The accusation of anti-Semitism
Jan. 8th, 2004 08:43 am(This was originally a comment in
webcowgirl's journal, but I wanted to share.)
The New York Times recently published a column by one David Brooks in which he alleges that
those who oppose the neoconservative agenda are anti-Semitic. (More coverage: Talking Points, This Modern World)
I look forward to the Times carrying my rebuttal in next week's edition, in which I argue that Brooks only says that because he likes to fuck pigs.
The New York Times recently published a column by one David Brooks in which he alleges that
those who oppose the neoconservative agenda are anti-Semitic. (More coverage: Talking Points, This Modern World)
I look forward to the Times carrying my rebuttal in next week's edition, in which I argue that Brooks only says that because he likes to fuck pigs.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 02:38 am (UTC)By the same argument, what does he think "neo-Nazi" means?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 03:13 am (UTC)Kinda like all the phrases that English people can use when they want to be derogatory about homosexuals, or French people, or the disabled, which don't actually mean anything of the sort and would puzzle the hell out of anyone not steeped in our culture.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 03:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 06:21 am (UTC)I wonder if anyone bothered to tell Brooks that most American Jews actually vote Democrat and have done for as long as anyone can remember.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 06:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-08 06:23 am (UTC)(2) The only ones whose religion I'm aware of are fundamentalist Christians. From Texas. Several of them have gotten in the news for being prominent in their pro-Christian religious bigotry.
(3) These are the same people (like, the same actual physical human beings) who would, thirty years ago, talk about how those evil "New York" liberals are scheming to take away all your money, drink the blood of your babies, and kill Jesus. They worked for Nixon, for God's sake.
Neocon is not code for Jewish, 'K?
Ooh further proof
Date: 2004-01-08 10:04 am (UTC)