By
Will 2006 be the year that Arabs and Muslims finally start treating Palestinians like human beings? Don’t bet on it. In fact, they enjoy the most rights and privileges in one unduly vilified country. Hint: It starts with and “I”, ends with an “L”, and has and “S-R-A-E” in the middle.
It has long been documented that other Muslim and Arab nations don’t really give a whit about the Palestinians personally. They just want them as a political weapon to use against Israel (read: “the Jews”). Most in refugee camps are kept their by their Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptian and even Palestinian “hosts.”
Now here’s more documentation–coming from leftist, pro-Palestinian “reporter” (term used VERY loosely here) Kevin Sites, of Yahoo. We object to the fact that Yahoo even uses Sites, openly biased and very left-wing on all issues Middle East and probably all issues period. His Yahoo “Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone” reports are openly dedicated to , and he links to her far-left group, Civic Worldwide–which hates everything American, Western, Christian, Israeli, Jewish, non-Communist, non-Muslim, etc., and openly aids and abets America’s enemies.
That said, even Sites provides some important quotes in his latest one-sided, sob-story dispatch about Palestinian “refugees” in Lebanon. We beg to differ with his statement about “Palestinians forced to leave their homes after the creation of Israel in 1948.” In fact, Palestinians were urged to stay by Israel, but chose to leave at the insistence of Arab Muslim nations who immediately went to war against Israel. The Palestinians made the wrong gamble, choosing abandonment, and they lost.
And they keep losing, at the hands of their Arab Muslims brethren.
Here are the important quotes that world needs to, yet again, take notice of, from Sites’ piece:
Muna Farid, who just added a third floor to her “refugee camp house” (three floors is not refugee squalor, sorry), told sites this:

The Lebanese government doesn’t treat us like human beings. I can’t begin to describe how sad I am.

Sites adds:

Along with employment restrictions, there are also legal codes that prevent Palestinian children from attending Lebanese schools. With their concentration in these refugee ghettos, most Palestinians here live in limbo, caught between the dream of returning to their Palestinian homeland and the nightmare of their current status as non-citizens.

When will Lebanon (and Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and all the other Arab and Muslim nations who house them) absorb Palestinians and allow them the full equal rights that they get in Israel, just like Israel did for the million Jews kicked out of their homes in Arab Muslim countries? Answer: Never. At least, not until Israel and the Jews are wiped off the face of the map.
And then, they’re coming for America and the rest of the West, too.

By
Do movie critics and the entertainment press have horrible memories? Apparently so. They’re all raving about Woody Allen’s “new” flick, “Match Point” (out in limited release today, with roll-outs nationwide through January).
It’s entertaining enough. But I liked it better the first time . . . .
SPOILER ALERT
Allen’s “Match Point” is really a remake of 1989’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” also by Allen. A man cheating on his wife murders his mistress because she threatens to tell if he doesn’t leave his wife and marry her (and he gets away with it, going on with his life). Same plot, different decade, different continent and different actors. Where “C&D” took place on Long Island and the main character was a Jewish ophthalmologist, “MP” takes place in London with an Irish former pro tennis player. Big Diff(erence).

New Woody: Same as the Old Woody.
The undue awe and hype over this tired remake demonstrated by those covering Allen and his movies is illustrative, as is the lack of new ideas and resorting to remakes. As we’ve said before on this site, a lack of new ideas symbolizes the death of capitalism and the decline of our society.
And, besides, we don’t like Woody Allen and his liberal Democratic “family values,” anyway. The French can have him . . . and Jerry Lewis, too.

By
Why won’t AIPAC–the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the self-styled pro-Israel lobby in America, take a stand against “” or even take any stand at all?
You would think a group that claims to be pro-Israel and also claims to be American would have two reasons to denounce this fictional movie that morally equivocates terrorists and victims and denounces the war on terror: 1) as Americans AND 2) as supporters of Israel. But you would be wrong.
AIPAC refuses to make a statement about “Munich.” It’s an outrage that a group that markets itself, using a New York Times description of it as “The most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel,” won’t condemn this movie, when even the government of Israel did denounce the film. AIPAC’s silence on this is deafening and outrageous.

Read this exchange sent to me by a justifiably upset AIPAC member (whose name and e-mail have been removed to protect his identity):

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:13:31 -0600
From: [Name and e-mail address redacted]
To: Debbie Schlussel
Subject: Silence on Munich from AIPAC
Debbie,
I just can’t figure out how an org like AIPAC that claims to advance
Israel’s interest in America stays silent on such a damaging movie (see below).
Any ideas?
[Name redacted]
*********
From: Membership Membership@aipac.org
Date: Dec 28, 2005 12:57 PM
Subject: munich
To: [E-mail address redacted]
Mr. [Name redacted]
AIPAC is not issuing a statement on the movie.
Thank you
***********
From: [Name and e-mail address redacted]
Posted At: Monday, December 26, 2005 10:35 AM
Posted To: AIPAC Update
Conversation: Munich
Subject: Munich
Dear AIPAC representative,
I would like to know if AIPAC will be issuing a statement about Steven
Spielberg’s new movie, Munich, which deals with Israel’s fight against terrorism.
Thank you in advance for your response.
[Name redacted]

For those of us who know the real AIPAC, we know that the group is dominated by liberals who want Israel to give every last inch for “peace” (piece of paper). AIPAC was behind the disastrous Oslo Accords, Wye Accords, Gaza pull-out, and, behind the scenes, a total pull-out from the West Bank (including suburban Jerusalem, and ultimately “East” Jerusalem. AIPAC supported a Palestinian state early on and actively joined lobbying forces with the lobbyist hired by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in meetings with Members of Congress. On college campuses, especially of late, left-wing AIPAC student groups at the University of Michigan, Duke, and Princeton, have repeatedly opposed other students who’ve opposed Islamic terrorism.
AIPAC really stands for the Appeasement forced on Israel (by liberal American naifs) Public Affairs Committee. Those of us who know AIPAC know that it is actually no surprise at all that this organization won’t come out against Spielberg’s fiction equivocating terrorists and their victims and arguing against responding to terrorists. In fact, AIPAC’s view is a lot closer to Spielberg’s than it’s membership realizes.
But any group of real Americans–whether Americans supporting Israel, or just plain Americans–who are truly against terrorism, wouldn’t take even a New York second in pontificating over whether or not to make a statement against this film.
It would have come out against it immediately. Well, at least, “Munich” has done one good service associated with truth–albeit too late. It has shown blind supporters of AIPAC, the organization’s true colors.

By
Today’s Wall Street Journal Marketplace section has a very interesting article about a rude behavior you could have predicted would result from the hit movie, “Wedding Crashers“: wedding crashing. (We wish we could link to this, but alas, you must subscribe to the WSJ to access it.)
The movie has inspired so much wedding crashing that it’s become very costly to non-celebrity brides and grooms who must shell out big bucks for decidedly celebrity accoutrements, including guards/extra security and the extra money the caterer charges for extra plates (food served to the crashers who are not caught). It also now includes the tacky, but necessary: Wedding parties must now resort to sending tickets for admission in the wedding invitation. Enjoy seeing total strangers in your wedding photos? Those pics cost money, too.

It was funny in the movie–which was hilarious, if very raunchy–but come on . . . in real life, this behavior is just plain obnoxious. And, oh, the effort it takes. One set of wedding crashers accessed the groom’s on-line resume to bluff their way through conversations with relatives at the wedding. Another couple crashed a wedding, then invited the bride and groom to crash theirs. How cute . . . NOT.
Too bad the movie has emboldened this behavior, but didn’t you kind of expect that? This latest decline in manners and common courtesy is yet more evidence of the dumbing down of American society. Like this movie, we liked “Animal House,” “Back to School” (which is now 20 YEARS OLD!–circa 1986–and, unfortunately, being remade with Cedric the Entertainer, in Spanish; ‘Nuff said), etc. But that doesn’t mean we want all of America to emulate these movies. “Wedding Crashers” is a movie, not an instruction manual on how to behave in real-life.

By Debbie Schlussel
Today, I’m appearing on:
* 11:10-11:30 a.m. ET: Greg Garrison Show on WIBC-AM 1070, Indianapolis (You can listen to this show on-line across the world.)
* 4:50 p.m. ET: Mitch Albom Show on WJR-AM 760, Detroit (You can listen to this show on-line across the world.)

By
When Howard Stern begins his satellite radio career on January 9th, he may learn that he hasn’t escaped the censors.
Where terrestrial radio is sometimes disciplined by the FCC, satellite radio is governed by something far more malignant: The Orthodox Liberal-Left.
At least, that was my experience with XM–the number one satellite radio service and rival to Stern’s Sirius. I was aggressively sought by XM to do a show. But XM’s left-wing programming officials’ idea of what my views should be were far more restrictive than a governmental body properly trying to enforce decency in extreme cases. At XM, they were obsessed with Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda, vegetable-infused bus tour fantasies, rigidly pro-choice, and opposed to Justice Roberts’ nomination.

XM Stands for Far Left Programming for Chicks
Over the past year, XM leadership courted me for a new women’s programming channel–the only original programming they were investing money in. Men are generally the leaders in using technology. But women are the majority of new car buyers–where XM and Sirius get their main exposure through temporary free satellite offerings as part of the package when buying a new car. That’s why XM was focusing its dollars on trying to provide programming “for women.”
But I don’t do “women’s programming.” I make fun of it. To me, the idea that different plumbing means I need any special programming–a la the Damsel-in-Distress Network (a/k/a “Lifetime”) or Oprah’s atrocious failure called the “Oxygen Network”–is absurd. But that’s not the way the left sees it, as I found out when I visited XM studios in Washington.
I turned down the offer to do XM’s women’s programming several times, but finally gave in as a way to get in the door. XM has a conservative talk radio channel, but like Sirius, it doesn’t offer any original conservative talk programming that you can’t hear on regular, free terrestrial radio (so why buy it?).
I had a successful conservative talk radio show on Detroit’s Infinity Broadcasting FM talk station (on which Stern’s show was running). While #1 in its late-night time slot, my show was replaced by “O’Reilly Radio Factor”–a free, company-owned show. The station could save money by not paying me (or Bill O’Reilly). My audience was mostly men–and the select group of smart women who don’t need tampon and Chico’s ads, a Jaclyn Smith he-cheated-on-me movie of the week, and a steady diet of Oprah-style feminism to pique their interest.
When I agreed to do a pilot for XM, I had a conference call with XM’s top programming official and Amy Reyer, the program director for the women’s channel, now called “Take Five.” (Taking more than five seconds of it could be hazardous to your health.) Both had listened to tapes of my show and both told me to ignore the fact that it was a “women’s” channel. I could do my show the way I did it on terrestrial radio, they insisted. They even discussed rating the show “extreme language,” which I assured them was NOT necessary. I’m a conservative, not a porn star.
“We don’t bite,” Reyer assured me. But once I got to XM studios, my experience was otherwise. Everything I said or did was too offensive, too un-P.C. for the privileged liberal women’s programming director, Reyer.
She told me she was looking for a conservative and had auditioned another one, who was too “mousy” (her word). But it soon became clear that she wasn’t looking for a conservative at all–mousy or otherwise. She was looking for an Alan Colmes-style buffoon to be a foil, the conservative bete-noire.
I recorded my pilot the day after Peter Jennings died, and my comments about his liberal and pro-Palestinian bias offended her. So did my comments about women with tattoos, fat women, and pretty much everything else.
Hillary Clinton made a comment in the news about supermodels and what a negative influence they are on “our daughters,” causing them to become anorexic. (Not like Chelsea is exactly rail-thin, but whatever.) I said I found that odd, given that so many Americans (over 60%) are obese–an epidemic in this country, while anorexia is a small issue in comparison. I thought that stores like “Torrid,” featuring super-sized thongs (the length of the Golden Gate Bridge), low-rise jeans in Size 18 (perfect for muffin-top over-exposure), and hammock-esque halter tops were the problem. Maybe Americans need to get more anorexic, not less, I said at a lunch-time conversation.
Oops, I blew the lid off ultra-liberal Amy Reyer. “That’s very irresponsible,” she said, visibly irked. “I hope you will be more responsible than that on the air,” implying that my comments would immediately hypnotize millions of girls not listening to her women’s channel to become skin and bones. Right.
Then, there were tattoos. A&E was just premiering its new reality show about tattoo artists, at the time. I talked about women with tattoos and how, when I see a woman with a tattoo, I see a woman who’s probably easy. If she makes a decision to permanently deface her body so quickly–probably by going to some low-rent needle den in a drunken stupor, getting a metal implement repeatedly stabbed into her body–she’ll probably make other split-second decisions to insert other things into her body in a drunken stupor. When I see a woman with tattoos, I generally see a skank, a whore.
Oops! I offended the left-wing Ms. Reyer again. “You can’t say ‘skank’ on the radio,” she protested. “It will offend our listeners. You need to be more like PBS.” How many PBS-watching 68-year-old cat-ladies–who stay home watching tax-subsidized specials on neo-feminist, pro-Palestinian, lesbian art from Antarctica–do you think get satellite radio? Not many. But it’s not like the liberal Reyer was in touch with that.
It’s not like Reyer had any experience in actual radio. She didn’t, coming from doing “women’s” shows on community access cable. Community access cable–Didn’t Wayne and Garth do that?
In the end, the women’s channel, Take Five, ended up choosing audio of TV’s “The Ellen Degeneres Show” and “The Tyra Banks Show” for its “flagship” programming. I suppose Banks’ Oprah-light, Jerry Springer-esque White minstrel show is more acceptable than my use of the word “skank.” Ditto for the Tyra episode on which her male doctor felt her up to prove to the world that her breasts are real. This is XM’s idea of what upscale, satellite-radio-consuming women want.
When I got to Ms. Reyer’s cubicle at XM headquarters, all was explained to me by the postings on the wall. Other than her son’s drawing, there were just two items, but they told me everything I needed to know. First, there was a notice about Cindy Sheehan’s bus tour, complete with Jane Fonda and vegetable fuel. I asked her why she had that up on her wall. “We’re going to broadcast the tour on our channel,” she told me. I asked her if she really thought women would be interested in hearing daily rantings by Hanoi Jane and Jihad Cindy. “Definitely. That’s what our listeners, that’s what a lot of women, want to hear.”
The other posting on Reyer’s wall was an article about Bush’s then Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts, how women are rabidly pro-choice, and see abortion as the most important issue in his nomination. Which women? Not the ones I know. (Maybe the ones who attended Chelsea Clinton’s and Reyer’s alma mater, Sidwell Friends–the fancy, private Quaker school for rich, white liberals in Washington, who wouldn’t dare send their kids to public school to “mix with the Black folk”; all while they insist on busing your kids in.) I suppose XM’s women’s channel is not aimed at the millions of women who voted for a pro-life candidate in 2004, George W. Bush.
Fortunately, Roberts was confirmed, and the bus tour to nowhere never got off the ground. But XM’s misguided idea–that women want to hear these raving lefty lunatics attack our country and soldiers on a daily basis–should tell you something. That XM was investing money primarily in this channel, programmed by a woman possessed with left-wing orthodoxy, is elucidating.
I learned what Howard Stern and other satellite neo-groupies will soon find out. Satellite radio is gripped by censors far worse than legitimate decency standards: the liberal-left.
Satellite radio is an innovative technology. But its steady diet of the same old mainstream media agenda is anachronistic. You can get the same thing reading the front page of The New York Times–minus Tyra Banks’ classy breast “examination.”

By
Former Penn State women’s basketball player Jennifer Harris is suing for discrimination because her coach “pressured” her to dress and look more feminine. Gee, we really needed our federal court system further clogged with important matters like this one.
Wait a second. Are you telling us that female basketball players are not feminine-looking? No way. Imagine that. Who’d a thunk it? Like the rest of America, we’ve been not watching the , and we never knew.
Oh, and guess who’s representing “Ms.” Harris in the lawsuit? Why, it’s our feminine, lovely friends at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Maybe if they’d pay a little more attention to looking less butch and more attractive, women’s basketball players might someday attract an audience. But don’t count on it. They also have to play a decent game of hoops. And they don’t. Like we said, . No looks. No game. No dice.

By
The end of “Monday Night Football” (MNF) is a sign of the end of network TV. No-one is watching anymore. Programming is inane and disposable. And even MNF fell victim.
The show had the inane (and actually, absurd) Dennis Miller. Thankfully, he–like so many other hosts of the show for a while–was disposable.
Yes, I know it’s not really the END of MNF because it will be on ESPN, next season. But actually, it is. The show will not be the same. They probably won’t have Hank Williams, Jr. singing the theme. The show will be a new show, albeit with the same old name.
I watched most of last night’s last MNF, and here’s what I noted:
* Among the special guests, even the Unabomber was in attendance. Okay, so it wasn’t really THE Unabomber, but his fashion protege, New England Patriots’ Head Coach Bill Belichick, in his signature hooded sweatshirt, hood overhead, looked a lot like the real thing. Significant, since the death of MNF was looming.

Fashion by the Unabomber: New England Patriots’ Bill Belichick
* No O.J. Yes, O.J. Simpson was a host of MNF for a brief time. Yet, he was conveniently barely mentioned. By design, and that’s a good thing. You can have a coach that dresses like a murderer pacing the sidelines. But spare us the real thing–even if a jury whose average IQ was 50 didn’t convict him–in attendance (we wish the real thing were also eliminated from playing, not just announcing–Ray Lewis, anyone?). Perhaps he was, indeed, invited, but was still looking for “the real killers.”
* No Joe Willie Namath. I like Joe Namath. Broadway Joe was a great host, in my view. Don’t know why they dropped him. But his absence is symbolic that–despite his alcohol rehab–he’ll never get over the televised debacle of repeated “I want to kiss you”s to ESPN’s Suzie Kolber. Too bad. Namath had spunk. I’m a proud owner of his funny first autobiography (written at age 26, with the late Dick Schaap; Dick signed it for me when we both did “Politically Incorrect” on ABC) “I Can’t Wait Until Tomorrow . . . ‘Cause I Get Better-Looking Every Day“.
* Don Meredith was in the house. Meredith was among the best hosts of MNF. Great sense of humor–an avuncular, nice guy. My friend, former University of Michigan and Detroit Lions head coach Gary Moeller, told me that Meredith was his favorite host of MNF and made the show what it was.
* Buh-Bye, John Madden–but, unfortunately, not good riddance. He’s going to the new MNF, “Sunday Night Football” on NBC. Too bad. I’ve never been a fan of Madden. Don’t know why anyone is. He never says anything interesting. It’s all the epitome of the obvious. Utterances like this one: “You see that guy running with the ball? When he gets into the end zone, it’s called a touchdown.” Thanks for the tip. What can you expect from a man who insists on riding a glorified trailor everywhere? Too afraid to fly–and to make any interesting observations about football.
* No Rush Limbaugh. Rush should have gotten a shot at hosting MNF. Would have helped ratings significantly. Looked like he was being groomed for the job at ESPN until he became a victim of absurd political correctness.
* Mr. Kathy Lee Gifford was also in the house. Almost 80 years old.
I doubt Joe Theismann can fill the shoes of an ABC MNF host. But that’s why the show’s on ESPN, a step down. Those are hand-me downs he must now fill, a lot easier, because less people are watching.

By
In the fall-out of Steven Shlemielberg’s fictional, moral-equivalence-of-victims-with-terrorists film, “,” there are two items of note:
* Mohammed Daoud, one of the Islamic terrorist planners of the Munich massacre of innocent Israeli Olympic athletes, told Reuters that,

We did not target Israeli civilians. Some of them (the athletes) had taken part in wars and killed many Palestinians. Whether a pianist or an athlete, any Israeli is a soldier.

But, in fact, at least one of the eleven athletes murdered never served as an Israeli soldier. He was American citizen David Berger of Cleveland, Ohio. Too bad the ignorant Reuters reporter, Nidal al-Mughrabi, didn’t have a scintilla of knowledge about the murdered victims to point that out to Daoud. Or maybe the reporter had an agenda–as the slant of the article and the reporter’s name both make clear.

American David Berger: Murdered by Islamic Terrorists in Munich
* Heeb Magazine–a stupid, self-hating glossy of idiocy by morons and geeks who claim to be Jewish–is defending Spielberg. But, as we’ve pointed out, the “magazine” (in truth, it’s not good enough for bird-cage lining) is funded with thousands from Steven Spielberg’s Righteous Persons Foundation.

Heeb Magazine: Shlemielberg’s Well-Funded, But Not too Swift Defenders
In 2001, Heeb’s original editor and founder, Jennifer Bleyer, bragged that her magazine “gives big props to Monica [Lewinsky] and Chandra [Levy]. Like, Jewish sluts of the world, unite!” With “Munich”, one of the pre-eminent Jewish sluts of the world, Spielberg, has united with America’s enemies. (The “Righteous Persons” are gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust, and the foundation is funded by proceeds from “Schindler’s List”. Yup, our relatives died in the ovens and some of your relatives risked their lives to save them . . . to fund a self-hating magazine that defends Spielberg’s celluloid apology for Islamic terrorists.)
Here’s what Heeb’s current editor, the idiotic Josh Neuman, who DIDN’T EVEN SEE “Munich,” told The New York Post (re-printed by Fox News):

“Jews need to chill out, basically, because they’re treating Spielberg as if he’s the new Bobby Fischer,” he says, referring to the ex-chess champ who has publicly attacked Israel. “The big buzz word is moral equivocation, and that’s idiotic. The Jewish community likes to put everything into these two neat categories, ‘good for the Jews’ and ‘bad for the Jews.'”
Neuman says he doesn’t expect the movie to be very good, but, as a huge “Jaws” fan, he’s sticking by his guy.
“Plus, Spielberg is the man. You don’t mess with Spielberg,” he says. “He’s not going Bobby Fischer on us.”

Did someone lace this guy’s latkes (fried potato pancakes traditionally eaten on Chanukah) with crack? “Chill out”? Like way totally gnarly. Here’s my “neat little category”: Things that are bad for America AND good for Islamic terrorists. Included in that set: bearded liberal movie producers who like to make nice to radical Islam and dumb-ass editors that he funds through a Holocaust foundation.
If this hackneyed PR organ of Steven Shlemielberg feels it must defend Shlemielberg, that tells us that he is on the defensive, realizing he is under fire from which he cannot recover. Should have thought about that before he made this veritable silver-screen dung.

By
Although it was only on 532 screens this holiday weekend, and is going to be slowly rolled out, Steven Spielberg’s “” is an incredible failure at the box office.
It came in at 12th place and earned under $6 million. Haha!–Even Jennifer Aniston’s silly, “Rumor Has it” flick did way better. Since, as we’ve written, “” is silver screen screed against fighting terrorism and in favor of moral equivalency for Islamic terrorists and law enforcement who fight them, we’re glad this movie is a big flop.
Happy Chanukah, Steven Shlemiel-berg. Your absurd propaganda spiel is sunk.