So much for freedom of speech at NPR

NPR's Juan Williams says in an interview that when he gets on to an airplane and sees Muslims in "Muslim garb," he "get[s] nervous."  Then he gets fired for these comments.

Imagine if Mr. Williams had said the same thing about Jews or Christians.  Would he have been fired?  Of course not; far from being offended, people would think he was delusional.  When was the last time Jews murdered others in the name of Judaism, or Christians in the name of Christianity?  Stumped?  You're not alone.  For Muslims, however, one need only go back a few weeks (no matter when you are reading this).  Is this tragic?  Certainly.  Is it true, though?  To deny this is to deny the earth is round.   But NPR is much more concerned with being politically correct (read denying reality) than with transmitting truth.  As I have said to many friends, the issue is not whether or not Muslim terrorists are misrepresenting their faith; that is for Islamic scholars to decide.  It is an undeniable fact, however, that for the majority of Muslim terrorists, they think that they are faithfully performing their god's will.  Are they all idiots, or is there something else going on here?

So Juan Williams says what is on millions of Americans' minds.  Are millions of Americans anti-Muslim bigots?  (To the media elite, that is a rhetorical question; it is a given.)  Or, in fact, are they just not oblivious to the events unfolding before their eyes, and do they just want to protect their families?

Are the majority of Muslims terrorists?  The notion is absurd.  But even according to the most conservative estimates, 10% of the Muslim world supports violent jihad to impose shariah.  Friends, that's 130 million people.  That's nearly one-third the population of the United States, and more than four times the population of Canada.  The majority of Muslims are not Arabs.  But the majority of Arabs are Muslims.  Why is this obvious truth any less legitimate than pointing out that the majority of terrorists are Muslims?

Considering there have been exactly zero protests by American Muslims against religious violence committed in the name of their faith, cut us all some slack if we are a bit more suspicious of someone dressed in Muslim garb than we would be of a Hasid from Brooklyn, an Evangelical from San Antonio, or a nun from Seattle.

Justice is served; IDF kills Hamas terrorists

At the end of August, four Israelis were murdered in a drive-by shooting near Hebron.   Yitzhak and Talya Ames, Kochava Even-Haim, and Avishai Shindler were shot as they drove to their home in the town of Beit Haggai.  At the time, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak promised that the perpetrators would be found, and they would be made to pay for their crimes.

It did not take long for justice to be served.

A month and a half after the murders, the Israel Defense Forces eliminated the murderers, at their hideout in Hebron.

While this does not, of course, bring back their innocent victims, it does bring justice to the world.  For murderers of innocents to continue to breathe free air is an affront to the God Who created all human beings in His image.

May God grant the IDF the safety and strength to hunt down and eliminate the other murderers of innocents.  If they can bring the terrorists to justice, fine.  If justice must be brought to them, so be it.

But justice will be served.

(By the way, before beginning their assault on the hideout, the IDF called on the occupants to leave the house, thereby eliminating the element of surprise.  Another example of the high ethical standards by which Israel holds it soldiers.)

Why doesn't anyone get it? Settlements have NEVER been the issue!

• Listening to leaders around the world, one would think that if only those darn Jewish settlements would disappear once and for all, or at least stop having the nerve to expand their homes to accomodate more family members, peace would immediately descend on the Middle East.  Palestinians would no longer have an excuse to target innocent Israelis, Yemen and Saudi Arabia would end their border dispute, and Iran would change its mind about wanting to anihilate Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Only someone who is completely ignorant of the history of this region could believe such foolishness.  And foolishness it is.  Consider:

• 1920 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1929 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1936-1939 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1947 - Arabs riot in Palestine, murdering Jews, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  (They rejected the UN Partition Plan (having rejected a number of previous partition plans, which would have established a Palestinian Arab state on much more of the land than they are asking for now.)  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948 - Arabs attack the newly-founded State of Israel, in hopes of destroying it at birth, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1948-1967 - Arabs launch terrorist attacks within the internationally-recognized borders of Israel, before a single settlement was built.  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1964 - PLO is founded, three years before a single settlement was built.  The Palestine (not Palestinian; a major distinction) Liberation Organization opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?
• 1967 - Arabs mass their armies on Israel's borders, openly proclaiming, "Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map" (Iraqi president Abdul Rahman Arif).  As of the start of the Six Day War, not one settlement had been built.  Yet the Arabs still wanted to destroy Israel.  Why?  They opposed any Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.  Were settlements preventing peace then?

How many more examples need be given?  The obstacle to peace in the Middle East/Israel/Palestine has never been "the settlements."  It has always been the Arab refusal to accept any sovereign Jewish presence anywhere in the Land of Israel.

Was any attempt made to establish a Palestinian state in the lands now claimed for one, when the Arabs controlled those lands?  Did the Palestinians even clamor for a state on those lands then?  No, they did not, because they felt that eventually, they would liberate the rest of Israel, turning it into a cohesive Palestine.  Yet in attempt after attempt, they have failed.  Israel stubbornly survived.  And continues to survive.

So they changed their tactics.  We do not want all of Israel, they say.  We just want the "Occupied Territories," nothing more.  Sorry, but that ship has sailed.  You Palestinians had chance after chance to have those territories, plus much more, a number of times in history, and you rejected each offer, and squandered each opportunity.

Before there were settlements, you attacked us.  When there are settlements, you attack us.  We will be damned if we will give you another chance to attack us, after there are no more settlements.  Because we both know, dear Palestinian, that if there would be no settlements, you'd just come up with a new excuse to attack us.  So we'll keep those "peace-process-impeding" settlements, thank you very much.

We have come home.  And we are staying.

PA cannot bring itself to condemn terrorism, sans caveats.

They just can't do it; it's almost like they are physically incapable of doing so.  Yasser Arafat could not do it, and Mahmoud Abbas serves as a worthy heir to this tradition.  Which tradition, you ask?  The Palestinian tradition of, when they actually do condemn a terrorist act, adding a caveat.  Why do they condemn the act?  Because it is "contrary to Palestinian interests," or it is "harmful to the peace process."  What these "condemnations" are actually saying is, of course, that if the particular terrorist act were not "contrary to Palestinian interests," or were not "harmful to the peace process," they would be acceptable (welcomed?).

Here's an idea: why does not the Palestinian leadership condemn terrorist acts because they are wrong, period?!  Is this such a difficult concept?  Well, for Mahmoud Abbas, it is too difficult.  This concept is not on his radar screen.  This man is a copy of Yasser Arafat, just better groomed, and with a more presentable appearance.  He, like Arafat, say the right things to western media, and the media dutifully fawn over him.  They declare him to be the most moderate Palestinian leader out there, a man with whom Israel can do business, and a man who truly wants to end the conflict once and for all.  Yet this man of peace consistently allows messages of hatred, violence, and antisemitism to be broadcast on official PA television, radio, and print media.  He says that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  He declares that should Israel not extend the freeze on building in Judea and Samaria (a requirement not mentioned in any one of the peace agreements thus far signed, as opposed to the Palestinian requirement to cease any and all incitement), he will walk away from the negotiating table.  This is a man with whom Israel must negotiate?

Why are the vast majority of those in the media, and on the left side of the political spectrum (and, sadly, too many on the right side), so eager to embrace Mahmoud Abbas, despite his obvious non-commitment to peace?  The man cannot even simply declare, "I condemn the terrorist attack near Hebron, in which four Israelis were murdered.  The deliberate murder of innocents is wrong."  I believe that those who are enthused with Abbas are willfully fooling themselves.  They have so convinced themselves that all people desire to live in peace with their neighbors, and are, deep down, good, that they cannot bring themselves to deal with the reality staring them in the face.  They come up with a myriad of excuses as to why this or that inciting statement should not be taken at face value: It's just for internal consumption, they say.  He needs to allow freedom of the press, they say.  He is the most moderate Palestinian leader there will be for many years, they say.  Well, I, for one, am not consoled by any of these notions.  Can anyone imagine similar things being said about an Israeli leader who allowed such rhetoric to be regularly expressed in official Israeli media outlets, and who "condemned" an Israeli terrorist act on the grounds that it "contradicted Israel interests"?  The man would be run out of town, and justifiably so.

But the Palestinian leadership has always gotten a pass on statements like these.  Those who issue the pass may think that they are advancing the peace process.  In truth, however, they are sending a clear message: We do not expect anything better from you, Palestinians.  We do not hold you to the same standards of civility by which we hold nearly every other people.

And the Palestinian people, and their leaders, get this message, loud and clear.

Islam seeks to dominate. Judaism & Christianity do not.

The fundamental goal of Islam is that all people submit to the rules of Islam (shari'ah), with all which that entails.  Whether your next door Muslim neighbor wants you personally to be a Muslim is irrelevant.  At its core, Islam seeks to dominate the world with its teachings and practices.  Recall that the word Islam means "submission" - submission to the will of Allah, which translates as submission to shari'ah (Muslim law).  It does not mean, as many Muslims and Muslim apologists would like us to believe, peace, shalom.  The word Islam may have etymological roots in shalom, but the word means submission.  Period.

Ah, you say, but does not Christianity want the same thing, for all people to recognize Jesus Christ as their personal savior?  Yes, it does.  But that is essentially where it ends with Christianity.  As Paul taught in the New Testament, the main law now is faith in Jesus.  Not in rituals, but in beliefs.  Christianity does not have a detailed set of rules which affect nearly every aspect of a person's life, as Islam does (and Judaism does, as well).  There was no law in Christianity on which the Medieval Inquisitors based their torture of innocents in order to have them accept Jesus.  They merely felt that it was better for the non-believer to suffer temporarily in this world than eternally in the next.  If the non-believer would have accepted Jesus and gone to church, then that would have been that.  But Christianity would not have directed the minutiae of his life  So, no, dear reader, Christianity does not demand the same of people as Islam does.

Judaism strikes a middle road between Islam and Christianity.  While Judaism does make demands of the non-Jew, these demands are not in the ritual realm, but rather in the ethical realm.  In Jewish tradition, there are seven laws which apply universally.  They are called the Seven Commandments of Noah's Children (Sheva Mitzvot B'nei No'ach):

1. Do not eat a limb torn from a living animal.  (Apparently, this was a problem in the ancient world.)
   
2. Do not curse God.
3. Do not steal.
4. Establish a court system to enforce the other six laws.
5. Do not murder.
6. Do not serve idolatry.
7. Do not commit sexual immorality.

Note, there is no desire for the non-Jew to become Jewish, to keep the Sabbath every Saturday, to refrain from eating pork or shellfish, to light Hanukkah candles, to fast on Yom Kippur, to eat matzah on Passover, etc.  The goal of Judaism is simply this: to bring the world to ethical monotheism.  Believe in one God, and treat each other respectfully.  That is all.  Judaism believes that all good people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, can earn a spot in the World to Come.  If one wishes to accept the myriad other laws which Judaism demands of its adherents, he or she is welcome to join the Jewish people.  But submitting the world to halakhah (Jewish law) is not Judaism's goal.

A microcosm of the fundamental difference between these three religions occurred in September 2006 in Minneapolis.  A group of Somali taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refused to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol, as drinking is a violation of Islam.  (The airport's response was to accommodate the drivers, proposing that non-alcohol taxis put a different light on the tops of their cars.  A different response might have been: "You have a problem with your passengers bringing a legal substance into your taxi?  Get another job.")  Can anyone fathom a Christian driver refusing a fare because the passenger was eating a hamburger on a Friday?  How about a Jewish driver refusing a passenger wolfing down a ham and cheese sandwich?  The notion is preposterous.  But it is not preposterous at all when dealing with Islam.

I am not arguing, of course, that many Muslims would agree with the taxi drivers.  Most of them would recognize that the taxi drivers' complaint was absurd.  But this story speaks volumes about what a world dominated by Islam would look like.  And dominate the world with shari'ah, with dictating the details of life, is what fundamental Islam wishes to do.  Not fundamental Christianity.  Not fundamental Judaism.

If these words offend you, I am frightened for you.  One should not be offended by the truth.  Troubled, angered - yes.  But not offended.  If my analysis is wrong, please let me know.  But if my analysis is right, please let your friends and family know.  We are engaged in a life and death struggle against those who seek to impose the will of Allah, either peacefully or through force of arms, upon all of us.

Remember the Minneapolis taxi drivers.  Do not say you did not know what was coming.

The 6'8" height of arrogance - LeBron James

Does LeBron James think he is God's gift to basketball?  In seven years in the NBA, he has won a grand total of zero NBA championships.  Most recently, Michael Jordan won six; Kobe Bryant has five.  LeBron wants to be mentioned in the same breath as them.  The Cleveland Cavaliers, perennial laughingstocks of the league, did all they could to obtain the right players around him to build a championship-winning team.

But it didn't work.  And now, at a much-publicized press conference which smacked of tremendous self-glorification, King James has left Cleveland for Miami, where he says he feels he will have a better chance at winning a title.  Crazy question here: Perhaps it was not the Cavaliers' fault, but rather LeBron's?  Maybe he did not play well enough in the playoffs, and it had nothing to do with the team Cleveland built?  I doubt this thought has even crossed LeBron's mind, because in his head, he is owed an NBA championship, he has earned it.

The city of Cleveland embraced him, a native Ohioan, as its favorite son.  They made him who he is.  And now, he has unceremoniously dumped them, on the grounds that Miami has the tools to win him a championship.  He has shown his true colors.  He never wanted the Cavs to win; he wanted to win.  Plenty of great NBA players never won a championship, and they did not jump ship after their team, and they, put in years of effort to win one (see Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone, and others).

Let us say that James wins this coming season, or next, in Miami.  Will it be exciting for him?  Of course.  But will it be as sweet as if he had stayed in Cleveland, put in more effort, and won with the Cavs?  Of course not.  Since we live in an age of instant gratification, James feels he is entitled to win an NBA title.  Since he knows he is great, he believes that this is coming to him.  And if he has not won already, it must be due to his team, not due to him.  He sees his arch-rival, Kobe Bryant, filling up his fingers with rings, and he feels that should be him.

I used to respect LeBron James.  He struck me as one of the good guys, a guy you could not help but root for.  He turned around the mindset of a city that has virtually only known sports losers.  He was Cleveland, and Cleveland was him.  He could have made true the Drew Carrey Show's theme song: Cleveland Rocks!  Instead, he showed himself much more concerned for his own achievements than his team's.

I'm a Knicks and Spurs fan.  I did not want LeBron to sign with the Knicks; the team is well beneath him., and I knew the Spurs were not a possibility.  This season, I will be very happy if the Cavs win the championship.  They deserve it much more than the ungrateful King James.

More risks for peace?

We constantly hear how "both sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must take "risks for peace."  Prime Minister Netanyahu just announced at a press conference with President Obama that he was willing to do so.  The President said it was vital for Israel to do so.

Nonsense.  How many more "risks for peace" does Israel need to take?

1. Israel transferred thousands of weapons to the Palestinian Authority security forces, only to have those weapons turned against it during the Second Intifada.
2. Israel turned over territory in Judea and Samaria to full Palestinian civil and security control, only to have a number of these cities turn into terrorist hotbeds, from which originated many suicide bombers (e.g. Jenin, Qalqilya, Nablus et al).
3. Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, destroying Jewish communities and forcibly expelling their residents, only to have it become a launching pad of thousands of Qassam rockets into Israel.
4. Israel forcibly expelled four Jewish communities in northern Samaria.

Even if one believes that Israel is (much) more in the wrong in this conflict, one cannot seriously claim that Israel has not taken enough risks for peace.  By contrast, the Palestinians have taken virtually no tangible "risks for peace."

1. Have they taught their children that they should live in peace with their Israeli neighbors?  No, they teach them to hate all Jews (not just Israelis, highlighting the religious, not only political, element to this conflict), using language not seen since Nazi Germany.
2. Have they announced that suicide bombings are morally reprehensible?  No, they merely state that such attacks are counterproductive to achieving Palestinian nationalist goals.
3. Have they amended their various charters calling for Israel's destruction?  No (the 1998 Palestinian parliament vote in the presence of President Clinton was invalid, even according to the PLO's Covenant's own rules).  Hamas certainly maintains its open opposition to Israel's existence.
4. Have they ended incitement through their official media outlets (not from a fringe group)?  No, they constantly broadcast hate-filled, antisemitic sermons by PA-sanctioned imams.  (See MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch.)
   

So I ask those who call on Israel to take risks for peace, what more would you ask of Israel?  Which other risks would you like Israel to take?  For the risks it has already taken, thousands of Israelis have paid with their blood.  Yet Israel is called upon to give more and more, with nary a peep about the Palestinians' constant violations of their accepted obligations.

The bottom line is this: Israel has accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in its midst (though I completely reject this).  The Palestinians in particular, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, do not accept the existence of a tiny Jewish state in the middle of their world.  That is all one needs to know about the current conflict.  If the Palestinians genuinely wanted a state, they could have had one many times in the past.  But anything short of all of Israel, they rejected each and every overture.  But it is not a state they want; it is the destruction of Israel.

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow.  If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no Israel tomorrow.  No more Israeli "risks for peace," please.

More moral equivalency from J Street

Poor J Street.  They just can't help themselves.  As much as they would like to call themselves "pro-Israel," the simple fact is that any group which regards the Israelis and Palestinians as equally culpable for the lack of a peace agreement cannot reasonably call itself "pro-Israel."  Even if one hates the State of Israel (which I do NOT believe J Street does, by the way), one cannot seriously claim that the two sides share equal blame for there not being a Palestinian state yet.  I would much rather debate with someone who claims Israel is more at fault then with one who claims both sides are equally guilty.  The former might be persuaded by evidence; the latter is obviously more interested in political correctness than in discovering truth.

J Street falls into the latter category.  See this ad which they produced recently.  Here are my comments, with citations from the ad in bold:

• We feel deeply the sense of pain and anguish over the violence and insecurity wrought on Israel by Hamas through rockets and terror - Kudos to J Street for stating this.  Too many liberal/Left groups cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas' actions as terror; J Street did.  The problem is, though, despite their claim to "feel deeply" the pain of Israel, they do not support actions which would go a long way to minimizing the terror emanating from Gaza, such as bombing strategic targets as many times as it takes until the threat is neutralized.
• We are steadfast in remaining true to the vision of Israel's founders in creating a democratic, Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values - I hope J Street is not suggesting that Israel has strayed from this vision.  Israel is a model of how to protect the rights of all its citizens, even those citizens who openly call for the dismantling of the Jewish state (see a number of Arab Members of Knesset).  Israel's actions consistently demonstrate its commitment to the dignity of all people (certainly with exceptions, but one should compare Israel to other democracies, not to a Utopian country), and its army is among the most moral in the entire world.  How many armies call in air strikes to its targets to warn them to leave the battlefield (Gaza War)?  How many armies fight in house to house, hand to hand, combat instead of just bombing the (heck) out of its enemies (Jenin)?
• The international controversy surrounding the attack on the Gaza flotilla........concern[s] us deeply - It was NOT an attack on the Gaza flotilla.  It was an action of self-defense in response to an unprovoked, merciless attack by some of the passengers on the sixth boat.  They planned to attack the IDF commandos, and had no interest in actually delivering humanitarian goods to the Gazan people.  And in the act of self-defense, nine Hamas collaborators (and that is exactly what they were; please do not fool yourself) were killed.
• ...the growing isolation of Israel concern[s] us deeply - Why?  The issue should be, was/is Israel right or wrong?  If the world supports Israel, great!  If the world opposes Israel, great!  What is important is the righteousness of Israel's cause, not whether it has "the world" 's support.  A world which condemns Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation, including the worst human rights violators, while granting these nations spots on a human rights council or women's rights group, is not a world whose approval I wish to gain.  Period.
• ...the rhetoric and actions that feed fear and violence, emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders... - This is the giveaway.  "Emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders"?!  The Israeli side consistently expresses support for a Two-State Solution, however misguided it may be, in my opinion; the Palestinians refuse to speak to the Israeli side.  Israeli schoolchildren learn a curriculum of peace and reconciliation; the PA-controlled media broadcast messages of hate, violence, and rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.  How, exactly, does an unprecedented ten-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria (from an allegedly right wing Israeli government) qualify as an action which feeds fear and violence?  Why can J Street not have the intellectual honesty to recognize that one side has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace, while the other side consistently rejects these peace overtures?  If we cannot admit this uncomfortable truth, there will never be peace in this region.
• Od lo avda tikvateinu / We have not lost our hope - What a perversion of the words of Israel's national anthem!  Was it the hope of Israel's founders to have a Jewish and Arab state west of the Jordan?  No, they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan reluctantly.  Something was better than nothing.  But the Arabs rejected it out of hand, and tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state in its infancy (and this before even one settlement was constructed in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza!).  Ever since Israel extended its hand in peace, that Arabs have either slapped it away, or shaken it with their own hand, dripping with Jewish blood.  This last line in particular is disgusting, and belies the notion that J Street is concerned with Israel's best interests.  They either do not care about reality, or are in willful denial of it. 
  

The notion that Israel needs to be encouraged to make peace, either by the American government or by concerned Diaspora Jews, is laughable.  Israel need not prove its desire for peace anymore.  Let J Street take out ads in Arab newspapers; then there will be some glimmer of hope for peace.  Let J Street stop being a part of the problem, and start being a part of the solution.

Dutch lawmaker calls for Jordan to become Palestine

Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing Dutch political party, is calling for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to be renamed "Palestine."  (See also Melanie Philips' article from the Spectator.)  In his view, this will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as then the Palestinians will have a homeland to go to.  Before you say, "Huh?," remember that until Winston Churchill cut off eastern Palestine from Jewish settlement and gave it to the Hashemite clan from Saudi Arabia, all of Mandate Palestine, (modern Jordan and Israel), was to be the Jewish homeland.  Today, at least 70% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian.  It is not Israel's fault that Jordan was given to the wrong people, and its security today should not be threatened because of this error.

Let me state it unequivocally: I support Geert Wilders' idea.  For those who think this is untenable, I would submit that it is no more untenable than the notion that there can reasonably be an Israeli state, and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, west of the Jordan River.  Considering that, overall, the Palestinians have not yet accepted the notion of a Jewish state anywhere west of the Jordan (see their newspaper articles and television shows at MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch), and that a majority of Israelis (I being an exception) have accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and in most of Judea and Samaria, the Two State Solution is no solution at all.  Only one side has accepted this.  There is no chance for this idea to be successful.  Yet politicians from all sides maintain that this can happen in our time.

So why not try Geert Wilders' idea?  We have had nearly seventeen years of trying to implement a Two State Solution west of the Jordan.  Let's try a Two State Solution using both sides of the Jordan.

Win by more than five goals? YOU LOSE!

An Ottawa soccer league has ruled that if a team wins by more than five goals, the team loses the game.

You read that correctly. They lose the game.

Why the rule change? So that the losing teams not feel bad about the fact that they got shellacked. Heaven forbid they actually learn how to deal with failure, to lose with dignity and class, and how to overcome adversity. In the minds of the league’s incredibly foolish leaders, the children’s self-esteem must come first.

But how dumb do they think the kids on the losing team are? Will they not notice that the leading team has stopped playing hard? Will this not be insulting to them? Of course they will notice, and of course it will be insulting. Children are not dumb. When I lived in San Antonio, I served as a referee in a youth basketball league in which the scoreboard would never show a deficit of more than twenty points, for fear of dispiriting the losing team. Do you think they did not realize they were getting slaughtered? In this league, too, every participant received a trophy (and the exact same trophy), whether they finished in first or last place. (It goes without saying that there were no playoffs.) They basically got the trophy for breathing. In all my years of playing sports, I have won two trophies. Just two. One for a 1986 relay race, and one for a 1993 high school softball championship. Those trophies mean so much to me, because I earned them. There were no handouts back then.

Is there anyone reading this who cannot figure out if this league’s organizers have liberal or conservative leanings? (Even if they are actually conservatives, which I doubt, the action taken is certainly a liberal action.) In the liberal mind, feelings rule. They must do everything in their power to ensure that children do not feel bad about anything. Never mind the fact that one grows much more from one’s setbacks than from one’s successes. Never mind the fact that a baseball player can fail 70% of the time at the plate and still earn a spot in the Hall of Fame. To the liberal, short-term feelings trump long-term development. I do not think for a moment that the average liberal consciously realizes that he is favoring short-term feelings over long-term development, but in the final analysis, this is what happens. Intentions do not matter, results do.

As an example of the short-term thinking which went into this decision, did the league consider any of the following real possibilities? I strongly doubt it:

• The Tigers are winning 6-1 over the Bears. In the last minutes of the game, the Tigers lazily kick the ball towards the Bears’ goal. The Bears’ goalkeeper moves aside, letting the ball in, and thereby “wins” the game for his team. This is fair? This makes sense?
• Late in the game, the Tigers are winning 11-1; they refused to lower their intensity. Their coach, however, wants to legally win the game. He tells them to let up a bit, and they do. Will the Bears not realize that the Tigers’ goalkeeper is not making an effort to stop their shots? Will this a) help the Bears’ self-esteem, and b) make them better soccer players, since they are scoring garbage goals? Why not save time and have the Tigers kick the ball into their own net?
• At halftime, the Tigers are winning 5-0. Knowing that another goal might “lose” them the game, they dramatically lower their intensity. They have plenty of opportunities to score, but choose to pass the ball around, instead of shooting. Late in the game, the Bears finally wake up, take advantage of the Tigers’ low intensity, and score six goals, winning the game. This is a legitimate win? The Tigers could have easily scored five more goals, and won 10-6. But due to the league’s tunnel vision, they lost.

Jewish tradition teaches, “A wise person foresees the consequences of his actions.” As a general rule, liberals do not follow this advice. They are much more concerned with perceived (not actual, but perceived) short-term gains than with near-certain long-term losses. (Who cares if mandating [mandating!] diversity in hiring puts all those from the minority group under suspicion of not being worthy of their position? Liberals feel good because more blacks, Latinos, women et al are now being hired!) While they may bristle at this notion, it is certainly better than the alternatives – either that they are incredibly naïve about the results of their actions, or that they do understand what the long-term losses will be, yet do not care. Some intellectual honesty would be refreshing.

Once again, to the liberal, feelings trump standards. Who cares if the new rules turn the league into a joke? What matters is that their children feel good about themselves.

But as I have demonstrated, even that is not going to happen anyway.