The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Monday, February 22, 2010
Haaretz's Skewed Slant On Israel's Popularity A new Gallup poll shows that 67 percent of Americans view Israel favorably. In comparison, 20 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Palestinian Authority. 90 percent of Americans like Canada, so leave it to Haaretz to come up with this negative slant: "With all due respect to Washington's special relationship and shared values with Israel, Americans much prefer their neighbor to the north." In fact, the poll numbers are good news for Israel, and confirm that a large majority of Americans remain supportive. However, the poll does confirm the liberal-conservative divide on Israel. Among Republicans, 80 percent support Israel and 12 percent support the Palestinians. The gap drops to 53 percent-25 percent among Democrats. Friday, February 19, 2010
Haaretz's Bizarro World Only in Haaretz could the liquidation of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh - in the event that he was killed by the Mossad - be deemed a huge blunder by the Mossad and a tremendous failing by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Based on some of the absurd press coverage, one might believe that al-Mabhouh is alive and well, while many leading Mossad agents are under arrest in an Arab country for attempted murder. Of course, al-Mabhouh was in fact successfully eliminated without any collateral damage. The operatives - if they are Mossad agents - all appeared to escape Dubai. It is possible that they will be identified, but at least as likely that they never will be. Perhaps their Mossad careers are over, but perhaps not. The one questionable aspect of this operation - again in the event that it was Israel's - was the use of names and passport numbers of dual citizens of Israel and European countries. The Haaretz line is followed by perhaps ten percent of Israelis. Yet since it is an English language newspaper with a prominent website, media across the world erroneously assume that the nonsense published on Haaretz's editorial and op-ed pages is actually representative of public opinion in Israel. Thursday, February 18, 2010
Martin Grossman - Everyone Is Right Martin Grossman was a thug even before he committed a vicious murder that he tried to cover up. He was not completely evil, had expressed remorse and was a better person 25 years later. Most of those who called for his death sentence to be changed to life imprisonment did so only because he was Jewish, and have no qualms about other murderers being executed. The public campaign on Grossman's behalf had no chance of success at convincing Charlie Crist to stay execution. But no efforts would have had any success, inasmuch as all of Grossman's legal options had already been exhausted. All of these points are right. I support the death penalty in principle, but on a limited basis. I think some people awaiting execution deserve life imprisonment. Some - almost all of whom are African American - deserve immediate release along with an apology and monetary damages that will never adequately compensate them, because they are in fact innocent. I did not ask anyone to commute Grossman's death sentence, but have no problem at all with those who did. Indeed, for the most part their advocacy - even if mistaken - is far better than apathy. A Jewish person who calls for a Jewish death row inmate to be spared execution is not a phony or a hypocrite. Nor were religious Christians who called for Karla Faye Tucker to be spared execution phonies or hypocrites. Having empathy for a particular individual with whom one has something in common is not hypocritical. Everyone who advocated for Grossman or for Tucker had every right to do so. The merits of their advocacy can be disputed and debated, but to impugn their character for doing so is completely unfair. And yet on both sides of the debate, that's what has occurred in the aftermath of the Grossman matter. Warm Winds From Canada I don't know whether many Israelis or their American supporters have noticed how pro-Israel Canadian PM Stephen Harper is compared with prior leaders in Canada. Technically, on matters of policy, the U.S. is much more supportive of Israel than Canada - which has generally adhered, more or less, to a Western European stance. But it's quite obvious that in his gut, Harper likes Israel a lot more than, say, Barack Obama - not to mention some mid-level people in the Obama Administration. Perhaps this is mostly just about Harper, but more likely, it is indicative of a fundamental right-left split on Israel that has now reached Canada. If so, the conservative support for Israel is most welcome, but Israel and its supporters must demonstrate to well-meaning moderate liberals the absurdity and hypocrisy of their implicit support for repressive regimes and terrorist murderers. In this regard, Israel must counter the "occupation" narrative by doing a lot better at explaining the bases for its presence in Judea and Samaria. Sports Musings 1. I don't know anything about the Winter Olympics; nevertheless, let me be the first to say this: Lindsey Vonn's constant kvetching about her injury was not cool. 2. 30 years ago, as a 7 year old, I watched the entire Winter Olympics, home sick with the flu for nearly three weeks. I probably would have become a sports addict regardless, but watching the thrilling performances of the US hockey team and speedskater Eric Heiden didn't help. 3. Is spring training the right time to call for Bobby Valentine's return to Flushing, or must we wait for Opening Day? 4. Mets fans are so pessimistic about 2010 that I expect the Mets to do better than most of us expect. The Mets will probably tease us with an 83 or 84 win season, hanging on to the periphery of the wildcard race until mid-September. Then, Jeff Wilpon and Omar Minaya will express regret about those unfortunate injuries that caused the Mets to come up a bit short, and assure us that they will be hard at work to build a "championship-caliber" team. 5. I'm skeptical about the media hype regarding Chad Pennington returning as backup to Mark Sanchez. Sure, Pennington would be a perfect mentor, and could step in if Sanchez misses games due to injury. But Pennington will have better opportunities, and the Jets can only sign one unrestricted free agent for each one they lose. With very limited ability to sign free agents, the Jets will have other needs to address prior to backup QB. 6. Recently released by the Jags, Torry Holt would be perfect as the Jets #3 WR. Since he was released, the Jets could sign Holt without regard to the free agency restrictions. 7. Bruce Ratner bought a Nets team that went to the NBA Finals twice in a row and in just a few years, turned it into one of the worst teams in sports history. Whether via karma, divine retribution, or simply bad luck, Nets fan can only hope that Ratner's real estate empire has a similar fate. Still, no 5-49 team has ever had a brighter future than the Nets. Monday, February 15, 2010
Andrew Sullivan On Whether Andrew Sullivan Is An Anti-Semite Once a staunch supporter of Israel, over the past couple of years Andrew Sullivan has become one of its most vicious demonizers. An article last week by Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic insinuated (but did not say) that Sullivan is an anti-Semite. The new Andrew Sullivan furiously rejects this notion. But if the old Andew Sullivan is to be believed, then Wieseltier has a point. As the 2002 Andrew Sullivan wrote: Compare Israel to any other Middle Eastern country — Syria’s satrapy in Lebanon, Mubarak’s police state, Iraq’s barbaric autocracy or Iran’s theocracy — and it’s a beacon of light. To single it out for attack is so self-evidently bizarre that it prompts an obvious question: what are these anti-Israel fanatics really obsessed about?...Particularly over the last year, Andrew Sullivan has relentlessly singled out Israel, its leadership and its supporters for one vitriolic attack after another. His style is bitter, angry and blaming. He should hardly be surprised if the most poisonous form of resentment has sprung up - even if unbidden - in his midst. Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Jets' Six Best Wins And Worst Losses The Best Wins 1. Jets defeat Colts 16-7 on January 12, 1969 to win Super Bowl III. 2. Jets defeat Raiders 27-23 on December 29, 1968 to win the AFL Championship and advance to the Super Bowl. 3. Jets defeat Jaguars 34-24 on January 10, 1999 to advance to the AFC Championship, in Bill Parcells' only Jets playoff victory. 4. Jets defeat Raiders 17-14 on January 15, 1983 to advance to the AFC Championship. 5. Jets defeat Chargers 17-14 on January 17, 2010 to advance to the AFC Championship. 6. Jets defeat Bengals 44-17 on January 9, 1983 for their first playoff win since Super Bowl III. The Worst Losses 1. Jets lose the AFC Championship to the Broncos 23-10 on January 17, 1999. With a mediocre Falcons team stunning the Vikings in the NFC Championship, this loss blew the Jets' best opportunity to win a second Super Bowl. 2. Jets lose the AFC Championship (a/k/a Mud Bowl) to the Dolphins 14-0 on January 23, 1983. 27 years later, it remains inexplicable that Walt Michaels was forced to resign shortly thereafter and never coached in the NFL again. 3. Jets lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Browns 23-20 on January 3, 1987, blowing a 10 point lead in the final minutes. 4. Jets lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Steelers 20-17 on January 15, 2005, a loss that epitomized Herm Edwards' insistence on playing not to lose - soundbites and book titles to the contrary notwithstanding. 5. Jets lose the AFC Championship to the Colts 30-17 on January 24, 2010. 6. Tie: A) Jets lose to Kansas City Chiefs 13-6 on December 20, 1969. Joe Namath would never play another playoff game. B) Jets lose to Buffalo Bills 31-27 on December 27, 1981, in their first playoff game since the '69 loss. Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Who Had the Greatest Impact on the Mets? Gil Hodges The Black Cat Tom Seaver William Shea Walter O'Malley Jane Jarvis The Great Keith Hernandez Bobby Valentine Joe McEwing Nolan Ryan The list is of course incomplete. There were many great figures that impacted the Mets in the post Dodgers and Giants era. I could probably add a dozen or more names. But in my mind these ten were probably the most influential. Some names are controversial. But no one can deny they each had a major impact. For me it would be almost impossible to say which one of these contributed the most. Although I do have a choice. I am curious to find out what others think? Do one of these stand out more than the rest? | "
