So even though the Yankees losing will be "good for baseball," as it will allow other teams to get to the series, and I'd love it if Minnesota went all the way, to show Bud Selig that he doesn't know anything, I can still be said if my Yanks lose, right?


David Perlmutter has an intriguinglook at the role Jewish leaders play in the Jewish community. He says:

So why have Jewish leaders not been at the vanguard--as some evangelical Christian leaders have--of exposing the Islamic fascist Fifth Column in America and the dominance of ideas of Islamic global conquest in many Muslim countries?...Why aren't we connecting the dots between Saudi intelligence services and 9/11 or between the origins of the Palestinian movement and the Third Reich? Why aren't we publishing and brandishing the names of the many foreign policy "experts" and "Arab-American leaders" who are, in fact, on the payroll of the House of Saud? Why are we so afraid to attack instead of defending and conciliating?

Why not? Because the Jewish community isn't sure where it stands at the moment. Traditionally, Jews are liberals, but the recent actions of the Democratic Party has been driving them right. Traditionally, Jews ally themselves with blacks (remember who marched next to King in Selma? A rabbi), but the self-proclaimed black leaders, Jackson, Sharpton, et al., have been allying themselves vehemently with the Palestinians. The government is somewhat our ally, but the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so volatile that no one knows where the Government stands day by day, not nearly enough time to build up a coalition.

We can't "attack," as Perlmutter suggests, because it's really hard to attack someone while standing on a see-saw. Essentially, the political ground beneath the feet of Jewish leaders is altogether too wobbly -- they are hesitant to go on the offensive when they aren't sure who is going to back them up.

Traditional supporters -- Democrats -- are lagging. The mythical Jewish lobby is a favorite target these days; McKinney and her supporters (essentially, most of the left) blamed it for her defeat. How can Jewish leaders mount an attack without supporters? The reason that AIPAC is a big political player -- and it is, but it doesn't "control" the government anymore than any other lobby -- is that it has a lot of supporters in the government, which it wouldn't if it followed the suggestions of Perlmutter.

Attack the Islamists -- regardless of their affinity for terrorism -- is risky at best. We've seen how hesitantly Senators criticize investments in Saudi Arabia. Heck, we can't even get Pat Roush her daughters back! If AIPAC were to start actively mounting an offensive against Arabs that went beyond the scope of Israel or terrorism against America, AIPAC would come under heavy fire from most of the left, thereby harming its primary mission.

Additionally, the government would have a hard time jumping wholeheartedly on an AIPAC-led bandwagon. How could it without appearing to cater to "Israeli influences"? What comment could be made by Jewish leaders that wouldn't immediately be discredited by the segment of the population that need to hear it the most? It's important that AIPAC and mainstream Jewish leaders stay out of the wider debate on the Fertile Crescent.


I just hate the thought that in once red-state New Jersey, we may lose slimy Robert Toricelli for Slick Willy. That's right, he has a week to move if he wants to run. EW! Imagine the two of them in the Senate-- together? I know it's just conjecture, which makes me feel good. Plus, I was walking with a friend in New Rochelle and we saw the house that Will and Hill had looked at, which is now entirely Secret Service friendly, since a house must be so before an ex-President is allowed to even consider moving there. I don't know of too many houses in the Garden State with a command post next to the laundry room. Thank God.

So, Torricelli just quit. His resignation speech was just broadcast over the radio (and what a maudlin, over-wrought speech it was!).

I'm glad he's gone. I support Bush -- hey, no one's accused me of being liberal -- but I don't think we should have a Republican Senate. The politics at the moment are too precarious to allow the President free rein over both the White House and the Senate. And I realize that the Dem's hold is tenuous at the moment, but it is something of a counter-weight to Dubya. Hopefully, the mid-term elections will spur Daschle and Co. on to greater efforts (maybe garnering some more blue seats). Maybe if the Democrats were more secure in their footing, they wouldn't be so reactionary, as they are now.

We need two strong parties right now, and Torricelli was a blemish on the Democrats. His standing was falling greatly (one poll had him behind by 13 points), and his chances of winning were minimal.

Now...who to replace him?


Cool morning in NYC
So this morning, I walked in the Juvenile Diabeties Research Foundation Walk to Cure Diabeties. It was really cool-- it started in Battery Park, went around lower Manhattan, across the Brooklyn Bridge and back. Plus, I got to go to Ground Zero, where I'd never been.
It was also a good day for illegal street vendors profiting off of September 11-related merchandise, as I bought a NYPD hat (I forgot my sunglasses) and others in my group bought I Love New York stuff. I wonder if that's really as illegal and wrong as they say it is.
If Illegal downloads are a drug and drugs support terror , does the money from illegal downloads go to terrorists?
It's a mobius strip of inane contributions!