"I wonder how someone could get into trouble right before a launch because of the way they keep us bottled up right before a flight," one astronaut tells the Times.

"Bottled up," yeah. Wink wink. Nice code words, there, Major Tom. We getcha. More "rocket fuel" on its way.... I love this story; and with the cosmonaut sounding off on it, it's like the Daily Show come to life!

Given the number of neocons and Nixonian refugees in this administration, and their reactionary/neofascistic mindset, I wouldn't be surprised if it was some rekindled COINTELPRO shotgun-wedded to CREEP -- political secret police, I guess.

Like how they went hard after so-called "eco-terrorists" (even though nobody's been actually killed by the eco-vandals) and antiwar protesters, while not systemically going after right-wing hate groups (even though they have killed people horribly, as in the cases where they've dragged people to death, etc.) or the militias (who actually advocate violent overthrow of the government and certainly fueled the Oklahoma City bombing, actual domestic terrorism).

I can imagine them treating a "terrorist surveillance program" (or Program X) as a means of going after political enemies under the aegis of national security, but wanting to keep that under their hats. Given that they treat partisan advantage as a national security issue (what's good for the GOP is good for America), I can see them working something like that.

Given that Jew-hatred is a prominent and distinct phenomenon in the Western mind (and the Islamic mind) it it sensible that it gets its own distinction. Muddying the linguistic waters does not serve intellectual honesty.

I think "Jew-hatred" would be a more precise and intellectually honest term, frankly -- but maybe that kind of precision is not wanted? "Anti-Semitism" actually does muddy the waters, by giving one Semitic group, the Hebrews, precedence over all other Semitic peoples, and by perhaps creating a euphemistic distance between the thoughts and the words. Like it's probably easier to label somebody an anti-Semite than to label them a "Jew-hater" -- there's wiggle room in the words. Sorry, I'm an editor, and I pay very close attention to words!

Just as the "barrier" the Israelis put up looks, well, like a wall (even though we're not permitted to call it that, and the media won't ever dare to call it that), so more precision in language might actually allow honest assessment of the situation in the region, and the condition of Israelis in the region.

But perhaps when "anti-Semitism" was created (1882, according to Webster's), I guess with the Muslim world under the monolithic Ottoman imperial bloc, there wasn't much consideration of Arabs in the West as anything other than "The Turk" or "The Hun" -- even more alien and mysterious!

The main point is that Israelis aren't being well-served by the American policy in the region, and that people in the Middle East, the folks who actually live there, have a stronger vested interest in peace with their Arab brethren than Americans do. The Israelis live there, the Arabs live there -- Americans aren't native to the region, and our interests have little to do with what is in the actual good of Israelis or Arabs.

Seems like the American advocacy officially on behalf of Israel (or else on behalf of people hoping to hasten Armageddon, it would seem) has made Israel more isolated, and less safe. I'm sympathetic to the plight of Israel -- I think the US is using them, and that kind of use is not serving their long-term interests as a nation, and as a people.

And I know that the tendency to brand as "anti-Semitic" any discussion of Israel in the States that isn't pinwheel-eyed zealotry (!) is similarly not serving either Israel's interests, or American interests. It certainly doesn't help the situation in the Middle East.

That gets back to what Mr. Greenwald said, how a loon like Clueless Joe Lieberman can be painted as mainstream, sensible, moderate, and serious is indicative of the need for not less talk of Israel and our policy, but more. And more honest talk.

Republicans can say whatever they want, and the Democrats can say whatever the Republicans want -- that's the media "consensus" that's tolerated. Nothing else is permissible speech.

I wonder what it is you edit. Certainly not Associated Press copy, which "dares" to the wall as "the wall."

...

Would you care to revise your remarks?

The International Court of Justice ruled it as a "wall," so maybe the ridiculousness of our media calling it anything BUT a wall (especially when pictures of it became more readily available) was too much even for the American press to ignore for long, although that wasn't the case when it was first constructed. I've certainly seen and heard "anti-terrorist fence," "fence," "security fence," "security barrier," "separation barrier," and simply "barrier" used far more commonly than "wall," Anonymous.

The Israelis themselves call it a "separation fence" -- the Palestinians call it a "racial segregation wall."

But you're missing the larger points, Anonymous.

In many ways, the US's relationship to Israel as not unlike the Golem of Prague to the Jewish ghetto it was intended to protect (with the US as the all-powerful Golem), which ends up more of a threat than a benefit to the Israelis in the long run -- Israel's dependence on American aid and favor with America's (and by extension, Israel's) diminished standing in international relations makes them (and us) less safe, not more.

The current policy of arming the Middle East to the teeth makes the region less safe, more prone to war, and more dependent on American aid -- a policy defensible only by, yes, more American aid, which precludes an even-handed, fair, and truly sustainable peace. It serves our defense industries very well, but doesn't do the Israelis any favors, nor the Arab majority in the region.

Awww, that sucks! Hopefully you'll be back again, right? I liked the way you did your writeups, the snappy tone. Viva Digby!