--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Remember, this came from the typing fingers of the
> same guy who
> complained recently that you can't point out that
> the New York Times
> is owned by Jews without being take for Goebbels.
> Indeed.
*******
I remember....
> But, whatever AC's faults, insentitivity to language
> isn't one of
> them. He wrote the phrase "outside Jewish money"
> knowing exactly what
> its connotations were and how they would be taken by
> lots of Nation
> readers. In fact, I'm pretty certain that annoying
> Nation readers was
> one of his main intentions with that column. Which
> isn't always a bad
> thing, but in this case he's writing just the
> critique that the
> pro-Israel lobby would want - one that evokes
> anti-Semitism. That
> sort of approach won't win any converts. What's the
> point of writing
> political columns? To convince readers, or at least
> make them think,
> or amuse yourself and alienate large numbers of
> people?
******
Two things: (1) the "money" was from "outside" the
state and from "jewish" sources. Your repsonse to AC
is muted compared to the crap McKinney took for her
"outside Arab money." So, one point AC could be
making, aside from just stirring the bees, is that
there is a menacing double standard in American
treatment of Israeli-jewish issues and Arab-Islamic
issues. Look at Billy Grahams son....shit if you
substituted jewish for islamic, the New York press
would have destroyed him.....(we can discuss NYC as
the epicenter for this hyper-senstitivity to
antisemitism later).
(2) as for why use the language, for the reason we are
not talking about your writing or Max's or even Brad's
(lord knows his views piss off a lot of people here):
sex sells...or least "sexy" writing sells.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com