January 23, 2007

Why America needs New York U. to become a football powerhouse

Matthew Yglesias writes:


"Retired General Wesley Clark is, like me, concerned that the Bush administration is going to launch a war with Iran. Arianna Huffington spoke to him in early January and asked why he was so worried the administration was headed in this direction. According to Huffington's January 4 recounting of Clark's thoughts, he said this: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

"This, of course, is true. I'm Jewish and I don't think the United States should bomb Iran, but Thursday night I was talking to a Jewish friend and she does think the United States should bomb Iran. The Jewish community, in short, is divided on the issue. It's also true that most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. …

"Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism.

"James Taranto, who writes the hack "Best of the Web" column for the online version of The Wall Street Journal's hack editorial page, likened Clark's views on this to the notorious anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. …

"And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as [Michael] Barone was, it's considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an anti-Semite."


In Oklahoma, the real estate developers and other wheeler-dealers express their natural male tribal competitiveness by buying the best college football coaches and players so their beloved U. of Oklahoma Sooners can beat the U. of Texas Longhorns and U. of Nebraska Cornhuskers. In New York City, the big money boys are just as competitive, but they don't have a local college football team to obsess over. So, they instead get all worked up over their beloved Israel, and buy up the top American politicians and pundits to get America to beat up Israel's rivals.


So, what America desperately needs is for New York City to have a BCS-quality college football team. The best candidate would be New York University, which is located just north of Wall Street. NYU was kind of an afterthought for a long time, but there is so much money in Manhattan that it has come up considerably in the world, and would now be as appealing a standard-bearer for New York City's alpha males as USC is for Los Angeles's.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Um, Rutgers?

Reza said...

Dear Friends,

A group of researchers at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, are investigating effects of Weblogs on “Social Interactions” and “Trust”. Therefore, they have designed an online survey. By participating in this survey you will help researches in “Management Information Systems” and “Sociology”. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this survey. It will take 5 to 12 minutes of your valuable time.

Your participation is greatly appreciated. You’ll find the survey at the following link. http://www.questionpro.com/akira/TakeSurvey?id=616499

Anonymous said...

St. John's or Fordham would be more logical choices as they have sports traditions in basketball. NYU's never really had any teams to speak of.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Regarding local football teams, the New York area already has a BCS-quality powerhouse in my alma mater Rutgers. Sure, they play in NJ, but then so do the Giants and Jets. And plenty of big money Wall Street types live in New Jersey. One of them is even the governor.

Considering that you now have to pay just to be on the waiting list for Rutgers season tickets, maybe Rutgers is on its way to becoming the local USC.

As for Wall Streeters ever rooting for NYU, one problem with that is that NYU has a top part-time MBA, it still has only the second-best full time program in New York (after Columbia). More of the hitters on Wall Street got their MBAs from schools such as Columbia, Wharton, Harvard, and U. of Chicago. Their elitism might keep them from rooting for NYU (could also keep them from rooting for Rutgers, but maybe not since there aren't a lot of Rutgers MBAs working beneath them like there are NYU MBAs).

Dave

Anonymous said...

It's cool that we have Jews like Yglesias to warn us about Jewish money influencing American politicians. Now if we only had someone to warn us about the Saudi money influencing our politicians... interesting that you don't hear much about that.

I guess the Saudis wouldn't have any interest in seeing the U.S. bomb their Shiite Persian friends.

SFG said...

Football isn't a big deal in the Northeast, honestly. We like baseball better. Witness the bitterness of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. If anything, New York is proud it doesn't have to care too much about its sports teams...

Anonymous said...

Dave -
Rutgers may be in New Jersey just like the Jets and Giants, but much farther away - 50 miles vs. less than 10.
Columbia would be a good candidate for upgrading its football team but might be restricted by Ivy League rules.

Peter

Steve Sailer said...

"Now if we only had someone to warn us about the Saudi money influencing our politicians ..."

Well, that was the theme of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," the only $100 million box office documentary ever, so it's hardly unmentioned. Several years ago,I called for the then-Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to be sent home because he was too good at his job.

Still, as much of a problem as Saudi influence is, there's not much price to paid for criticizing it. Moore was strongly attacked for being anti-Bush but the anti-Saudi elements of his movie weren't very controversial.

Anonymous said...

Personally I'd like to see the NYU debate team have a knife fight with the Hunter College Philosophy Club.

jody said...

why don't rich new york jews just follow the football team of the college they graduated from?

whoever said football is not big in the northeast is a goof. the patriots, giants, and eagles are hugely popular. the NFL is the most profitable sport in the world and the most popular sport in the united states.

Anonymous said...

"Well, that was the theme of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," the only $100 million box office documentary ever, so it's hardly unmentioned. Several years ago,I called for the then-Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to be sent home because he was too good at his job..."

Steve, Fahrenheit 9/11 was about Saudi influence of Bush; it didn't reveal the extent to which Saudis have been diligently bipartisan in greasing the palms of current and former American politicians.

I agree that the average writer doesn't risk much writing about the Saudis (not that a lot of them are interested in doing that), but the average pol certainly does: he would miss out on fellowships at Saudi funded think-tanks, international business deals, donations, honorariums, etc. He'd even miss out on free use of Prince Bandar's mansion in Vail (staffed with servants), where Jimmy Carter still takes his grand kids.

Alex said...

Crossing my fingers for Matt. He's got a real tendency toward leftwing twittery, but he can really stand out like this sometimes, honorably.

vanya said...

The East Coast elite, both Jews and WASPS, tends to frown on football. Their passion is directed to baseball or, especially in the case of WASPS, more obscure prep school sports like rugby and lacrosse. Football is a game for the lower orders. Witness the fawning attention the Red Sox get in New England when, in terms of sheer numbers, the Patriots have many more dedicated fans, and did even when they were awful. However if you spend time in the upper reaches of the finance and business worlds in Boston you could easily think the Red Sox are the only game in town.

Anonymous said...

Saudi influence - they are largely on the outside of the tent pissing in. Jewish/Israeli influence - they US citizens, organisations, they are on the inside of the tent pissing out. Their influence is mmuch more deep rooted.

Anonymous said...

When the Democrats get 60% of their Presidential campaigning money from Jewish sources, you know which direction US foreign policy is going. The figure for Republicans is still below 50% I believe.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Anonymous said...

You know, rather than having Wall Street money boys work out their tribal competitiveness vicariously by watching college athletes, maybe they should join adult sports leagues and compete themselves. Oh wait - the explosive growth of cartball has basically killed off almost all adult participatory sports activities. Never mind.

Peter
Iron Rails & Iron Weights

tschafer said...

But the question here is, are Jewish groups (or anyone else) RIGHT in believing that Iran is a threat to Israel and the U.S.? Jewish "influence" is not really the issue - its whether they are right in believing Iran is a threat. Mr. Sailer, your position seems to be that a nuclear Iran will be no big deal. Is this an accurate assesment of your views? If not, what should we do?

Anonymous said...

War with Iran is inevitable.

See:
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Russian_Giant/russian_giant.html

The Great Game is on. Iraq was a bold move. Iran is now needed to keep the squeeze on.

President Hillary will keep it going (despite any comments she may make to the contrary).

Anonymous said...

Website got cut off.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics

___Eurasia/Russian_Giant/russian_giant.html

Anonymous said...

A nuclear Iran would be no big deal. It would have a few nukes compared to Israel's hundreds.

Even with nukes, the mullahs are glass at the flick of a Jewish finger.

Get over it. Many countries have nuclear weapons. Only one (US) has used them. Are you suggesting that Iran has no right to self-defense?

Jim O'Sullivan said...

Turn NYU into a football powerhouse? Sorry. Can't happen. It's in Greenwich Village for goodness sake! It would be like getting Florida State into the Ivy League. Yeah, I know the fact that Berkley is a postmodernist hippie haven hasn't stopped it from maintaining a half-decent football program, but to play footabll, it can't even call itself by its real name. It has sneak in as "Cal," as if it were the only campus in the University of California system. NYU has no alter ego to use. And New York is bored by a sport where, for most of the good teams, at least 75% of their games are against teams with no chance to beat them. Sorry, but we just don't care how badly Ohio State pulverizes Indiana and Northwestern. We don't have the patience to watch games like that.

Anyway, Jews reminding us of Jewish influence is rare, but Iglesias has an unusual amount of courage - for a leftist.

Bottom line: between the Israelis and the Saudis, we don't have to worry about Iran. If Israel were willing and able to take out Saddam's reactor, they are surely willing to do the wet work on Iran.

Chief Seattle said...

"Now if we only had someone to warn us about the Saudi money influencing our politicians..."

I don't remember the Saudis getting us into an endless unwinnable war in the middle east.

The Zionists are going to have a much harder time with Iran. People are on to their game now, and whether it's spoken or unspoken, the same warmongering tactics will not work again. Bush's credibility is a national joke, same goes for the neocons, and the election showed that Americans want the pols to focus on the prosperity of this country, not the middle east.

Kevin said...

"I don't remember the Saudis getting us into an endless unwinnable war in the middle east."

This is silly. If the "Zionists" really controlled the U.S. government Iraq would not have been attacked. Iran would have been attacked because they are much more of a threat through their support of Hezbollah and their nucular program.

Bush thought he could make the U.S. safe by transforming the mideast into liberal democracies. He thinks all people are the same at heart. Its why he has such faith in No Child Left Behind and doesn't think its a problem that half of the population of Mexico is relocating to the U.S.

The Israelis know the arab mindset better than anyone, and therfore, knew Bush's plan was going to end in failure. How does a weakened America help Israel now that Iran, the real threat, needs to be delt with?

Chief Seattle said...

"If the "Zionists" really controlled the U.S. government Iraq would not have been attacked. Iran would have been attacked "

Two different issues there. The Zionists don't control the government, they influence it. And Iran was always next on the list after Iraq. Remember the neocon "cakewalk" that Iraq was supposed to be? Iraq was supposed to be just a warmup and a base for the Iran attack.

Unfortunately for the Zionists, their judgement is clouded by a fantasy vision of the middle east submitting to be one big Gaza Strip. Seen Bagdahd lately? No power, no water, garbage in the streets. Look familiar?

Americans have seen the results too. 70% disapprove of our middle east adventure, and with the advent of the Internet, no amount of Media Control is going to brainwash them again.

Anonymous said...

game over, hilary wins:
http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/

James Kabala said...

Vanya: I have lived in New England my whole life. It is true that the Patriots have as many or more fans than the Red Sox now that they have become a powerhouse, but "when they were awful" they definitely ranked not even second, but fourth on the local sports scene, among regular Joes as well as among elites.
College football is something few Northeasterners care about even today. Boston College is traditionally the only 1-A team in New England, joined within the last decade by UConn, and I believe there are none in New York and only Rutgers in New Jersey.

jody said...

haha, you guys are funny. north korea puts iran into perspective rather easily. it has actual, functioning nuclear fission devices that it has detonated. when does america invade?

let's put to rest the idea that the current iran "problem" is about anything other than jewish people, or maybe oil.

Anonymous said...

Jews (taken as an aggregate) have a circle the wagon mentality. Jews can be divided on certain issues, but moneyed activist Jews are far more influential than the others, and all one has to do to be called an "anti-semite" by the majority of Jews is to point out the activities of the influential activist ones. Furthermore the Jews involved in the ADL, AIPAC, etc. are motivated by Jewish concerns, so their Jewishness is not a tangential matter at all. I'm not aware of any other compelling explanation for an attack on Iran outside of Zionist fears. I agree that nuclear weapons in general are a problem for world peace because all it takes is for one head of state or one general having a bad day, to trigger a nuclear exchange costing millions of lives, or perhaps even the complete end of life on earth. All the same, if Israel considers nuclear weapons in Iran to be unconcionable, then in the name of moral consistency, it should get rid of its own nuclear arsenal. I would be much more sympathetic to Israel and its supporters were Israel to take this first step towards regional peace.

Anonymous said...

If Israel got rid of its nukes they'd be invaded and destroyed in a minute. I still say they should have carved the Jewish homeland out of Long Island instead. Only disadvantage for you guys would be a bigger blue margin in an already blue state, and we'd stay ahead in the sciences forever. Oh well.

I don't think the US is going to invade Iran. We'd need a draft to raise the soldiers, and a lame-duck president with an approval rating in the 30s is not going to get one.

As for Columbia/NYU: naaah. A lot of these schools take pride in having *bad* football teams. I'm serious. When Grinnell's football team started pulling out of the dirt there were protests. As for Columbia, well, I had a friend who went there, and they had a survey of which groups felt the most disrespected. #1 was athletes, AHEAD of gays and minorities!

Being, like Steve, rather annoyed at watching dumber but more masculine guys get ahead of me at work (I'm not saying what I actually do...let's just say I live in a part of the country where this blog is major heresy), I rather enjoy the idea of a place where athletes' noses get rubbed in the dirt...but that isn't really relevant.

On a more serious note, I actually think the worst is over as far as the neocons go, and it has to do with Bush's emasculation. Are there Jews behind the Democrats? Yes, but they're lefty Jews, and lefty Jews don't run around trying to invade countries, they bang the drum for abortion and secularism. Not your cup of tea perhaps but not likely to wreck the army in foreign adventures.

Raising awareness of Jewish influence in politics is different from anti-Semitism, but there are real anti-Semites on this blog, and their paranoia about Jews blinds them to the non-uniformity of Jews. Sure there are Jews who dragged the country into an idiotic war with Iraq....and there are Jews who want to keep Christianity out of schools. But they're DIFFERENT Jews, and they hate each other's guts! Just because you paleocons don't like either of them doesn't mean they like each other. Two of my enemies may also hate each other.

It's kind of like talking about the 'Islamic' enemy. Certainly there are plenty of Muslims who hate America, but wrecking a Muslim Saddam doesn't hurt Muslim Iran, because they're different groups of Muslims, Shiites and Sunnis.

Anonymous said...

The parallelism in that last post doesn't work. Should be switched. Sorry.

Chief Seattle said...

I'm sure there are anti-semites on this board, but I think that everyone would benefit from a clear distinction between anti-semite and anit-zionist. The latter is perfectly rational to anyone who dislikes the idea of a nation-state based on religion and who disapproves of U.S. support of any such nation.

The Zionists would like us to compound the two, because anti-semitism, hating a people for their religion, really is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure there are anti-semites on this board, but I think that everyone would benefit from a clear distinction between anti-semite and anit-zionist. The latter is perfectly rational to anyone who dislikes the idea of a nation-state based on religion and who disapproves of U.S. support of any such nation.

The Zionists would like us to compound the two, because anti-semitism, hating a people for their religion, really is disgusting.


The fact is that the Israeli law of return is mostly ethnic in nature. Converts to Judaism can have trouble having their conversions recognised by Israeli religious authorities, but atheist ethnic Jews are never denied admission. Secondly, why so you imply that the existance of a state religion is objectionable per se? I'm not a Christian or a Catholic myself but if the Irish wish to be Catholic I won't stand in their way. Paleocon objection to the existance is Israel (in its present form) is largely due to the perception of hypocricy on the part of its supporters. The ADL will tell you that any ethnic feeling on the part of wasps is disgusting, and simultaneously tell you we'eve all got to love Zionism, otherwise we'ere "anti-semites".

Furthermore you conflate objection to things Jewish with hatred. This is pure Orwellianism, because one requires psychic powers to know people's emotional states. One can perfectly well object to certain things without wishing anyone long-term misery. As John Lenon sang "it's easy if you try."

James Kabala said...

Here's an idea I cribbed from Lawrence Auster:
One of the marks of a true anti-Semite is that they don't want Jews to live or have power anywhere. After all, if Jews have no right to Israel, they ought to go back to Germany, Poland, the U.S.A., etc. and take part in civic life there, right? But of course anti-Semites find that prospect equally horrifying as a Jewish state, if not more so.

Anonymous said...

Wow. I hope this post is part of an effort at becoming a well-paid mainstream pundit by coming up with incredibly dumb, outlandish ideas. Or do you really believe that Jewish ethnocentrism built up over millenia would be quickly sublimated if NYU had a good football team?

Anonymous said...

One of the true marks of a Jewish supremacist is that he wants Jews to live and have unrestricted power everywhere.

Are there Jews behind the Democrats? Yes, but they're lefty Jews, and lefty Jews don't run around trying to invade countries, they bang the drum for abortion and secularism.

Ah yes, the standard bait & switch that is often used by both the left and the right to prove media bias.

People aren't "left" or "right" on all issues across the board. Yes, Jews tend to be pro-abortion secularist liberals on social issues. But most are right-wing on military issues in the Middle East. That Jewish money, which exercises veto power over Democratic candidates, has one major string attached: Favor an aggressive militaristic Israel, OR ELSE!

aceflyer said...

Sorry, but this is one of Steve's weaker hypotheses.

People in New York are just as passionate about the pro teams as Southerners are about their college teams. There is no disparity whatsoever in sports passion between New York and the rest of the country. It's just that New Yorkers are into the NFL and NBA instead of the SEC and ACC.

James Kabala said...

Last anonymous: I don't think I believe this.
Here's a breakdown of how Jewish Senators voted on the Iraq war resolution:

Yea: Feinstein, Kohl, Lieberman, Schumer, Specter
Nay: Boxer, Feingold, Levin, Wellstone, Wyden

So Jewish Senators broke down evenly in favor and opposed, and Jews provided a much higher percentage of the 23 nays than the 77 yeas. I suspect an analysis of the House vote would provide similar results. I don't believe public opinion polls ever showed higher Jewish support for the war than among non-Jewish Americans. All of these except the late Wellstone are still in the Senate, and I predict all of them except Lieberman and maybe Specter will vote for the anti-surge resolution and would be opposed to any attack on Iran. The idea of a Jewish hawk monolith is simply inaccurate.
I don't know whom you're calling a "Jewish supremacist," as I am not Jewish, but, yes, I believe any American citizen has an "unrestricted" right to attempt to exercise political power and influence. What are you proposing as an alternative?

Anonymous said...

The idea of a Jewish hawk monolith is simply inaccurate.
Not really. Using the page Jews Who Have Served in the United States House of Representatives taken from Jewish Virtual library as well as well as the online congressional voting record for HJ RES 114 I came up with the following results:

91% of Jewish representatives were Democrat at that time.

74% of Jewish representatives voted for the war.

Only 19% of democrats (gentile and Jewish) voted for the war.

I may have made some mistakes when i was gathering the data, and I hope I got things mostly right, otherwise i'll be eating some crow.

That Democratic Jewish senators in the Senate voted similarly to Democratic gentile senators is interesting, but it doesn't change the picture diametrically.

but, yes, I believe any American citizen has an "unrestricted" right to attempt to exercise political power and influence. What are you proposing as an alternative?

The alternative would be to temper your excercise of political power with a sense of fair play. As Rabbi Hillel put it:

“Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.”

James Kabala said...

Anonymous: I stand (partially) corrected. Those figures are interesting. (Although you made one error: 81 of 207 is 39 percent, a number quite higher than 19 percent, albeit still well below 74.)

Anonymous said...

(Although you made one error: 81 of 207 is 39 percent, a number quite higher than 19 percent, albeit still well below 74.)

You are quite right. I messed that calculation up.

SFG said...

Doesn't really sound monolithic, that's less than half, though it is disturbingly higher. It could be there's an elite-masses split among Jews just like with many other groups; I can't think of a single Jew I know who supported the war...