ThinkProgress Logo

Media

The New “Anti-Semitism”

As if on cue, The New York Times reports “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”. The essay is by David Harris. The publisher is the American Jewish Committee. To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism seems to be that it isn’t anti-semitism. Certainly, to qualify as a “new anti-semite” it doesn’t seem to be necessary to have a bigoted view of the Jewish religion or of Jewish people as an ethnic or cultural group. The author pretends to argue that hostility to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism, which is fairly ridiculous on its own terms, but as you read through the examples that’s clearly not what he’s saying. Rather, his view is that some people make what he regards as extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel, and that anti-semites would also make such criticisms, so therefore anyone who criticizes Israel too stridently is either practicing anti-semitism or else creating it.

Needless to say, similar standards don’t apply elsewhere. Check out my friend Mark Leon Goldberg’s post about Anne Bayefsky’s ridiculous accusation that “the U.N. provides sustenance for the Iranian genocidal threat, which is directed at Israel now, and America next.” That’s a crazy, absurd, and horribly unfair thing to say. It’s not, however, evidence of racial animosity against Persians, or South Koreans or whomever. By the same token, criticism of Israel — even ill-informed, unfair, unduly harsh criticism of Israel — isn’t anti-semitism, it’s political disagreement.

At any rate, when you think about it, things like this essay or Jonah Goldberg’s little McCarthyite smears aren’t really about convincing people that I’m an anti-semite, or that Tony Judt or Adrienne Rich or Tony Kushner is. The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can’t, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing. And based on my observations of the blogosphere, it works pretty well as a tactic.

Politics

“I would suggest moving back,”

caterpillar.jpgBush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor during his visit to a Caterpillar factory today. “I’m about to crank this sucker up.” Newsweek notes, “As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety. ‘Get out of the way!’ a news photographer yelled. ‘I think he might run us over!’ said another. … Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor’s window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned.”

Yglesias

I’m Questioning Something

New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz writes:

If you buy today’s WSJ, you’ll also get a 3/4 of a page premium: Fouad Ajami’s dazzling essay on why the Sunnis are being defeated in Iraq, and why it is right that they should be. It’s my estimate that Saudi Arabia will accede to Shia dominion in Iraq; in any case, it hasn’t many options. It certainly doesn’t have battalions to fight it. Sunni Jordan has even fewer options, and it is not heroic. This is also the end of Egypt as a diplomatic intermediary. It has zero cards to play in Iraq. The Arabs know that increasingly it is standing on very wobbly knees. Soon, its nationhood will be questioned … and not just by me. Sunni Egypt can’t even function as a middleman between Israel and the Sunni Palestinians. But that gets me on to another subject.

What does this mean? Are we questioning the nationhood of Egypt or of “the Arabs”? And why are we celebrating the rise of Shi’a power in Iraq while simultaneously we’re in the grips of white-knuckled fear about Iran? Ajami’s article is no better — full of baffling, unsupported assertions. “Iraq’s Shia majority . . . has come to view the Palestinians and their cause with considerable suspicion.” Since when? Have we forgotten about this so quickly?

Politics

Bush Administration Has Pressured Half Of Gov’t Scientists To Downplay Global Warming

hansen1.gif A new report presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project shows 435 instances in which the Bush administration interfered into the global warming work of government scientists over the past five years. Some other findings of the survey:

46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”

46 percent “perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.”

38 percent “perceived or personally experienced the disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate.”

25 percent “perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

James Hansen, the government’s top global warming researcher, has also revealed that the Bush administration tried to prevent him from speaking freely about global warming to the media. In 2004, the administration also had a requirement that “NASA press officers listened in whenever NASA scientists spoke with reporters, either on the telephone or in person.”

Politics

Senate Multimillionares Vote To Block Minimum Wage Hike

After repeated delays by conservatives, the Senate voted 87-10 today to end debate on legislation that will raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25. The bill will move to a full vote in the next several days.

Ten right-wing senators stuck together and voted to further delay raising the minimum wage:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)

As ThinkProgress detailed in a report last year, at least two of those 10 senators — Gregg and Isakson — are multimillionaires with a combined fortune of up to $35.5 million. Despite their enormous personal wealth, they refuse to grant even a small raise to the nearly 8 million Americans who live on $5.15 an hour:

gregg.JPG Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)

TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $3,402,000 and $10,055,000

HIGHLIGHTS: In Oct. 2005, Gregg won $853,000 in the Powerball lottery. He owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Fleet Bank, as well as between $250,000 and $500,000 in Bristol Myers stock and between $50,000 and $100,000 in Exxon and Verizon stock.

KEY QUOTE: “If you start losing jobs because you raise minimum wage too quickly, too fast that small employers can’t afford it, that’s going to have an effect on peoples’ opportunity to work.” [Gregg, 6/21/06]

isakson.JPG Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

TOTAL HOLDINGS: Between $7,631,000 and $25,515,000

HIGHLIGHTS: Isakson owns between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in both Wachovia and Riverside Bank stock. He also holds 12 acres of Georgia real estate valued between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000.

KEY QUOTE: “Robert Reich, once observed ‘most minimum wage workers aren’t poor.’ He is right.” [Isakson, 6/20/06]

Digg It!

Politics

Rep. Cooper: White House Barred Negroponte From Saying ‘Global’ And ‘Warming’ In Same Sentence

During today’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the political manipulation of climate change science, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) revealed the Bush administration has barred Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte from saying the phrase “global warming.”

Cooper said he recently attended a dinner party at which Negroponte was speaking, and “word slipped through the crowd he was not allowed to utter the words ‘global warming,’ at least not in the same sentence. Apparently, he was allowed to say the word ‘global’ in a separate sentence, and ‘warming’ in a separate sentence, but not together.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/01/coopernegroponte.320.240.flv]

Digg It!

UPDATE: Several more videos from today’s hearing are HERE.

Transcript: Read more

Politics

McCain Flip Flops, Now Says He Would Not Consider Redeployment Under Any Scenario

In a recent interview with The Politico, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that if his escalation strategy for Iraq fails, then he would consider redeployment:

“If this strategy doesn’t succeed, we will have to devise another strategy,” McCain said. “But I have to hasten to add there are no good options.” One of those options, McCain said “is to withdraw to the borders (of Iraq) to try to keep other countries from interfering. Maintaining our bases in Kuwait and other places. There are a lot of scenarios.”

It didn’t take long for McCain to backtrack from redeployment. Last night, in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, McCain said under no scenario would he consider withdrawing troops, even if escalation fails. He said he would only consider it when “we have the situation under control.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/01/mccainredeploy.320.240.flv]

In the interview, McCain also said Vice President Cheney was wrong to state that there have been enormous successes in Iraq. McCain claimed he has “bitterly disagreed” with the “failed strategy” for more than three years. In fact, here’s what he said approximately a year ago:

I think the situation on the ground is going to improve. I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up