.

Even more tellingly Alan Dershowitz, a leading American jurist, a Jew and politically no friend of Sarah Palin would know exactly where to file Thompson’s pontification – straight into the bin…

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

It would seem clear that Palin’s use of the blood libel phrase in a wider sense outside a specifically Jewish context is nothing new in terms of political debate. But there could have been something much more significant in her mind when she chose to use that phrase. She might well have glanced through a widely praised book on the 1840 incident written by Professor Jonathan Frankel. Daniel Pipes, in his review of the book, thought it was a well written account of what had happened. However he believed Frankel’s main achievement was not so much the telling of the story but his analysis of it’s impact upon world Jewry

But the real impact of the Damascus affair, Frankel shows, lay in Europe, where it led to a formidable backlash against Jews, the greatest in years. Jews found themselves completely unprepared for the tribulations they suffered but learned from this tragedy to organize and lobby, and from that came the first stirrings of modern Jewish solidarity, the basis of the formidable institutions that followed.

Perhaps Palin is also giving a message to conservatives on how to deal with a permanently hostile media which never hesitates to use lies and gross insults to demonise and break anything it perceives as a threat to it’s monopoly and privileges – but maybe that is far to subtle for Mr Thompson to grasp….indeed I doubt he even bothered to listen to the whole speech. Someone probably mentioned the blood libel phrase while he was checking his six figure salary and he decided to be terribly terribly clever…. 

Exit question – might it not be time for Damian Thompson to arrange an appointment with his therapist?

cross posted at C4P