Excellent article by Paul Waldman on the same subject:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/dishonest-smearing-ilhan-omar/?utm_term=.196551af79ee

The dishonest smearing of Ilhan Omar

Excerpt:

In what is surely the most shameful decision of her current term as speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has decided that the time has come for the House to rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for things she didn’t actually say, and ideas she didn’t actually express. In the process, Pelosi and other Democrats are helping propagate a series of misconceptions about anti-Semitism, Israel, and U.S. political debate.

I’m going to try to bring some clarity to this issue, understanding how difficult it can be whenever we discuss anything that touches on Israel.

To be clear, I do this as someone who was raised in an intensely Zionist family with a long history of devotion and sacrifice for Israel, but who also — like many American Jews — has become increasingly dismayed not only by developments in Israel but by how we talk about it here in the United States.

In the latest round of controversy, Omar said during a town hall, regarding U.S. policy toward Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” This comment was roundly condemned by members of Congress and many others for being anti-Semitic. Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) called her statement “a vile anti-Semitic slur” and accused her of questioning “the loyalty of fellow American citizens.”

Pelosi then announced that the House would vote on a resolution which, while not mentioning Omar by name, is clearly meant as a condemnation of her. It contains multiple “whereas” statements about the danger of accusing Jews of “dual loyalty.”

So let’s talk about this idea of “dual loyalty,” and how it does and doesn’t relate to Omar’s comments. For many years, Jews were routinely accused of having dual loyalty, to both the United States and Israel, as a way of questioning whether they were truly American and could be trusted to do things such as serve in sensitive national security positions.

That charge was anti-Semitic, because it was used to allege that every Jew was suspect, no matter what they thought about Israel, and that they could not be fully American because they were assumed to have too much affection for another country. It wasn’t about the particulars of U.S. policy or what Jews at the time were advocating; it was about who they (allegedly) were, their identity.

Now, back to Omar. Here’s the truth: The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.

You may have noticed that almost no one uses “dual loyalty” as a way of questioning whether Jews are loyal to the United States anymore. Why has it almost disappeared as an anti-Semitic slur? Because, over the last three decades, support for Israel has become increasingly associated with conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party.

Zooey wrote:

joemad wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Because the Lakers are the only team in the NBA that actually matters.

Dude, Paula Abdul is no longer a cheerleader, Jack Nicholson and Diane Cannon no longer have their butts in the Forum….

Dr Buss is dead and so are the Lakers.. they won’t even make the 8th seed this year……

without searching DUCK DUCK GO, Does anyone even know the name of the current Laker Head Coach? I’ll give you a clue, he was a Warrior assistant and his dad won a ring as a back up center vs Paula Abdul;’s showtime team……

BTW I do hope the Lakers make the 8th seed so the Warriors can sweep them…….. these are not Chris Mullens nor Sleepy Floyd’s Warrior teams….

Listen. Your bitterness and envy have left your soul a mere cinder. I see it all the time.

You know, deep in that ashpit of a heart, that you will not live to see the Warriors hang their 16th Championship banner in the rafters – as I have done with the Lakers.

I say this as a diehard Lakers’ fan, as already mentioned:

Yes, they’ll likely be stuck in mediocrity, because of their “win now at all cost” mentality. For far too long, they’ve been drafting poorly when they do have an early pick, and trade too much away for aging veterans. Yes, they choose well late in the 1st and early 2nd, but they keep blowing lottery picks (Lonzo), or let them walk for nothing (Randle).

It’s likely the fan-base is driving them to do this. That fan-base refuses to accept rebuilding phases, even when their necessity is beyond obvious.

I want them to build the team with a young core, and find key vets to balance this out. How much longer does LeBron even want to play, much less with his current level of excellence? While he is supposedly crazy good about keeping in shape, Father Time never loses, especially in a sport like basketball.

I would, however, sell the farm for one player: Giannis Antetokounmpo. He’s just 24, and he’s getting better all the time.

I was soooo pizzed off the way the Dems, with minor reservations, threw Omar under the bus. She said nothing wrong, and nothing “anti-Semitic” in the slightest.

Apparently, it’s now verbotten to be critical of lobbying groups, even lobbying groups for other countries. Well, certain countries, that is.

OMG!! She said AIPAC has undue influence on American politicians!! Get the smelling salts and where’s my fainting couch!!

Personally, I’d ban any lobbying group from DC that directly or indirectly sends money to any Congress critter, via bundling or any other means. No exceptions. Individual donations only, capped at $250. All bundling, of any kind, would be against the law.

Want to influence law-makers? Write an Op-Ed. Use diplomatic channels with full transparency all citizens can see. But no backroom meetings. No closed-door meetings of any kind.

The Dems should have stuck by Omar and told the GOP to fuck off.

I can see how it would be annoying to fans of other teams. All of this attention. But most of it is negative attention these days. The media turned fairly quickly on LeBron, for instance, it seems. Lots of talk about how no one wants to join the Lakers because he’s there. Same thing was said about Kobe. And they haven’t even made the playoffs in years.

I’ve followed them as a diehard fan since the days of West and Baylor, even before they got Wilt. It wasn’t always like this — the negative attention, etc. Ironically, I think they received less attention back in the day when they were actually a far better franchise. I really don’t like the way they’ve been run the last coupla of decades.

For instance, I’d rather see them build a team for the long haul. I don’t like the strategy of finding aging superstars for a last hurrah. Prefer the idea of “home grown” development . . . of course, with key additions here and there. But without trades that mortgage the future. And the Lakers, especially during the Kobe era, did way too much of that. Traded away umpteen draft picks for a Steve Nash or some other “past his prime” vet.

Not a fan of that.

The Lakers may be unique in this regard, though: They likely have the least patient fan base in the NBA. They feel entitled to win now, and next year, and the year after. Me? As long as they’re working toward contending, I’m good.

I’d like to see people also discussing the merits of billionaires making tens of thousands of times more than their rank and file overseas, and hundreds or thousands more than their rank and file here.

How did they “earn” this? Can one human being possibly do the work of so many people? No. Perhaps two or three others? Yes. But not consistently over time. They’d burnout.

Not to mention all the people who contributed to that moment over time, going back even centuries if it’s tech, or medicine, or engineering, etc. etc. Not to mention the millions of people who contributed tax dollars for public infrastructure, without which no business owner could ever bring his or her goods to market. Public currency, courts, R and D, trade agreements, police, fire and rescue, military power to keep the shipping lanes free, and literally trillions of dollars in bailouts worldwide just since 1970 . . . .

So with all of these generations involved, and all of these humans involved, directly and indirectly, has there ever been any “merit” in one human, or a group of executives, taking for themselves the lion’s share?

Um, no. Billionaires shouldn’t exist, ever, but not just because of their effects once they have all of that money. They shouldn’t be allowed in the first place because no human being can possibly ever “earn” all of that loot on their own. It can only be gathered via theft. Actual theft.

Even the “progressives” who note that the existence of billionaires is wrong . . . even they don’t seem to get the obvious answer, and the obvious root of the problem.

The root is the capitalist system itself — or any economic system that allows one person to own all the production of others, as if they did all the work themselves. Any system that makes this the legal standard is immoral and should not exist.

Any system that says, “Hey, Jane, did you know it’s legal for you to hire thousands of workers and then own and control everything they do, all their creative work, all their production, all the surplus value they generate, as if you, Jane, as if you did all the work yourself — the work of thousands, which would be impossible.”

The system itself must be abolished, and it can’t be replaced but some alternative that ends up doing the same thing, like Lenin’s state capitalism. The only way to end inequality is to fully democratize the workplace, and extend democracy to include the entire economy. The only way to end inequality is to make the stakeholders — we the people — the owners, co-equals, co-owners, with equal shares in the fruits of our labor.

Expanding on the coaching thing a bit more: I thought the game itself was awful, from the standpoint of just football. If my team weren’t in the game, and I tried to watch it, I would have turned it off before half time.

One can argue whether or not Belichick has, in the past, been an amazing coach, this or that Sunday. But when both sides play relatively lousy football for the majority of the game, I don’t buy the argument that he was “a genius” in that particular game. Or even good. He wasn’t — and that’s if we just go by the results, if we accept the premise that the coach gets the credit for what his team produces on the field.

What did his team produce? A boring, low-scoring, mistake-filled game, matched by a slightly worse game by the opposition.

As mentioned above, I’ve never really bought into that premise about coaches, and have always seen the players are far more important, win or lose. Credit or blame. But it strikes me as a contradictory argument, which I heard almost across the board on the sports shows, from pretty much every pundit, that Belichick proved his genius yet again.

How? His team played poorly overall. The Rams were slightly worse overall. That’s a pretty low bar for “genius” or even “greatness” in my view. The least lousy of the two teams on that particular Sunday?

Invader,

Lotsa goods points from you, as always. And your use of the word “sync” made me think about a vital role of an NFL coach. Kinda like a conductor of an orchestra. He has to get his talent to mesh, work in harmony, “conduct” that, etc. etc. The best coaches may well be the best conductors.

Agree on the basketball stuff. With just five guys on the court, yeah, one player can really take over. Not sure if you noticed my comment on the Lakers going after Anthony Davis . . . but they must really believe one player can make all the difference too . . . well, at least when paired with Lebron. Might be forgetting other instances in the NFL where a team was willing to mortgage everything for one bloke, but right now, it evades me, outside the Ricky Williams and Herschel Walker trades.

To wrap things up: I’m not saying coaches, coaching, staff, position coaches and the like aren’t crucial. They’re very important to the success of the team. But, as mentioned, I just put a lot more on the players, one way or another, and I just think the “genius” thing is thrown around a bit too often.

I hate to admit it, but, yeah, Belichick is really, really good at what he does. As you mention, perhaps the best. Not ready to say he’s the GOAT, though his record says he is. That, of course, is another subject, another set of questions, entirely, maybe for another thread? Is it really proof, ultimately, that someone is the best coach ever because they have the most rings? I’m guessing most fans would say yes.

As you may have guessed by now, I’m not in that camp.

;>)

Great talking with ya, Invader. Hope all is well.

Quick note on that trade for Goff. The Lakers have recently made several offers for Anthony Davis, each one more absurd than the last. Tons of draft picks plus pretty much every single young player with upside on the team.

Davis is excellent. But he’s not the best player in the league. I wouldn’t “mortgage the future” for him, and the Lakers’ offers are ten times that. They’re mortgaging futures that don’t even exist.

I might consider trading the farm for the Greek Freak. But not Davis. But I’ve never liked rolling the dice on one player in exchange for a half dozen or more into the future. That one player better be out of a Marvel Comic book and have super powers, or I’m not a fan of the move, in general.

Despite the lack of the Rams actually doing what they had done for the better part of the year . . . despite the absence of physical magic on the field . . . they were still in the game nearly to the end.

I just don’t see that as “genius” by Belichick. Not even remotely close.

Any game that could have gone either way, IMO, can’t be assessed like that. By definition. It’s not “genius” to escape with a win, when a fraction of an inch here, or a fraction of a second there, would have yielded a different result. As in, that supposed “genius” was entirely at the mercy of plays and series of plays that literally could have gone either way.

To be honest, I wouldn’t give any coach the title of “genius.” Not one in my roughly 52 years of following the sport. It’s all relative from that point on. Are some coaches better than others? Obviously, yes. Are some coaches head and shoulders better? Again, obviously yes. I’d put folks like Belichick, Lombardi, Gibbs, Shula, Landry, Allen and perhaps Vermeil up there. But it’s more for what they got out of their players than from their Xs and Os, their chess games, etc.

To me, the game of football at the NFL level is far more about brute force, speed, agility and just flat out physical superiority — on the field — than anything else. If you have superior physical talent, you’re far more likely to win in the NFL than if your coach is a great chess player. Everyone would love to have both, of course. But given the choice? I’d take the physical talent over the great chess player eight days a week.

I’d also say that the Pats weren’t the best team in football this past year, at any time along the way.

The Rams had their time as the best. The Chiefs, Saints, Bears, Chargers, even the Colts for a stretch. I can’t think of a single stretch for the Pats. If Belicheck were a “genius,” that would not have been the case.

This all probably sounds like sour grapes, but I thought this prior to the Super Bowl. To be honest, I think the Rams had fallen back a bit heading into the Dallas game and weren’t even the best in the NFC. They showed they were back in the hunt again in that game. Fell back a bit against the Saints. It was highly questionable, to me, going into the Super Bowl, whether or not the Rams were the team that should be representing the NFC. Not because of “the call.” Eff all of that nonsense. But because their offense seemed to have regressed on balance.

The Rams of the first seven or eight games? Goff in those games? Best team in the NFL, easily. Best QB in the league. But not later. They lost something along the way after a dozen games or so.

My guess is that McVay will figure this out this offseason.

Kupp also wins contested catches — a lot. That’s Cooks’ biggest flaw. He rarely does.

He obviously has super speed, is very quick, gutsy, will go over the middle. But if the ball is contested, he’s generally not coming down with it.

Goff throws a lot of passes that generate that scenario, too. He often throws with a defender already on the receiver, or through tight windows where they get there with the pass. More than most QBs, he needs receivers that win 50/50 passes.

Kupp was the guy for that. Reynolds, despite his height, really isn’t that guy yet. Though I like what I’ve seen from him otherwise, and I think he runs hard after the catch, even with some violence.

This offseason will be crucial. I think they need a serious revaluation of their personnel and how best to optimize their talents. For most of the season, they had remarkable success. But against really good defenses . . . they mostly struggled.

I watch Morning Joe and Nicole Wallace a lot. The author makes great points. While both of these shows are hosted by conservatives, and usually have conservative guests, when they do have Dems on . . . um, yeah. It’s striking how they now back the FBI and the Security State, when they were once at least a bit conflicted about them. Not all of the Dems, of course. Mainstream Dems have, in general, been “soft” neocons to the GOP’s “hard” neocons. Again, in general.

There is a tendency to just take the opposite position to Trump’s. And while he’s almost always wrong on the issues, incredibly ignorant about context, history and its effects, he does sometimes . . . for the wrong reasons . . . come out on the correct side.

Like wanting to get out of Afghanistan, Syria and negotiate with NK. But he’s warmongering against Iran and Venezuela, and supports the Saudi war in Yemen, plus he’s basically a blind supporter of Israel. And his Muslim ban and endless attacks on immigrants to our South is just straight out of the Nazi playbook.

I hope someday America has an administration that calls for an end to empire, period. No more wars, coups, covert ops, etc. etc. etc. Not selectively hawkish, like Trump. Flat out not hawkish, period.

I’m biased, but I think that will only happen if leftists run things.

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

The Gurley thing is wearing on me. If he is really fine and you don’t use him that is inept coaching and now the Superbowl is over there is no reason to hide an injury to anyone yet both McVay and Gurley continue to deny.

He’s very likely hurting.

I’ve forgotten the game, but I think it happened when he was tackled pretty far out of bounds, pulled down from the neck with his legs, and especially his ankles, out of whack.

I’m guessing it’s a high ankle sprain. They’re notorious for lingering.

Zn,

Could it be both/and?

Out-coached and out-played?

Chicken and egg follows, etc.

There were cases, as Romo pointed out, that Goff had opens looks and went elsewhere for incompletions. This tells me, at least on those plays, it wasn’t the call, it was the execution. Cooks dropped a couple too. A huge shame, cuz on those passes, Goff actually was on target.

So when Goff was on, a receiver was off. When receivers were open, Goff looked elsewhere. When Goff dropped back, he rarely had enough time. Is that suddenly about coaching, in that moment, or is that a failure to hold one’s block?

These are highly paid professionals, playing in the game of games. They obviously know how to block. They obviously know the plays. But in too many cases today, in this game, they didn’t get the job done.

Yeah, some of that is gonna be on McVay and company. But they could come up with the most perfect playcall in the universe, and if the players don’t do their part, it dies.

Both/and? Either/or? I go with the former, with the emphasis on the players.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 9 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 9 months ago by Billy_T.