Stephen Lewis Left Canada & The World a Better Place Than He Found It

Stephen Lewis, former leader of the Ontario NDP and later Canada's Ambassador to the UN, passed away today following a lengthy battle with cancer. He was 88.

Lewis' death comes only 48 hours after his son Avi was chosen the new leader of Canada's NDP. His father David served in that same role between 1971 and 1975.

Elected to the Ontario legislature when he was only 26, Lewis would become leader of the Ontario NDP seven years later. In 1975, Ontario voters gave the NDP official opposition status. Lewis was a formidable foe to Ontario Premier Bill Davis who was at the zenith of the four decade plus long Tory dynasty in Canada's largest province.

Perhaps Lewis' most notable achievement in his 15 years as a provincial parliamentarian and as the leader of his party occurred in 1974 amid the wildcat strike of uranium miners in Elliot Lake, a community in Northeastern Ontario situated between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. The miners walked off the job in protest of dangerous working conditions which caused many of them to be diagnosed with silicosis, an incurable lung disease. Lewis' efforts pressured the provincial government to create a commission on mine safety which later resulted in the passage of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A decade later, Lewis would be appointed Canada's Ambassador to the UN. The most surprising aspect of this appointment was that it was issued by Brian Mulroney, a Tory. It would be like President Trump appointing Hillary Clinton to be his Ambassador to the UN. Although political rivals, the pair presented a common front in the fight to impose international sanctions on South Africa's Apartheid system. In this century, Lewis spent many years campaigning to eradicate HIV/AIDS in Africa as a UN special envoy. After leaving the UN, Lewis established his own organization dedicated to this very mission.

In short, Stephen Lewis left both Canada and the world a better place than he found it. R.I.P.

Ken Clay Had His Moment in the Sun in Game 1 of the 1978 ALCS

 

Former MLB pitcher Ken Clay passed away on March 26th due to heart and kidney failure. He was 71.

Born and raised in Lynchburg, Virginia, Clay was a second-round draft pick of the New York Yankees in 1972 straight out of high school. 

After five plus seasons in the minors, Clay would make his MLB debut with the Bronx Bombers during the 1977 season earning a World Series ring. He would also earn a second World Series ring the following year as the Yankees bested the Los Angeles Dodgers in back-to-back Fall Classics.

Despite earning World Series rings in consecutive seasons, Clay did not live up to expectations and was publicly maligned by both Yankees owners George Steinbrenner and Yankees manager Billy Martin. This was no small feat considering how Steinbrenner and Martin hardly ever agreed on anything.

By 1980, Clay was in a Texas Rangers uniform before finishing his big-league career with the Seattle Mariners in 1981. His professional career was over at the age of 27. In 111 career games (including 36 starts) over five seasons, Clay went 10-24 with a 4.68 ERA. Control was a problem for Clay as he would issue 141 walks against 129 strikeouts.

Life after baseball proved difficult with a myriad of bad choices which led to frequent run ins with the law with charges and convictions of grand larceny and DUI which would lead to jail time. It does not appear Clay had any legal infractions after being released from prison in 2012. One can only hope that Clay's last decade or so had some measure of peace.

As to his time on the mound, Ken Clay did have a moment in the sun. It happened on October 3, 1978, when the Yankees faced the Kansas City Royals in Game 1 of the ALCS. It was the day after the Yankees earned the AL East crown in Boston on an infamous HR by Bucky Dent. In that first game of the ALCS, Clay pitched 3.2 innings of scoreless relief earning a save despite issuing three walks. 

Ken Clay may have more bad times than good both on and off the field, but the good times he had can never be taken away from him now or ever. R.I.P.

Avi Lewis Takes Over NDP But He Will Be Nothing Like His Father & Grandfather

 

This morning, Avi Lewis was announced as the new leader of Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP).

Lewis succeeds Jagmeet Singh who resigned nearly a year ago after losing his seat in the 2025 Canadian election. He won 56% of the vote on the first ballot nearly doubling the total of his closest rival Heather McPherson who is one of only 6 current NDP Members of Parliament. Last month, Lori Idlout crossed the floor to join Mark Carney's Liberals who may soon have a majority government. 

Lewis is part of the first family of Canadian socialism. His grandfather David led the NDP from 1971 to 1975 while his father Stephen led the Ontario NDP from 1970 to 1978. Between 1972 and 1974, David Lewis led NDP held the balance of power keeping Pierre Trudeau's Liberals afloat. Between 1975 and 1977, Stephen Lewis was the leader of the Official Opposition against the Progressive Conservative dynasty led by Bill Davis. It was the closest the NDP would come to power until winning the 1990 Ontario election under Bob Rae.

Somehow, I don't think Avi Lewis will be anything like his father or grandfather.

However, before I go any further, some disclosure. When I was active with the Ontario NDP about 30 years ago, I was acquainted with Michael Lewis (Avi's uncle) who was working with the United Steelworkers of America. On one occasion, he was nice enough to invite me out for lunch.

When I say Avi Lewis won't be anything like his father and grandfather, I mean that he lacks pragmatism. When his father and grandfather sought their respective party leaderships, they had to deal with the Waffle Movement which wanted to nationalize all industry and were essentially a party within a party. Both father and son purged the Waffle from the NDP. 

Fast forward to a decade ago, the NDP was faced with the Leap Manifesto, essentially a modern-day version of the Waffle. Unlike his father and grandfather, Avi Lewis was a key figure with the Leap Manifesto along his wife author Naomi Klein.

One of the key platforms of the Leap Manifesto is for Canada to have 100% clean energy by 2050. Needless to say, Lewis' ascension to the NDP leadership has been met with a less than enthusiastic response by the Alberta NDP and Saskatchewan NDP led by Naheed Nenshi and Carla Beck, respectively. Nenshi stated that Lewis' victory "is not in the interest of Albertans" while Beck stated she will not meet with Lewis unless he "publicly reverses" his position against fossil fuels.

Another key area where Avi Lewis differs from his father and grandfather is Israel. The younger Lewis is virulently anti-Israel and an enthusiastic supporter of the BDS Movement who has seen fit to shame and shun those who support Israel. This presumably would have included his father and grandfather. Although David Lewis could not be characterized as a Zionist per se, he did forge strong relationships with fellow Israeli socialists like Golda Meir and Shimon Peres while Stephen Lewis, during his tenure as Ontario NDP leader, demanded the UN cancel a conference to be held to Toronto due to presence of PLO members. Although I should note that Avi Lewis now claims his father, now 88, regards Israel as "a rogue state". Perhaps this is the case now, but when Lewis was in a position of actual responsibility, he, well, acted responsibly.

Of course, when it comes to Israel, it wouldn't matter much who leads the NDP. All five candidates who sought the party's leadership claim Israel is committing genocide. McPherson wore a keffiyeh in the House of Commons and introduced a petition to criminally investigate any Canadian who served with the IDF. But with Lewis being Jewish, he and his supporters can say, 'Even a Jew is saying Israel is committing genocide,' and 'Criticizing Israel isn't anti-Semitic,', etc.

Yet truth be told, the governing Liberals aren't much better with their concerted effort to remove tax exempt status from various Jewish non-profit organizations thus shunning Jewish institutions from Canadian civil society.

As it stands now, Lewis does not have a seat in the House of Commons. He ran for office twice before and was soundly defeated. The best-case scenario would be for the NDP to win zero seats in the next federal election. In which case, the NDP could be put out of its misery or perhaps a responsible social democratic party could rise in its place. Such a party could keep the Liberals and Tories honest in creating a more equitable Canada while eschewing more impractical notions such as living without fossil fuels and without legitimizing anti-Semitism.

Why The No Kings Rallies Have No Real Impact

Organizers of today's No Kings rallies expected a nationwide attendance of 9 million people.

It is quite possible their expectations could be exceeded.

But even if this comes to pass, I believe the No Kings rallies have no real impact.

Oh sure, there will be plenty of press coverage today and tomorrow.

But by Tuesday or Wednesday, it will be a fleeting memory for most Americans.

I am not saying these rallies shouldn't be held.

Americans should be given every opportunity to vent their displeasure of the Trump Administration, and a large public protest is one way to do so.

After all, Trump behaves like a monarch or a dictator who is not subject to the law whether by tearing down the East Wing of the White House for an ornate ballroom, demanding an end to mail-in voting for everyone but himself  and placing his signature on U.S. currency. To say nothing of the cruelty of ICE up to and including murdering American citizens. All things considered, it is understandable that large numbers would turn out in St. Paul.

Yet it must be remembered the reason why the protests worked in Minneapolis-St. Paul is because they were sustained over an extended period of time. Of course, there were extenuating circumstances. The city was under siege by the federal government and the people, aside from showing their displeasure in the streets, banded together in person and online through ad hoc measures to protect their neighbors from ICE. The federal government disrupted the day-to-day lives of the people of Minneapolis-St. Paul and the people adapted to those circumstances by trying to restore a semblance of order.

Then there was the abhorrent behavior of the federal government in Minnesota which saw fit to justify the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti all the while excluding the state government and local authorities from investigating these acts. The final straw was former Border Patrol goon Gregory Bovino claiming the ICE agents who murdered Pretti were actually the victims. Bovino would soon be replaced by Tom Honan. While it cannot be said that ICE agents have left Minneapolis, they have a far lower profile.

My point here is that the No Kings rallies are held sporadically on a Saturday morning or afternoon and then it is over like it never happened. For protests to work, they must be sustained day and night until such time that certain objectives are achieved (i.e. ICE getting out of Minneapolis even if only partially). 

While there certainly exists tremendous public discontent against the Trump Administration, it is far from certain that Trump and Trumpism is finished. Barring any electoral shenanigans by Republicans, Democrats will likely win the November mid-terms. But if that comes to pass then surely there will be unfavorable scrutiny of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate especially if they fall short in containing the Trump Administration's excesses.

And who can say that Trump won't run for a third term, constitution or no constitution? Even if Trump doesn't run in 2028, there is certainly a chance we could elect a JD Vance, a Marco Rubio or a Tucker Carlson to continue Trumpism. If we choose another Republican President in 2028, it will be Trump who is still calling the shots with a good portion of the country being just fine with it.

I'm sure there will be one, perhaps two more No Kings rallies before the end of 2026 with more planned before the 2028 election. I'm sure the numbers of people participating in these rallies will grow. And then they will be over and people won't remember one ever happened by the time they enter the voting booth.

While there might be a scenario in which we see a sustained local level protest such as the one in Minneapolis-St. Paul which cause the Trump Administration to bend, I cannot see such a thing happening in this country at the national level. Not unless, we lost everything and we had nothing left to lose. By that, I mean food, fuel and water shortages like there have been in Iran followed by the regime killing of tens of thousands of protesters. We're not there yet. 

Indeed, while Iran has tens of thousands of Renee Goods and Alex Prettis, I doubt very many of the people who attended the No Kings rallies today stood in solidarity with the Iranian people clamoring for their freedom. One can quarrel with Trump's military action in Iran while recognizing that millions of Iranians want the current regime toppled. While we have legitimate grievances, so do the Iranian people and a great many anti-Trump people are not prepared to acknowledge this fact.

There is no question that President Trump is marching this country down the road to authoritarianism and it is our duty to make our disagreement and displeasure known. But in order to stop that march we need to agree on certain principles and what is to be achieved. I, for one, will not be part of a movement which tolerates anti-Semitism. What is to be gained from exchanging one form of tyranny for another?

I don't question the sincerity of most of the people who took time out of their Saturday to attend No Kings rallies wherever they happened to be. 

I would ask these people one question. What happens next Saturday?

Trump: Mail-In Voting for Me but Not for Thee

President Trump has long publicly decried mail-in voting.

On Monday, while in Memphis, he called the process "mail-in cheating."

Of course, that didn't stop him from using a mail-in ballot during a special election in Florida.

Trump essentially defended his behavior by saying I'm President and you're not:

There’s a big difference between somebody who is out of state and does a ballot and everything is sealed and certified and everything else. I think mail-in voting is a terrible thing. I think if you vote, you should go.

Alas, when Trump voted by mail, he was in Palm Beach, not in DC.

What it comes right down to is the fact that Trump demands of others what he will not demand for himself. And why wouldn't he? Trump doesn't believe the rules apply to him and, well, he got the Supreme Court to agree when they bestowed him with presidential immunity.

Trump doesn't have a problem with utilizing mail-in voting.

What he has a problem with is losing elections and accepting the fact that he lost. 

In his worldview, Trump does not lose elections unless there is chicanery. Hence scapegoating mail-in voting.

This country has been voting by mail since the Civil War and he wants to take it away from everyone.

Well, everyone that is but himself.

Howie Mandel is Right: Being Told You Look Good for Your Age Isn't a Compliment

 

Howie Mandel, the longtime host of America's Got Talent is being chastised for "snapping" at Kelly Ripa and Mark Consuelos during an appearance on Live with Kelly and Mark earlier this week.

Mandel, who turned 70 last November, briefly took issue with Ripa and Consuelos for telling him that he looked great for 70. For her part, Ripa didn't say that although Consuelos confirmed that he thought Mandel look good for 70. The Canadian born comic added that he didn't like the "compliment" because "it's a caveat."

Having watched the exchange a couple of times I do think Mandel overreacted a little bit towards Ripa although it is clear they both struck a raw nerve even if it was not their intent to do so. However, I do think the coverage of their exchange has been blown out of proportion because the exchange last about 30 seconds before the interview got back on track.

So, you might ask, why I am weighing in on the matter?

Because it reminded me of when I took Dad to see Jerry Seinfeld at the Beacon Theatre for his 75th birthday. (Incidentally, Dad will be celebrating his 85th birthday next month.)

What I remember most vividly about the evening wasn't Seinfeld, but rather his opening act. Opening that night for Seinfeld was Mario Joyner who admittedly I had never heard of prior to the event. But I found him funnier than Seinfeld.

The part of Joyner's act which resonated with me most was a bit he did about being told you look good for your age. Joyner, who turns 65 in October, said that a proper compliment is "You look good. Period." Being told that you look good for your age is like telling a heavyset woman, "That dress fits you nice for someone your size."

As a fellow comedian, I'm sure Mandel is familiar with Joyner and his act. In his exchange with Ripa and Consuelo, Mandel said, "It's like saying you're smart for a stupid person."

So, I understand where Mandel is coming from in this situation. A compliment should be a compliment without qualification.

With that said, I do allow one exception. It concerns someone with whom I went to elementary school with more than four decades ago and reconnected with her a few years back on Facebook. I should add that she was born the day after me. So, we are both now 53. One day, I post a picture of myself at a restaurant with a friend. She sends me a reply which says, "You look good for our age."

That compliment I can accept because she is bringing herself into the conversation. Instead of "your age" it was "our age." I can't speak for either Howie Mandel or Mario Joyner on that particular context. For them, it might be a distinction without difference. But for me, it makes all the difference in the world.

In the grand scheme of things, when it comes to compliments less is more. Keep it simple, direct and to the point. 

Trump Claims There Has Been "Regime Change" in Iran; Tell That to the Iranian People

Yesterday, President Trump proclaimed that he had achieved "regime change" in Iran.

We have, really, regime change. This is a change in the regime, because the leaders are all very different than the ones that we started off with.

Tell that to the people of Iran. 

Oh, there might be some new faces, but the regime is exactly as it was before.

In which case, Trump's "excursion" into Iran is as exactly as I had feared before military action was taken:

Yet let us suppose there is military action in Iran. Who can say it would be any different than what occurred in Venezuela earlier this year where they extracted Nicolas Maduro only to install his vice-president as his replacement? Meet the new Ayatollah. Same as the old Ayatollah.

Frankly, I'm not putting much stock in his latest statement that he will "unleash hell" if Iran does not agree to his deal. Trump made an ultimatum on the Strait of Hormuz last week and didn't even wait out his own deadline before he folded.

Trump is looking for a deal, any deal. The effect of that deal is that the Iranian regime will be stronger than ever. The consequence of this is that the Iranian people will continue to be repressed, Israel will still need to worry about a nuclear Iran and the U.S. (Trump in particular) will be seen as a pushover who talks tough but carries a very little stick.

Trump to Send ICE to Airports; What Could Go Wrong?

(WSB-TV)

President Trump announced plans to send ICE agents to various airports around the country amid the partial shutdown affecting DHS effective tomorrow. Among the airports affected are Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, as confirmed by Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens. Hartsfield is the world's busiest airport.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, on one hand, White House Border Czar Tom Honan says the ICE won't be involved in screening passengers but, on the other hand, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says they will be involved.

In other words, President Trump has decided to solve an already chaotic situation by pouring gasoline on it.

Given the bang-up job ICE did in Minnesota, I fear that these goons are itching for another confrontation. As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated during an appearance on CNN this morning:

The last thing that the American people need are for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports all across the country, potentially to brutalize or, in some instances, kill them. 

I fear it could get much worse than that. I wouldn't be surprised if ICE caused a bloodbath by committing a massacre against innocent travelers and airport employees. I can easily envision a scenario where ICE harasses an airport employee, and passengers try to aid the employee or at least document the incident and then ICE escalates the situation with lethal consequences. Should this come to pass, it will give the Trump Administration yet another opportunity to accuse law abiding American citizens of being terrorists.

Nothing good can come of this course of action. 

Larry Stahl Drew the Most Controversial Walk in MLB History

 

Former MLB player Larry Stahl passed away on March 17th at the age of 84.

Stahl played 10 seasons in the big leagues primarily as an outfielder with occasional appearances at first base. He was also regularly deployed in a pinch-hitting role. More on that shortly.

Stahl mostly played for also ran teams - the Kansas City Athletics, New York Mets and the San Diego Padres. Indeed, between 1964 and 1972, Stahl played on five teams which lost 100 or more games. Stahl just missed playing for the 1969 Amazin' Mets because the Padres grabbed him in the expansion draft.

The only time Stahl was on a winning team during his decade in MLB was in his final season in 1973 when he was a member of the Cincinnati Reds. Stahl would collect 2 pinch hit singles during the 1973 NLCS against the New York Mets - one against Jerry Koosman in Game 2  and another against Tom Seaver in Game 5 in a losing effort as the Mets won the NL pennant. That hit would prove to be last one Stahl ever collected as he would be released by the Reds in the final days of spring training prior to the 1974 season. Stahl would hook on with the San Francisco Giants playing with their Triple-AAA affiliate in Phoenix before ending his professional career.

In 730 career games, Stahl collected exactly 400 hits for a .232 lifetime batting average with 36 HR and 163 RBI.

Of those 730 career games, the one in which he is best remembered took place during his final season with the Padres on September 2, 1972. Used in a pinch-hitting capacity, Stahl was sent up to face Chicago Cubs pitcher Milt Pappas who was one out away from throwing a perfect game. On a 3-2 count, Stahl checked his swing and home plate umpire Bruce Froemming called ball four which enraged Pappas, the Cubs dugout and the 11,000 plus fans who showed up to Wrigley Field on that Thursday afternoon. Pappas would then get his no-hitter when he got Garry Jestadt, another pinch hitter, to pop out to second base.

Although Pappas would get his no-hitter, with Froemming denying him his perfect game, one could make the case that Larry Stahl drew the most controversial walk in MLB history. 

Stahl's passing comes less than 3 weeks after Froemming's death. Pappas died in 2016. R.I.P.

Trump Delights in Mueller's Death Yet Mueller Never Did Trump Any Harm

Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director who headed up an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, passed away yesterday of complications of Parkinson's Disease at the age of 81.

Upon learning of Mueller's death, President Trump acted true to form on Truth Social:

Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people! President DONALD J. TRUMP

That Trump should make such a vile comment is sadly unsurprising lest we forget his unsavory comments about Rob and Michele Reiner following their horrific murder last December and his cruelty towards Renee Good after she was murdered in cold blood by an ICE agent in January.

However, it must be said that Trump isn't the only one who delights in the deaths of people. Take a look at all the people who delighted in the death of Chuck Norris because his politics was different from theirs.

Of course, none of these people hold the office of President of the United States and ought to be held to a higher standard no matter how much he has degraded that office. Then again, we freely chose to elevate him to that very office - twice.

The fact that Trump has twice been elected President of the United States, it is difficult to see what harm Robert Mueller did against him.

The DoJ appointed Mueller to head up an investigation concerning Russian interference in the 2016 election and did not charge Trump with a crime albeit largely due to a DoJ Memo from 2000 which advises that Presidents cannot be indicted while in office. Mueller did subsequently state that criminal investigations could be launched against Trump once he left office.

Now Trump was the subject of multiple investigations after losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden although none of them directly pertained to anything arising from the Mueller Report. The two Jack Smith led investigations concerned Trump's actions during January 6th and his handling of classified records during his first term in office, Fani Willis' investigation in Fulton County, Georgia concerned his efforts to overturn the 2020 election in that state while the Alvin Bragg investigation in New York concerned the falsification of business records up to and during the 2016 election.

Trump was convicted by a jury on multiple counts following Bragg's investigation but received an unconditional discharge before returning to the White House last year, the Georgia election interference case was dropped and both of Jack Smith's investigations were dismissed albeit without prejudice.

When it comes to the Mueller Report, I would argue that more harm came to Robert Mueller than to Donald Trump. It has been almost a year to the day when revelations came that WilmerHale, his old law firm, scrubbed all references that Mueller had ever worked for the firm.

While Robert Mueller never hurt anyone, the same cannot be said for Donald Trump. When Trump dies, I will not rejoice. But I will be able to say that Trump won't be able to hurt anyone anymore.

R.I.P. Robert Mueller.

Venezuela Beats USA To Win 1st WBC Title

(Screenshot of Team Venezuela's Eugenio Suarez after his double which put his team ahead for good)

Team Venezuela has done it!!!

They bested Team USA 3-2 in the final of the 2026 World Baseball Cup in Miami to win their first WBC title.

Venezuela broke a 2-2 tie in the top of the 9th on a double by Eugenio Suarez. The US squad had tied the contest 2-2 in the bottom of the 5th on a HR by Bryce Harper.

The Venezuelan team was something of a sleeper team. They had beat the Netherlands, Israel and Nicaragua before losing to the Dominican Republic. But then everyone sat up and took notice when they ousted the 3-time WBC champion Team Japan.

Last night, they ended Team Italy's Cinderella story with a come from behind victory scoring 3 runs in the 7th inning to reach the final against Team USA.

I must admit I am still a bit downcast with the U.S.-Venezuela final given what has transpired since the beginning of 2026. Yet, under the circumstances, I am happy for Team Venezuela. Winning the WBC means a whole lot more to Venezuela than it does to this country. This triumph will provide a considerable source of joy for a country which has not had a lot to cheer about either from their own government or from ours.

Team Italy Bids Arrivederci to WBC

Tonight, the Cinderella story ended. Team Italy was bounced in the World Baseball Classic semifinal by Team Venezuela falling 4-2.

Before tonight's loss, Italy had bested Brazil, Great Britain, the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico in this year's tournament.

Now, it must be said that a majority of Team Italy are American born players of Italian heritage. Not only that, but if you include manager Francisco Cervelli there were more Venezuelans on Team Italy than Italians. There were three Italian born players on the team including pitcher Sam Aldegheri who became the first Italian born MLB player when he debuted with the Los Angeles Angels in 2024.

Nevertheless, it would have been something completely different had Team Italy won the tournament. Perhaps it would have helped stimulate more interest in the game over there. 

Mind you, baseball isn't entirely a foreign concept in Italy. I remember when former MLB player Lenny Randle became a star in Italy in the early 1980's with Nettuno. On a personal note, my parents saw Randle and his Nettuno team play in France during the summer of 1983. Sadly, Randle passed away in December 2024.

As for Venezuela, they deserve to be there. Indeed, they knocked off Team Japan which has won three WBC Titles including the most recent tournament in 2023.

Tomorrow night, Venezuela faces Team USA in the WBC Final. Although this is Venezuela's first appearance in the WBC Final, I find it all a bit depressing as it is just a reminder of the American military invasion of Venezuela in which they ousted one dictator to replace him with another.

It's hard to root for Team USA when manager Mark DeRosa boasts about having their ticket punched to the semi-final before they earned that spot or having a member of Seal Team 6 speak to the team about killing Osama bin Laden as well as Bryce Harper minimizing the importance of the WBC compared to the Olympics.

Let me put it this way. A World Baseball Classic title would mean a lot more to the people of Venezuela than it would to the people of this country.

As for Team Italy, even when represented by Americans and Venezuelans, they played with a joie de vivre. Or should I say with a gioia di vivere. What with the Armani jackets, the kisses on the cheek, the espresso, the wine with music by Andrea Bocelli. 

They played for the love of the game. Now that's amore.

A Message for Javier Bardem: Free Palestine....From Hamas

 

Actor Javier Bardem took the stage at last night's Oscars to say, "No to war and Free Palestine."

Of course, this is nothing new under the sun for Bardem who accused Israel of genocide at the Emmys six months ago and pledged not to work with anyone who supported genocide.

But when you stop to think about Bardem's statement, it is most peculiar.

After all, it was Hamas who initiated the conflict on October 7th, raped and murdered civilians while also taking hostages.

Oh, I'm sure Bardem was referring to the present conflict in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

While you can certainly make the case there is a great deal of stupidity involved in said conflict as I have, it is telling that Bardem doesn't see fit to call for a Free Iran. He has no words of support to offer either Jafar Panahi or Medhi Mahmoudian, the director and screenwriter for the Oscar nominated documentary It Was Only an Accident. Both Panahi and Mahmoudian have been arrested by the Iranian government for their opposition to the present regime.

In the grand scheme of things, Bardem is no more interested in freedom for Palestine than he is for freedom for Iran. If this was the case then Bardem would declare, "Free Palestine....from Hamas." After all, Hamas has just as much contempt for Palestinians as it does Israelis. Hamas had no qualms about executing Palestinians seeking food aid.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is little better where 90-year-old Mahmoud Abbas remains President despite the fact his four-year term expired 17 years ago. 

When Javier Bardem (or anyone else for that matter) chants, "Free Palestine" (with Hamas in power), what they really want is a genocide of Jews.

Perpetrator in Temple Israel Attack Had Ties to Hezbollah

Consider what I wrote about a couple of days ago concerning Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, the man responsible for last week's terrorist attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan:

While Ghazali did not have a previous criminal record, in light of his actions yesterday, one must wonder what his online activity was like or his interactions with his closest of friends. Perhaps this information will come to light in the not-too-distant future. Or perhaps we will never know.

Well, it turns out Ghazali had ties to Hezbollah as per CNN: 

According to law enforcement officials briefed on the matter, Ghazali shows up in federal government databases as having connections to “known or suspected terrorists” associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Ghazali, who is a naturalized US citizen from Lebanon, is not listed in the government databases as a member of Hezbollah himself, they added.

According to the officials, Ghazali’s last foreign travel was from the United States to Lebanon in 2019. He returned to the US through Atlanta, where he was flagged in DHS systems for “threshold targeting” based on prior records of his contact with suspected Hezbollah members.

In an interview with Customs and Border Protection agents at the time, Ghazali said he had traveled abroad to receive hair transplant treatment. Ghazali’s phone was inspected by CBP, and agents found individuals who were known or suspected Hezbollah members in his contacts, according to the officials. It is not clear who those contacts were, or what Ghazali’s relationship to them was.

Yet I believe it is reasonable to infer Ghazali's Hezbollah contacts included his brother Ibrahim Muhammad Ghazali who the IDF identified as "a Hezbollah officer" who was "responsible for managing weapons operations within a specialized branch of the Badr Unit. The IDF added the Badr Unit "is responsible for launching hundreds of rockets toward Israeli civilians throughout the war.” 

Yes, let us not forget that Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel the day after the October 7th attacks.

Even if Ayman Mohamad Ghazali was not an official member of Hezbollah, he not only had ties to the group but sympathized with their objectives and was prepared to lay down his life to carry out those objectives. I have little doubt that Hezbollah would view Ghazali's attack against Temple Israel some 6000 miles away as an act of resistance.

Needless to say, headlines from the Detroit News, The Guardian and other media outlets which mention that Ghazali had lost family in an Israeli airstrike without mentioning his family's ties to Hezbollah is not only quite misleading, but it also minimizes his own act of terrorism against Temple Israel. Such headlines and stories also have the effect turning Ghazali into an aggrieved victim seeking vengeance.

This is journalistic malpractice. It is one thing to be critical war of the current military action in the Middle East. Whatever legitimate criticism there might be against the Trump Administration and the Israeli government, we should not accept the word of the Iranian regime and their allies at face value. To do so is to engage in bad faith.

War Isn't Supposed To Be Fun

During a 30-minute phone interview with NBC News, President Trump declared that while U.S. airstrikes on Iran's oil facilities on Kharg Island had rendered them "totally demolished" he added that "we may hit it a few more times for fun."

Someone ought to tell Trump that war isn't supposed to be fun.

Not that he would listen, mind you. But someone should tell him just the same.

While I firmly believe that both Iran and the world would be better off without its current murderous regime, to achieve such a goal through military actions requires seriousness and sobriety among the leaders who launched this campaign into effect.

Alas, President Trump possesses neither seriousness nor sobriety. 

I'm sure Trump's apologists will say that he was only joking.

Well, this isn't a time for jokes.

Not when U.S. soldiers are losing their lives in this endeavor. To date, 13 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. Six soldiers lost their lives in an Iranian airstrike while a seventh soldier died following an Iranian attack in Saudi Arabia. More recently, six more soldiers died when a refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq.

Should Trump see fit to bomb Kharg Island "for fun" and more U.S. soldiers die in the process then who will tell their families that their loved ones died for President Trump's amusement?

Such callousness on Trump's part makes him little different from those in the Iranian regime he purportedly decries. For their gratification, both Trump and the Iranian mullahs consider life cheap and expendable.

It wasn't so long ago that Trump blasted previous administrations for starting "stupid wars" and claimed he would start any of his own.

Of course, this turned out to be yet another lie.

While removing Iran's regime by military force is not stupid in principle, it has become stupid in practice.

That's because this stupid war was started by a stupid man.

What Does a Reform Temple in Suburban Detroit Have To Do With Israeli Airstrikes in Lebanon?

Consider what I wrote the following concerning the thwarted terrorist attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan:

As of this writing, the now deceased assailant has not been identified. Whether the source of inspiration for the attack was white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism, there is an anti-Semitic rot in this country which has escalated into violence.

The assailant has been since been identified as Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a Lebanese born restaurant manager who came to this country in 2010, became a U.S. citizen a decade ago and resided in Dearborn Heights, a suburb about 20 miles west of Detroit.

However, instead of treating the attack as motivated by Islamic fundamentalism, we are being to headlines such as these from the Detroit News and The Guardian.

Temple Israel synagogue shooter's family recently killed in an air strike

Suspect in Michigan synagogue attack had lost family in Israeli airstrike in Lebanon

These headlines are most peculiar. It's as if they are justifying the killer's actions or, at the very minimum, rationalizing them.

Now, I'm not doubting the facts of the case. In other words, I am not doubting that Ghazali's brothers and a niece and nephew were killed by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon.

Yet let me put it this way.

Let us suppose the brother of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or for that matter Iran, were to see fit to avenge the death of his brother by attacking a mosque in the same manner in which Ghazali attacked Temple Israel. Somehow, I doubt either the Detroit News or The Guardian would treat us to these headlines:

Mosque shooter's brother was soldier killed by IED in Iraq

Suspect in Michigan mosque attack had lost brother in IED attack against U.S. military convoy

If such a horrible thing had come to pass, the Detroit News, The Guardian and a myriad of other media outlets would feature headlines feature words like Islamophobia and phrases like hate crime and white supremacy.

And not entirely without justification. After all, what would a mosque in suburban Detroit have to do with an IED attack in Iraq which killed an American soldier? 

The same holds true concerning yesterday's events. What does a synagogue in suburban Detroit have to do with Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon which killed civilians?

It is a question I must ask because of a lifetime of being lectured along the lines of "criticizing or condemning Israel isn't anti-Semitic". If that is the case, then why are people attending a day program at synagogue 6,000 miles away responsible for Israel's military actions?

In the case of yesterday's terrorist attack, one has to consider the very strong likelihood that Ghazali possessed a lifelong, violent hatred of Jews and a willingness to act out on that hate. Yes, I have no doubt that Ghazali was upset and in grief over multiple family members being killed by an Israeli airstrike. Yet I'm sure Ghazali had other relatives in this country who were equally upset by what happened but will manage to go through life without planning to carry out violence against a local synagogue.

Only a week elapsed between the time Ghazali's relatives were killed and Ghazali rammed his vehicle inside Temple Israel. Scarcely 48 hours before the attack, Ghazali bought $2,000 worth of explosives at a fireworks store. How did this purchase not raise a red flag?

While Ghazali did not have a previous criminal record, in light of his actions yesterday, one must wonder what his online activity was like or his interactions with his closest of friends. Perhaps this information will come to light in the not-too-distant future. Or perhaps we will never know.

Whatever the case, while no one is born a terrorist, one does not become this radicalized in just 7 days. I simply cannot fathom anyone doing what he tried to do to Temple Israel without a deep-seated and longstanding hatred of Jews.

Thoughts on the Thwarted Terrorist Attack at a Synagogue Outside Detroit

This afternoon there was a terrorist attack at Temple Israel, a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township which is about 25 miles northwest of Detroit.

The attacker drove his truck into the facility which also houses a school and a community center. The assailant then left the vehicle with a rifle and set a portion of the building ablaze. Fortunately, there were no fatalities among students and staff. One member of the Temple's security team sustained injuries but the terrorist was shot and killed.

While there is much one can criticize about the current direction of the FBI particularly on the question of fomenting anti-Semitism, the local office in Detroit did conduct an active shooter prevention and awareness training session this past January. I have little doubt this was crucial in preventing the loss of life today.

In recent months, there have been several attacks at other religious institutions in Michigan. In June 2025, a deacon at a church in Wayne used his vehicle to thwart a man wielding a rifle from injuring congregants as a Bible study class was going on inside the facility. The following month, four people were killed at a LDS church in Grand Blanc Township by an anti-Mormon zealot. The church was burned down in the process.

Nevertheless, in the wake of resurgent anti-Semitism since October 7th and amplified by the joint U.S.-Israel military campaign in Iran, it will be Jewish institutions and Jewish gatherings that will be most vulnerable to these attacks as demonstrated at the Capital Jewish Museum last May and at a march in solidarity with Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado last June

As of this writing, the now deceased assailant has not been identified. Whether the source of inspiration for the attack was white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism, there is an anti-Semitic rot in this country which has escalated into violence. 

Because of this anti-Semitic rot, Jewish institutions have had to prepare themselves for such attacks as was the case with Temple Israel. While it is good Temple Israel took the steps necessary to prepare for the worst, it is also evidence that the standing of Jews in this country has diminished considerably since the October 7th attacks. 

I suspect that as time goes on anti-Semitism will be increasingly tolerated. With such tolerance for intolerance, fewer government agencies will be willing to assist Jewish communities in protecting themselves. In which case, the Jewish community could find itself in a familiar place - on our own.

Sandberg Inadvertently Echoes Musk on Blaming Jews for Anti-Semitism

On Sunday, former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg spoke at the Birthright Israel Excelerate26 Summit at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York City and I am perturbed by what she said:

We have to be really strategic. And I’m not sure we’re all always doing that because it’s hard

The thing about antisemitism is, it is really bad, massively on the rise, on the right, on the left. It is a massive problem. But it is still a fringe problem. The average person in this country is not antisemitic. And the problem is that if we run around telling everyone that everyone’s antisemitic, we will cause everyone to be antisemitic. That’s what all the data shows us.

And I do think as a Jewish community, as we’ve gotten alarmed about the rise of antisemitism, I am worried that some of us are inadvertently kind of spreading it. And I think we need to be really, really careful.

For starters, Sandberg is plainly contradicting herself. In a matter of seconds, Sandberg says anti-Semitism is a massive problem and then says it is a fringe problem. At best, she is sending mixed messages. It's well and good to be strategic about anti-Semitism but it is difficult to formulate a strategy if she cannot determine whether anti-Semitism is a fringe problem or if it is a massive problem.

Second, who is running around tell everyone that everyone's anti-Semitic? If "that's what all the data shows us" then it might have been helpful had she cited a specific example in support of her argument. 

Third, I think the notion that Jews are inadvertently spreading anti-Semitism is a dubious notion because it has the effect of absolving the people who are quite advertently spreading anti-Semitism whether it is Tucker Carlson or people in the streets of New York praising the October 7th attacks.

In so doing, Sandberg also inadvertently echoes Elon Musk who argued on his X platform in September 2023 - more than a month before the October 7th attacks:

The ADL, because they are so aggressive in their demands to ban social media accounts for even minor infractions, are ironically the biggest generators of anti-Semitism on this platform!

As I argued at the time:

In other words, the Jews are to blame for anti-Semitism by speaking out against it, and we ought to keep our mouths shut. 

By making this claim, Musk effectively absolves responsibility from those who actually harbor hatred towards Jews while giving them a blank check to defame us at every opportunity. 

In such an environment, anti-Semitism would be bound to become mainstream in the United States. And if this comes to pass then pogroms will be sure to follow.

Now I could see Sandberg objecting to my third paragraph and going so far as to cite it as an example of Jews inadvertently spreading anti-Semitism. If she were to tell me that directly, I would ask her the following question:

So how would anti-Semitism not become mainstream in an environment where those who openly spread it flourish with impunity and those who call out such behavior are considered responsible for anti-Semitism?

To claim without evidence that Jews are responsible for spreading anti-Semitism, even inadvertently, is an act of cowardice which takes our eye off the ball. By taking our eye off the ball, we do not put pressure where it belongs - on the anti-Semites who spread their hatred.

Why Was There a Girls' School Near One of Iran's Military Bases?

At the outset of the U.S.-Israeli military action against the Iranian regime, the latter's state media claimed that the U.S. and Israel had bombed an Iranian girls' school.

Some such as Marjorie Taylor Greene accepted the story at face value despite its provenance with Iranian state media.

The fact was that at the time of the incident in question, it could not be determined who was responsible.

However, it does now appear the United States was responsible for the act in question which killed 168 people mostly children despite the claims of President Trump that Iran was responsible. Here is how The Bulwark put it this morning:

Iran’s government has flatly denied that it targeted its own civilians in the strike. And while the Iranian regime has a wretched human-rights record and has been perfectly happy to butcher their own citizens in even the extremely recent past, the idea that this particular tragedy was some sort of friendly-fire strike is contradicted by available evidence. This morning, the New York Times published video analysis confirming that the IRGC base adjacent to the school was hit by a Tomahawk missile—which no belligerent in the war uses except for the United States—and that the school was damaged at around the same time. Ergo: We bombed the school. It seems in all likelihood that this wasn’t a case of Iran intentionally targeting civilians, but of the United States accidentally killing civilians.

Yes, but The Bulwark is missing one very key point here.

Why is there a girls' school situated near one of Iran's military bases? 

Based on the preliminary investigation, U.S. intelligence wrongly identified the area as still being part of the military installation. If this is the case, then the Iranian regime then carved out that portion of the military installation and built a girls' school. How recent this development is far from clear. But if the Iranian military knew there would come a day when there would be an American or Israeli attack at their base then why not build a girl's school and maximize civilian casualties? Should such an attack happen, the world would focus on characterizing American and Israeli forces as child killers instead of questioning why the Iranian regime would build a girls' school in an area that was one part of a military base.

The long and the short of it is that Iran were using that girls' school as a human shield. Given Iran's history long history of funding Hamas which has long used the populace in Gaza as human shields it is fitting that the Iranian military would deploy the same tactic.

Of course, it doesn't change the fact it was a U.S. strike which caused the deaths of these Iranian children. President Trump's insistence on lying also doesn't help matters. Yet it was the Iranian regime which saw fit to build a girls' school on land which was once part of one of their military bases. Surely, this cannot be the only piece of civilian infrastructure which replaced portion of an Iranian military base. Where there is one school then there are others? Not to mention hospitals and homes for the elderly.

The Iranian regime does not care a whit about these dead girls. For them, they serve only as propaganda tools which far too many in the U.S. and the West accept a face value.

I Hope The Iranian People Will Be Given The Space to Reject Mojtaba Khamenei

(ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect)

The Islamic Republic of Iran's so-called Assembly Experts has chosen Mojtaba Khamenei to be the country's Supreme Leader following his father's assassination just over a week ago.

I hope the United States and Israel will pause their military offensive just long enough to give the Iranian people the space necessary to publicly reject the younger Khamenei as well as the Islamic Republic at large.

After all, the Iranian people had no say in Khamenei's ascension.

While President Trump has previously publicly stated that he found Mojtaba Khamenei to be "unacceptable" he also wants to choose Iran's next leader. I think Trump making that choice would be every bit as wrong as the Assembly of Experts making that choice.

Now that the world's attention is centered upon Iran, the world needs to see that the Iranian people do not want Khamenei nor for Iran to continue as an Islamic Republic. This is especially true when one considers the spectacle of public demonstrations in New York City's Washington Square Park proclaiming the elder Khamenei as a "man of social justice."

It is essential that the Iranian people disabuse Americans and the West of our collective ignorance whatever legitimate reservations might be had concerning the present military conflict.

If nothing else, we owe the Iranian people the courtesy of our attention.

U.S. Intelligence Report Says Military Action in Iran Unlikely to Oust Regime

A classified U.S. intelligence report prepared one week before the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran concluded that such a military operation was unlikely to topple its regime, according to the Washington Post:

The report, completed about a week before the United States and Israel initiated the war on Feb. 28, outlined succession scenarios stemming from either a narrowly tailored campaign against Iran’s leaders or a broader assault against its leadership and government institutions, the people familiar with its findings said. In both cases, the intelligence concluded that Iran’s clerical and military establishment would respond to the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by following protocols designed to preserve continuity of power, these people said.

The prospect of Iran’s fragmented opposition taking control of the country was described as “unlikely,” said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a classified report.

It is not clear if President Trump saw this report. If he did then it clearly did not influence his thinking on the subject, such as it is.

Of course, it is possible this assessment could be wrong. After all, the Post notes the report did not make any assessment to the Iranian regime's future if either U.S. ground troops or if Kurdish rebels were armed. The former is unlikely, but the latter scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, such action carries the risk of fomenting civil war within Iran thus giving the regime yet another lifeline.

As I have previously written, my main fear regarding military action in Iran is that the regime would be kept intact and Trump would permit the installation of a new Ayatollah. Even if Trump isn't inclined in this manner, this report would indicate that the regime will be far more difficult to topple than he anticipated.

Despite Trump's rhetoric of "unconditional surrender", I suspect that he will want an easy way out even if it means keeping the existing regime in Tehran and undermining Israel in the process. He'll declare victory, find someone within the regime who he thinks is palatable, permit their ascension into power, and invite the new Iranian leader to sit on his Board of Peace. If Trump was prepared to prop up the Taliban and Hamas, then why wouldn't be prepared to do so the same for the Iranian mullahs?

Meanwhile, Israel will have gained nothing from this military action. There will still be the threat of a nuclear Iran even if the new regime softens its rhetoric. Their actions behind the scenes will invariably tell a different story. If the Iranian regime cannot be dislodged and remains an existential threat to Israel, then I think Israeli voters will oust Benjamin Netanyahu from power come October. 

Needless to say, the Iranian people will also have gained nothing from this military action.

Trump Wants to Choose Iran's Next Leader

President Trump proclaimed that his desire to choose Iran's next leader.

He told Reuters:

We're going to have to choose that person along with Iran. We're going to have to choose that person.

We want to be involved in the process of ​choosing the person who is going to lead Iran into the future, so we don't have to go back every five years and do this again and again. We want somebody that's going to be great for the people, great for the country.

So much for Trump telling the Iranian people to take over your government. 

To drive the point home, Trump also told Axios, "I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodriguez] in Venezuela."

This is exactly what I was afraid of a week ago today only 48 hours before military action in Iran commenced:

Yet let us suppose there is military action in Iran. Who can say it would be any different than what occurred in Venezuela earlier this year where they extracted Nicolas Maduro only to install his vice-president as his replacement? Meet the new Ayatollah. Same as the old Ayatollah. 

If Trump was capable of bestowing legitimacy upon the Taliban during his first term, then it certainly isn't conceivable the Iranian regime will remain in place during his second term.

Whoever becomes Iran's new leader, even if they are up to the task and move the country from theocracy to democracy, will be perceived as Trump's puppet in view of his overt desire to choose a leader of his pleasing rather than giving the space necessary for the Iranian people to choose.