WHERE HAS THE PUNDIT GONE???

I know. I have not posted since December 2. Tiger Woods. The story has gotten a lot better since then. 14 alleged mistresses. Soon he will have played a whole round of 18.

And it's not as if things have not happened in that interval. The Copenhagen fiasco, the U.S. health care circus, the slumping in the polls President, the emergence of Alberta's new political "party" - the "Wildrose Alliance", amongst others. So I cannot blame this silence on the lack of things to "pundificate" on. Maybe it has been exam setting, exam marking, brutally cold weather, endless snow shovelling, a a trip here and there which has just frozen my "pundicasity".

In a couple of days, we head out to Phoenix and then to India on a 6 month sabbatical leave. When we are settled down, I will be back with the "punditry". First from Phoenix, and then hopefully from our travels in India.

I apologize to those who have frustratingly checked the ITP daily only to find a absence of any "pundifications". Soo.. here's the plan. I will be absent from my world of "pundalatry" for at least a week more. Trying to "pundulate" in a Motel 6 in Twin Falls, Sweetgrass, or even Salt Lake, is too stressful for this ITP. But I promise.. by the first week in January, you will be grateful for my past silence because I will be back in full throttle. For one thing, I will have FOX NEWS to watch, and that always gets my pundit juices flowing.

So.. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that. You can stop looking for a week or so.

Now.. back to marking.

TIGER SHOULD SHOW UP

When I first heard that Tiger Woods was "seriously injured" in a car accident, I was pretty shocked. That would have been a big story. Tiger is the greatest golfer of his time, and probably the greatest ever. A serious injury could have ended his career, and that would have been big and bad news, not only for Tiger but for the golf world.

When it became clear that Woods was not seriously injured, and the story changed into a gossipy, speculative one about Tiger,his wife and other women, I began to lose interest. After all, rumours that a very rich, celebrity athlete might have engaged in extra marital affairs, leading to domestic turmoil is not shocking. We read about it every day.

What interests me more now is Tiger Woods' behaviour since the accident. Playing a cat and mouse game with the police who were simply trying to do their jobs was chicken poop behaviour. The police have better things to do than to be jerked around by Woods. If Tiger Woods did not want to be interviewed, which is apparently his legal right, he should have had the decency to come out and say it in the first place. Having the police come back three times over phoney baloney excuses is beneath a person of character.

And what is this with his refusal to show up at his own charity tournament, which he is hosting? Granted, he probably is in no mental condition to play 4 rounds of golf, although with Woods, his victory at the U.S. Open with a bum leg shows that he probably could have played and won this tournament, even with his sore ribs, scratched face, and shattered pride. But not to show up at all?

The Chevron World Challenge is a major fund raising event to support the Tiger Woods Foundation. Woods' physical presence at the tournament even if he is not playing would demonstrate its importance to him and give it a big boost. Not showing up because he is embarrassed by his private conduct shows a lack of character and courage. Woods cannot hide forever. He will have to face the music soon enough. Get it over with, Tiger! Come out and support your own tournament. Be a man.

I hope Tiger comes out to the Chevron World Challenge. Let's see if he does.

BLOGGED DOWN

I always feel guilty when I have not posted for a few days. I worry that I will have let down my loyal readers. Don't get me wrong. I know I don't have that many loyal readers. On a good day, I might get about 50 or so visitors. That's not a lot in the blogosphere. But still.

One of the reasons that I have not posted anything since last Wednesday is because I have been away at a conference. I find it difficult to post things and deal with comments when I am travelling. But I am now back and can no longer use that excuse.

Another problem that I have been having lately is that posting on my favorite topic - President Obama - is becoming less fun for me. You see, I am essentially a contrarian. And criticizing the President is now becoming a bit too common place for my style of blogging. Everyone seems to be a critic, even those who strongly identify with and support him. They are crowding me out.

For example, take a look at today's Real Clear Politics.com. Roger Cohen, a self-professed "admirer" of the President, in his article entitled "Obama in His Labyrinth", published in the New York Times no less, writes that he is "worried". The President "feels over-managed, over-scripted to me, to the point where he's not showing the guts that prevailed at various difficult moments in the campaign". The opinion piece goes on to explain the author's disappointment with a long list of Obama's non-achievements to date.

Another commentator, Richard Cohen, who confesses that he supported Obama in the primaries against Hillary and voted for him "with both glee and enthusiasm", writes in his article, "Missing Barack Obama" (the title says it all) of a President "whose moral clarity has been dissipated". Rather than moral clarity it has all become "an Obama gray". The author lists his personal disappointments and wonders where the Barack Obama of the "famous speech on race" has gone.

There are several other similar pieces from David Kuhn's "Obama's Failing: Too Much Head, Too Little Gut" to the more scathing piece by Pat Buchanan "Our Pushover President". Andrew Malcolm's article "Now Democrats join Dick Cheney's critique of Obama" points out negative reviews from some other friendlies - Arianna Huffington and Leslie Gelb.

All of these critical pieces and others like them can be seen in just the one day, November 24, postings on RealClearPolitics. com. What is also interesting to note is the absence of any positive assessments.

So there it is. Unless the tide turns or I quit being a contrarian (unlikely I agree), I will have to write about other things.

"GOING ROGUE" GETS EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION

Palin's book, "GOING ROGUE" is apparently getting extra special attention by the Associated Press. Apparently 11 staff members were assigned to "fact check" the book. According to the FOX News story, this compares to zero, which is the number of those people AP assigned to fact check books written by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Joe Biden, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Rudy Guliani, or Newt Gingrich. Interesting, no?

By the way, the President does not intend to read the book. No time. Obama does think that Palin is a "credible candidate" for the Presidency should she decide to run in 2012, displaying a lot more graciousness and respect for her constituency than most of her detractors.

FOX WAR WINDING DOWN

It appears that the White House has decided to wind down its war against FOX News. First came the news that Communications Director and Field Commander Anita Dunn, who led the battle on the part of the White House, was stepping down from her post. More encouragingly, the President granted FOX news an interview during his China trip. Good sense has prevailed. Now let's see what the President decides to do about Afghanistan.

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

I love an old joke told by Yogi Berra. The one about how a New York restaurant is always so crowded and hard to get into that no-one ever goes there anymore.

And so it goes with everyone's favorite person to talk about, Sarah Palin. Respected conservative commentator David Brooks (who I really like by the way) thinks she is "a joke". Brooks might think Palin is a joke, but it's Sarah who is the one laughing all the way to the bank these days.

Barely a year ago, Sarah Palin was a little known Governor from Alaska. Today she is the talk of the town - an American political celebrity, with millions of followers, huge influence, and lots of dough, with much more of it all to come. Take a look, for example, at the news stories of the day from Real Clear Politics website's eclectic collection. It's all about Sarah Palin. She's on the cover of Newsweek, in a very dazzling photo. The story lines are a mixed bag - "How Palin Can Win the GOP Nomination"; "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah Palin"; "Why Sarah Palin Is Bad For the GOP"; "Palin Tells Her Side of the Story"; "Palin Braves Another Week of Bashing"; "Palin Image Is A Fraud"; "Sarah Palin: Rogue For President" - and that's just from one day of Real Clear Politics. She is on television with the Queen of T.V., Oprah, and with Barbara Walters. And on it goes. Palin, Palin, Palin.

This does not usually happen with people who are second on the ticket in a losing cause. I am not an expert on what has happened historically to failed Vice Presidential nominees but I would be surprised if many have had as much ink, and influence, as Sarah Palin (unless they subsequently ran for and became President).

Like her or hate her, Palin is a phenomenon. By saying this I am not pretending to say that she qualifies for being President, because she does not. I am not saying that she will become President, because she will not. I am not saying that I agree with all or even most of her views, because I do not. I was attracted to her freshness, her willingness to take on the establishment, her populism, and her courage and dignity in facing down the mocking sexism and viciousness which constantly greeted her, when she was on the McCain ticket. I thought then that McCain was the better suited of Obama or McCain to become President and I defended Palin because I thought she would help the ticket.

I continue to marvel at how this failed Vice Presidential candidate has not faded at all from the political scene, but in fact dominates it even more. She did not become Vice President, but she did not merely lick her wounds and retreat to Alaska. She continues to stare down her detractors and she continues to drive them crazy. As my mother always told me when I was being bugged by my older brother - "just ignore him". Advice to the Palin haters - why don't you try ignoring her?

HIDING THE PHOTOS

CNN reported today that the Obama Administration has again decided to block the release of new photos of alleged abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign troops in US custody. Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed an order Friday blocking the release of all photos of detainee abuse taken between Sept. 11, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2009. The reason given is that the release would "endanger U.S. troops serving abroad".

The ACLU which has been taking legal action to have the release of these photos bluntly states that this "about-face" by Obama ( he had at one time agreed to the release of the photos) "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability. The decision to block the photos release is in opposition to a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 2008 decision that they must be released.

So what do I think?

Despite the fact that I am generally hawkish on the "war against terror", the decision to block the photos' release is the wrong one. The argument that it will endanger US troops abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq seems spurious. The troops are already in great danger in both places. They are also planning to leave Iraq. News of the photos' existence is well known. Hiding them will make the assumed abuse even worse in the imagination of those who hate America anyway. Covering up the truth never works, especially when the cover-up is so well publicized.

Obama is supposedly (to his admirers at least) the "unBush". This is a characterization which I reject as being false in terms of his foreign policy realities, other than for his rhetorical and the symbolic gestures. The present issue bears that out.

Obama's major achievement to date has been convincing most of the world that America will be a different (and in their view a better) place with Obama at the helm. He convinced the Nobel Committee of that, for example. So why block the photos? The abuse did not occur on his watch, so the "unBush" narrative is not harmed by the photos' release. In fact, it is strengthened. The cover up alienates a lot of Obama's supporters, and provides yet more ammunition for those who never fell for the rhetoric in the first place. More importantly it contravenes the fundamental ideals of transparency and accountability - of owning up to the sins of the past, by exposing them and doing something about them.

So why is Obama doing this? Any ideas?

PRO-CHOICE FOLKS GET TOSSED UNDER THE BUS

I have been spending a few days down in Phoenix, getting my fill of all the analysis and punditry from FOX, CNN, NPR, Arizona Republic etc. etc. The talk is all about the Health Care Bill and the Fort Hood killer. The debate on the latter topic is predictable, with those on the right calling him a terrorist and denouncing the political correctness of the main stream media for refusing to do so. We can discuss that another day.

What struck me in particular about the House Bill on Health Care is the concession by Democrats and presumably the President to toss the pro-choice folks under the bus to get this 2000 page bill passed. I have no idea what is exactly in those 2000 pages and I doubt anyone does. But apparently there can be no Federal funding or subsidies for insurance plans (private or public) which cover abortions, except in limited cases. This seems like a pretty big concession for the President and the Democrats to have made.

It got me thinking. This is one of those issues ( like same sex marriage ) where you can see a major difference between Canadians and Americans. There is no way that most Canadians or any political leader would have let this one get away. But yet, aside from some minor commentary on this specific matter, there seems to be very little concern that pro- choice advocates in the US were so easily tossed under the bus to get this bill passed. It is another reminder to me that the President and the Democrats seems to have very few, if any, non-negotiable items with which they will stick, if it may result in negative political fall out. At one point, for example, Obama seemed ready to ditch the public insurance option to get his Bill through. (He may still have to.)

Whether in relation to foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or domestic policy issues, everything for this Administration seems to be negotiable and up for grabs. There are no sacred cows. Maybe this is good - a sign of flexibility. Or maybe it is not so good - shifting sands where no-one can really count on anything.

THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY

As a rookie blogger who has devoted a considerable number of my postings to the topic of President Obama, I would be remiss if I let the one year anniversary of his election as President to go by without comment. So here it is.

A little while ago, one might have thought that the one year anniversary of the historic 2008 election would have provoked wild celebration in the streets, intense analysis by the cable chatterers, and a general party like atmosphere in the US and elsewhere. This has not been the case. The day has passed without much attention and little revelry. If anything, the mood seems unusually sombre.

Reality has finally set in. When even CNN focuses its attention on the unkept or broken promises, one realizes the extent of the let down. The fact that unemployment in the US remains high, and the deficit continues to grow, does not help buoy anyone's spirits. For Democrats in particular, stinging losses in governorship races in Virginia and New Jersey on the eve of the anniversary does not help matters.

Whether one is a great fan of the President or not, one has to admit that things are not going too well for his administration at this point in time, especially on the big issues. Health care reform which was supposed to be done by August, and then by Christmas, seems likely to be put off yet again. It is unclear whether the reform, when it does come, will be much ado about nothing, and in particular will contain a public health option. In terms of foreign policy, the delay (some might say the dithering) on Afghanistan is disturbing. The election is over, the consultations have taken place, so decide already. I have noticed that one of Obama's strategies on many things is to delay in doing anything in the hope that the problem will cure itself. The Afghanistan problem will not cure itself. In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, things seem to be at an impasse. Secretary of State Clinton says one thing to the Israelis regarding settlement construction ( i.e the offer made was "unprecedented") and another to the Arabs ( i.e. all settlements are illegal). Carnage continues in Iraq and Pakistan with suicide bombings taking an unbearable toll of innocent civilians. The Iranian nuclear stand-off continues.

The same inaction or lack of will is evident elsewhere. Yet another referendum, this time in Maine, rejected same sex marriage. Despite his energetic and supportive speech to Gays and Lesbians just a short while ago, the President apparently did nothing to assist the same sex marriage advocates to defeat the referendum which overturned same sex marriage legislation in Maine. Guantanamo will not be closed by January as promised. Transparency in committee work on health care reform did not occur, and legislation is not posted on the web for Americans to view before votes are taken, as was promised. I do not know what is happening with the prosecution of those involved in torture, promised by Eric Holder, but this seems to be another issue which has fallen off the radar. The war against FOX seems to have been temporarily abandoned, especially since it has been questioned by even the friendlier "non-biased" media outlets, who now seem to be unwilling to be co-opted into battle.

The bloom is off the rose. This is good. The only way to get politicians and other administrators moving is to put their feet to the fire. A free pass does no-one any good. Let us see where we will be on November 4, 2010.

Sweden's Prime Minister Condemns Racist Article

An opinion piece published in Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper "has prompted harsh condemnations and accusations of racism from all political leaders, including Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt".

No, this story is not in reference to the Aftonbladet opinion piece accusing Israeli soldiers of murdering innocent Palestinian civilians in order to harvest their organs. You might recall that story, which I blogged about in an earlier post. On that occasion Sweden's Prime Minister refused to condemn that racist article since "it was not the government's place to comment on newspaper content". This would be contrary to "free press" in Sweden's democracy. The Swedish ambassador herself was even condemned for offering her criticism of the article's contents.

This current opinion piece is an attack on the influence of European Muslims, which the author of the opinion piece, Jimmy Akesson, the leader of the Sweden Democrats party, terms Sweden's "greatest foreign threat since World War II".

As I argued before, and reaffirm now, the Swedish government has every right, and perhaps even an obligation, to express its condemnation and contempt for racist opinions which make their way into Swedish public discourse. In the case of the anti-Muslim piece, this is especially so since the author of the offensive opinion is a Swedish politician and leader of a political party. His views are obviously important when the Swedes decide on their elected representatives. The fact, however, that the hostile anti-Israeli story was written by a private person and not a politician does not diminish the importance of the government making it clear that it strongly condemned such inflammatory allegations against the Israeli defence forces. So I say bravo to the Swedish Prime Minister for making it clear where he stands, even if it meant he had to comment on newspaper comment. Too bad he didn't take that same approach with regard to the earlier piece.

And another point. For those of you who might think that my opinion on this topic is inconsistent with my take on the White House's war against FOX news, think again. No-where in my postings about the Sweden's government non-reaction to the organ harvesting story, did I suggest that the government should have attempted to delegitimize, ostracize, marginalize, or organize a media boycott of the Aftonbladet newspaper. I only asked that it provide its comment on an important geopolitical story published in that newspaper. Certainly the White House has every right to criticize and comment on stories carried by FOX news. But the war it has been waging, which at this point seems to have badly backfired, is another matter.

Good job, old boy!

This has to be the season of wacky award decisions. First, it was Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Now it's former Prime Minister Jean Chretien's "Order of Merit".

To be quite frank, I really wasn't aware of the "Order of Merit", before I heard the news of Chretien's achievement. So I decided to look into it a bit. The Order of Merit, or "O.M.", as it is better known to those in the know, is the "Sovereign's personal gift" to "individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service". (NO, Governor General Michaelle Jean, you cannot give these things out too!). Jean Chretien falls into the "other areas such as public service" category. Our former Prime Minister seemed very, very pleased that he received this gift. He noted that he was in the company of a very elite group of persons so honoured. It was indeed a great gift, much better I think than a DVD set of movie classics or an IPOD. I was impressed.

There are only 24 current members in the Order of Merit club. I wondered who they were. So I looked it up. I recognized a few of the names. For example, the Queen has given this gift to her husband, The Duke of Edinburgh ( not that he needs it - he already has about 15 other letters after his name), and to her son, The Prince of Wales. Fair enough - they are family after all. Other notables to me were Maggie Thatcher, Dame Joan Sutherland, Sir Anthony Caro, Sir David Attenborough, and Honorary Member Nelson Mandela. They were a few others whose names I recognized, but a bunch about whom I have no clue - Sir James Whyte Black, for example. This I guess is not too surprising as I am not all that up to date on the who's who of British society. Perhaps you will recognize them - check it out.

Like you I wondered why the Queen chose Jean, the little guy from Shawinigan. After all there are very few politicians on this list from Great Britain or anywhere else in the world. Granted, Chretien was a successful Canadian politician and Prime Minister, but "exceptional"? The Queen must like him, I mean really, really like him. And who am I to gainsay the Queen's gift giving decisions anyway.

I had a few other random thoughts about this choice. There must be two very, very angry people around today. Conrad Black, for example. Recall that Chretien blocked Conrad's peerage, a move which resulted in a law suit. If I were a fellow prisoner, I would avoid Conrad for a few days. And how about Brian Mulroney? He CANNOT be too happy about this.

Oh well, petty jealousies. And all over a gift.

News From The Battlefront

Try as I may to put the war between FOX News and the White House behind me and to move onto something else, I simply can't. The story is just too interesting, and becomes more bizarre every day. It's even becoming a bit scary.

A consensus is building that the White House's strategy of attempting to marginalize and delegitimize FOX News is a bad idea. Tom Bevan writing in Real Clear Politics, for example, notes how the White House's effort to delegitimize FOX, from the time that "Communications Director Anita Dunn first announced the White House's war against FOX news", has been ramped up. The other media networks, the "legitimate" ones, have been encouraged by the White House to join in on the battle. They have been urged to follow the White House's lead and not to treat FOX news as a legitimate news organization. Do not be led by FOX, do not follow it, is the White House's advice. What this exactly means to me is not clear. Are they to shun FOX reporters at conferences, press club dinners, or on other occasions? Are they to refuse to follow up on news stories uncovered by FOX news? What exactly is their part to be in this battle? And whether the other news organizations wish to join this White House coalition of the brave against FOX News remains to be seen.

Even the New York Times seems to be in agreement that what it calls "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News" is a bad idea. David Carr writes that with two on-going wars, the White House's decision to "open up a third front last week, this time with Fox news", so far has resulted in Fox news being the "only winner". "Trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common", writes Carr.

Or one can look at the Baltimore Sun's take on this matter. David Zurawick writes that despite the "media blowback that greeted Anita Dunn's declaration of war on Fox News", instead of now being cautious in its treatment of FOX, the White House continues in its effort to bully the media network into submission.

The most offensive thing about this, at least to me, is Rahm Emanuel's argument that the way the White House sees it, FOX News "is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective". What in the world does this mean? That other news organizations are legitimate because they have no perspective? Or that other news organizations are legitimate because they share the government's perspective?

There is a real issue here, that of freedom of the press. One does not have to like FOX to feel a sense of outrage over the fact that government influence and pressure are being used here to delegitimize, ostracize and ultimately to silence a free press outlet, with which the government does not agree. And that to me is scary.

The "War" Between FOX and the WHITE HOUSE heats up

In my posting on Thursday, October 8, I suggested that the White House's decision to go to war with FOX News was a bad idea for the White House, but a good break for FOX. Since then things have heated up, and FOX's ratings continue to skyrocket.

In the latest volley, White House communications director Anita Dunn admitted that the two parties were at war, and that it was no longer necessary to pretend that FOX behaves like a "legitimate news organization". FOX was described by the White House as an "opponent", and will be treated by the White House as such.

This paranoia is silly and unbecoming. As I noted in earlier postings, objective studies have shown the clear media bias for Obama in the last election. The negative stuff that McCain and Palin had to put up from CNN and others led McCain, who is by everyone's accounts a fair and honourable man, to refuse at one point to appear on CNN. So this whining about FOX is ridiculous. It is a cable news network, not the Republican party. Does the White House have to be loved by everybody? Isn't the Nobel Committee's vote of confidence enough?

I also referred in my postings to viewership figures. The most recent ones I looked at were astounding. For example, Glenn Beck's viewership for the week of October 2 - 8 at the 5 p.m. time slot ranged from app 2,550,00 to 2,950,000 per day. This was about TWICE as much as the viewership of CNN Situation Room, MSNBC Hardball, and Headline News COMBINED. O'Reilly's numbers are also astronomic. For most days at the 8 pm time slot, they are well over 3,000,000 and as high as 3,765,000. No-one else comes even close (Campbell Brown, Countdown, and Nancy Grace) and as with Beck, O'Reilly's number dwarfs the COMBINED number of the three others.

The numbers go up as the White House rhetoric goes up. As I noted in my earlier posting, I don't subscribe to FOX. But I might now. It looks like I am missing all the action in this war of words.

Interesting Hillary Comment

Hillary Clinton says that she "is not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day."

She adds that "maybe that is a woman's thing. Maybe I am totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I am doing." It doesn't "have to be me, me, me all the time".

Hmmm. Interesting. I hope Barack and Bill don't read anything into this. She certainly couldn't have been talking about them. Naw. She must have been referring to some other men she knows.

OBAMA AND THE PRIZE

Despite my reluctance to do so, I would not be a pundit worth my salt if I did not comment on President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

My first reaction when I heard the news was shock. For a few moments I thought I might have been in a deep sleep for months and I awoke on April 1. But no.. it was still October 9. It took me a while to digest the story. So what do I think?

I think that most rational people will have been very surprised by the announcement. The President apparently was. They will also think that the President does not deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize, at least not now. This seems also to be the President's own assessment. You do not win peace prizes for talking about peace. It's like someone winning the Nobel Prize for Literature because they have a really good idea for a book. I really don't think this is a debateable point.

Having said that, I do not think this choice qualifies as the Committee's worse selection for the prize. Al Gore winning the peace prize in 2007 over Holocaust heroine Irena Sendler, for his narration of a film on global warming, far outdoes this selection in terms of its stupidity. Obama is at least in the peace making business, even if he has not yet achieved anything which advances its cause. What Al Gore's skill in narrating a video on climate change had to do with advancing the cause of peace in the world still eludes me.

The Committee did the President no favour by awarding him the prize. I think this was evident in his sombre "acceptance" speech. For one thing, it focuses everyone's attention on what is probably the President's most vulnerable point; i.e. that he is all talk and no action on many issues. The question that everyone will ask when they hear about this award is: "why???". "What has the President actually done to advance the cause of peace in the world?". This is a question which the President probably does not want asked over and over again, at least not at this point in time in his Presidency.

It also comes at a terrible time for Obama. Difficult decisions have to be made about troop levels in Afghanistan, engagement with Iran, and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Does the President really want the peace prize hanging over his head if he decides to send more troops into Afghanistan, or increase sanctions on Iran. Will these be seen as the actions of a "peace maker"? If, on the other hand, he decides to back off from his commitments on these issues, will this be seen as weakness in his desire to prove to the world (i.e. the Europeans) that he really deserved the peace prize?

Perhaps one can argue that the Committee awarded Obama the prize precisely in order to try to influence him on his thinking about what to do about Iran, Afghanistan and other hot spots. Here again I think the President's "acceptance" speech signalled that he is aware of this potential Nobel Committee strategy, by his making it somewhat clear that there are dangers in the world which must be dealt with before peace can be achieved.

All in all, this was a most unexpected selection, which will have a lot of our tongues wagging for quite some time.

White House At War With "Fox" News

It seems that the White House is at war with Fox News. Presumably this is not one of the wars which President Obama inherited from the Bush Administration, but one which it started all on its own. It has even blogged about it.

Is this really a good idea for the Administration? Does the U.S. President really need a new Nixonesque "enemies" list?

I do not think so. First, according to a February 2009 story about the ratings, Fox News' fan base is huge. Fox News Channel "has been the top rated cable news network for 86 consecutive months. It averaged 2.8 million viewers." CNN was 15th and MSNBC was 23rd. This domination continued and even grew according to the May survey. Glenn Beck was up 130% compared to the same period last year. O'Reilly marked "its 102nd consecutive month as the top-rated cable news program". MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow went down.

Assuming that Fox News' popularity is based on the fact that the millions who tune in agree with most of what is said there, what is the White House's thinking on this? What is the President's message, for example, in deciding not to appear on Fox News to explain Health Care reform? Is it "let's just write these millions of folks right off and be done with trying to win them over"? Is that the game plan? "Let's go to war with Fox and its legions of followers" - is that it?

Second, doesn't targeting Fox in blogs and White House commentary not in fact help elevate its importance and increase viewership? It seems to me that the strategy of ignoring Fox and its commentators would do more to marginalize them, then making them enemy "numero uno". I assume that Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity and co. love the White House attention. It must demonstrate to them at least that their criticisms are beginning to have an impact and the White House knows it.

For the record, I rarely watch Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN. I do not even have cable access to Fox, but I am of course aware of the shows since I have been in places where it is available. If I want a balanced debate I watch PBS or if I really want to know what's important to me, I watch the Business News Network (joke). I read blogs, opinions and stories from a wide spectrum of views. So I am not defending Fox here. I am just suggesting that it is probably a bad idea for the White House to engage in its war with it.

Commander In Chief Decides

One of the more interesting exchanges between candidate Barack Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton in their primary debates dealt with who decides on U.S. military policy and strategy - the President or the Generals. Both candidates, who were in favour of a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, were asked what they would do if their Generals on the ground advised against such a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. They both had the same answer. The President decides, even if the Generals do not agree. They noted that the U.S. has a civilian, not a military government, and the President is Commander In Chief.

Well, the test has now come, not in relation to Iraq, but Afghanistan. It seems that General McChrystal, President Obama's chosen guy in Afghanistan, wants more troops in order to prevent a US failure in the war. President Obama, who for a long time has strongly supported the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, in what he termed "a war of necessity", seems uncertain as to what to do - back the war of necessity, or draw down? Assume (as I do) that President Obama would like to draw down in view of the growing public opposition to the war. He is now called upon to put into effect his answer to a hypothetical primary debate question. Will he listen to his Generals or as Commander In Chief, make the politically tough call based upon what he wants to do? Tough to predict.

MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS

This week four interesting stories caught my attention. Here they are (in order of importance):

Talks With Iran:

Good first quarter, West. You had good ball control and have put the Iranian side on the defensive. Although you haven't put any points on the board yet, you have backed up the Iranian side and they have very bad field position going into the second quarter. Let's see what their tricky Quarterback, Ahmanejidad, will do next. So far bringing in a new Q.B. for the West, with his interesting new and "changed" plays, has seemed to work. Will his "magic" prevail? We will see. Remember there is lots of time left in this game.

Poor Polanski:

EXTRADITE him. He raped a thirteen year old girl. He fled the country. He is on the lam. This is no "Fugitive" movie. Different plot. The Hollywood celebs who are crying over him because he makes good movies (a yet unproven defence to a rape charge) are embarrassing themselves. Ok.. not really, since they seem to have no shame, a required ingredient for embarrassing oneself.

The Chicago Non-Olympics:

Too bad for Chicago... maybe. Remember the "Big "O"" Olympic stadium in Montreal - didn't work out so well. How about the President's role in all of this? Was it his fault? No. Is is a big loss for him personally? No. Is it a bit of an embarrassment? Yes. Chicago was the odds on favorite going into this last round. The team of the President, the First Lady, and Oprah went to Denmark to put Chicago over the top. Chicago came last. Maybe the President's presence didn't hurt the bid, but it sure as heck didn't help. Well, win some and lose some.

David Letterman's Confession:

As some of you loyalists will know, I do not like David Letterman. He makes his living by mocking others. He made an extremely offensive joke about an adult (A. Rodriguez) having sex with a 14 (or 18) year daughter of Sarah Palin. He thought this was funny. Never mind that the butt of his joke was a young girl who was not herself a hollywood celebrity, and who should have been off limits. He apologized. Good. Now it seems that Letterman will become the butt of his own jokes. Oh, sweet irony.

IT'S THREE A.M., AND THE PHONE IS RINGING.

We all remember Hillary Clinton's campaign advertisement in her primary contest with Barack Obama. It is 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing in the White House. There is an emergency brewing. "Who do you want to answer that phone?", asks Hillary. Someone who knows the world leaders and has been there (i.e. Hillary Clinton), or someone who does not (i.e. Barack Obama)?

Events are moving quickly in the West's nuclear stand off with Iran, and it is becoming more likely that the White House phone will soon be ringing. Iran's recently revealed second nuclear site facility and its weekend missile tests bring an Israeli military response much closer in time. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's tough and uncompromising speech at the United Nations with reference to Iran and the threat Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world, leaves no doubt where Israel stands. Should the up-coming October 1 talks between Iran and six global powers not produce real results, i.e. meaningful Iranian concessions or sanctions "that bite" (to use President Obama's own words), the timing of a military response, although there will never be a "good" time for such an action, could not be better from the Israeli perspective. The recent revelation of the new site, Iran's deception, and its missile launch tests, will likely bring Israel some global support in its desire to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.

So how will the phone call go? The caller will be Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be informing President Obama that Israel is planning to launch military action against the Iranian nuclear sites in a few hours. American political support and possibly financial or military assistance will be sought. What will President Obama say?

It is my prediction that President Obama will support Israeli action. Why do I say this?

First, the President has been clear in his support for the State of Israel. He has never wavered in this, although there of course have been disagreements, for example over the continued settlement expansion.

Second, he has been firm in his resolve to prevent an Iran which has nuclear weapons. Once he determines that this cannot be accomplished through diplomatic routes, or through sanctions, which is his and everyone's preference, the military option is the only one left.

Third, I think President Obama is very tough minded. Although granted he has never been tested to the extent that he will be if the 3 a.m. telephone call comes, his resolve in dealing with other issues has been very strong. The bold economic moves which he pushed through including the bail outs and huge stimulus spending illustrates to me that when he thinks he is right, it is full steam ahead. He does not like to be embarrassed or undermined by others. When those, whether friends or not, become a political liability, they are gone. This has been true down from Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, and most recently Governor David Patterson of New York. I recall the President's tone of voice when he was once questioned about Israeli self-defense actions against those firing rockets into Israel. He said something to the effect that if his two daughters were being threatened, he would take all necessary steps to protect them. There was a determination in his voice, one which told me that you do not fool with this guy. He is an iron fist in a velvet glove.

No-one wants the phone to ring at 3:00 am in the White House ever. But that is not the world in which we live. Let us see if I am right in predicting how President Obama will handle it.

With Friends Like These

So, President Hugo Chavez thinks that the podium at the United Nations "doesn't smell like sulphur" now that the devil George Bush is not President of the United States. It "smells of hope".

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi also has high praise for President Obama wishing that he could stay as President of the United States "forever".

Now I cannot lay blame on President Obama if foreign tyrants admire him. After all, the President is widely liked and respected by all sorts of people. I do not know if the President feels some discomfort over the fact that sworn enemies of the United States are attracted to him, almost as if he personally stands apart from the county and the citizenry who elected him and who he represents. I will not question the motives of Chavez, Gaddafi, Ahmadenijad and others who effusively praise Obama, knowing perhaps that this praise cannot much help the President's standing with his own fellow countrymen. Perhaps the President himself has somewhat encouraged their devotion by so frequently publicly acknowledging how much has to be done to repair the United State's image abroad and to restore its credibility and honour. But I will not speculate as to that.

I would hope, however, then when world "leaders" of the calibre of Chavez and Gaddafi insult a past President and by implication the country that twice voted him into office, Obama will stand up and shout:

"Enough. I do not want your support and praise. I resent your condemnation of my country and those leaders who have led it before me. How dare you malign my country and my predecessor, as you do. In wishing that I become President for life, you better be careful for what you wish, because I am no friend of yours".

I would like to hear that speech, and in case I have missed it, I am glad that it was made.

Polarization In Washington

Anyone who has been following the health care reform debate in the U.S. will be aware of how deeply divided and polarized the United States currently is. The debate has gone from discussing the issues of health care reform to analyzing the motives of those who are opposed to parts of the reform. There are some, like former President Carter, who attribute racism to some, if not much, of the opposition. The media of course loves this. Discussing racism is much more interesting to viewers than going through the provisions of a 200 plus health care reform bill. So the same panelists are dragged out every night on CNN ( David Gergen, James Carville, Mark Williams, Roland Martin etc.) to engage in a "knock em out, sock it out" argument about racist Americans. It's like a school yard fight. Students are much more interested in watching the fight and cheering on the combatants, then paying attention to reading, writing and arithmetic.

I find the racism charge somewhat overblown. Of course there are some persons in the United States who are racist and who do not like the President for this reason alone. This is similar to the argument that there are some people who are anti-Semites and who do not like Israel for this reason alone. But the argument that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is akin to the argument that all of those who oppose the President are racist. The fact that the President was elected by millions of white Americans and had a personal approval rating of close to 70% at one point seems to belie the racist theory. Did their approval of the President drop about 20 points because these people suddenly became racists or are they simply not happy with the President's performance?

There might be several reasons for the current polarization in the United States and it is undoubtedly not a new phenomenon. I would suggest one possible reason, and it is something I have commented upon before. It is President Obama's own rhetorical style or message. If you have been a follower of President Obama both during the primaries, the campaign and now his Presidency, you will realize that a major talking point of his is "change". Well change from what? To paraphrase the President from a variety of his speeches (and I do this from memory) it is change from the "failed policies and phoney arguments of the past". It is about cleaning house, getting rid of the " corrupt culture of Washington", getting rid of "corruption", "special interest group influence", lobbyists, tired old politics as usual, old distractions, political games, and so on. It is about "repairing" America's image abroad, and undoing the mistakes of the past. It's about fixing the disasters "inherited" from those who have gone before.

Now if you happen to be one of those people responsible for the bad old America, you are unlikely to take these comments well. If you were part of the previous Administration, or even part of the earlier Congress, which got America into its mess, you are unlikely to be pleased. If the President was looking for your support in fixing all the things that you had broken, he can forget it. As a previous administrator, I can tell you that the last thing you want to hear from your successor is how terrible a job you did and how the institution you led is now corrupt, bankrupt, and in need of major repair.

There is another way of course. You can be a bit more humble, gracious and if nothing else politically savy. The successor can talk about building on the strengths of the institution he inherited, on its past successes, on the important reforms which had been brought in, on the institution's excellent reputation and so on. You can congratulate and commend your predecessors for their hard work, rather than demean them either overtly or implicitly by pointing out how bad things had become under them and how hard they made it for you to get things back on track.

Unlike what some of you may think, I do not "hate" Obama. I think he is intelligent, a gifted orator, has some good policies, and is well-intentioned in terms of doing what he thinks needs to be done. However, I find his style of debate, in terms of the types of messages he sends, annoying, self-indulgent, arrogant, and, worst of all, counter-productive. America finds itself deeply divided and I do not think the President's message is likely to bring people together.

"YOU MISSPEAK!"

Apparently the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to pass a Resolution expressing its "disapproval" of Representative Joe Wilson's behaviour during President Obama's speech to Congress last week. (UPDATE: IT HAS BEEN PASSED). As you will recall, Joe Wilson called the President of the United States, dare I write this word, "a liar".

Washington has been in quite a tizzy over this shocking breach of decorum. At times, the media seems far more concerned about it then the contents of the President's speech itself and the whole Health Care Reform, yet unseen, bill. And for good reason. After all, Representative Wilson called the President, if you can believe it, a "liar".

I was wondering whether there would have been such an outpouring of shock and dismay if Representative Wilson had used another word - you know, not the "l" word, but something else. A fashionable term these days is for people to say that they "misspoke", when something that they said is simply not true. For example, the President's Press Secretary, when confronted with the President's false statement that the AARP endorsed his Health Care bill, simply conceded that the President "misspoke". You hear the word a lot these days, when people are confronted with not having told the truth. So what if Joe Wilson simply yelled out "YOU MISSPEAK"?

Somehow "misspeaking" does not have the same pazzazz as "lying". If one were an academic studying this, one may say that lying is an "intentional" act of dishonesty, whereas "misspeaking" is only negligently or maybe even accidentally not telling the truth. The problem with this approach, however, is that the difference between an intentional untruth, a negligent untruth, or an accidental untruth, can be somewhat fuzzy. Moreover, how can one know for sure whether the untruth was intentional or not? Do we just take the liar/misspeaker's word for it? Way too complicated for me.

No, saying that someone "misspoke" rather than "lied" just doesn't do it. How does this sound, for example -

"You dirty, filthy misspeaker!"
"Don't you misspeak to me!".
"Misspeaker, misspeaker, pants on fire".

Doesn't work at all.

The incident drew contrasts with the Canadian Parliamentary system, where M.P.'s are hooting, shouting, laughing, and mocking each other all the time during debate. Congress, on the other hand, was a morgue during the President's speech, other than Joe Wilson's little outburst. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats were hooting it up, for sure, but the poor Republicans had to just sit there and take it. Never mind that the President was doing a pretty good job demeaning and insulting them for much of his address.

But even in Parliament, despite the general circus like environment, there are certain things Parliamentarians simply cannot say about each other. They certainly cannot call someone a "liar". But other forbidden insults have been "a trained seal", "a bag of wind", a "pig", a "sleaze bag", a "scuzzball", or a "pompous ass". It's not that these things can't be true characterizations - they just cannot be said.

So there you have it. While the United States is agonizing over health care reform, an incredibly gigantic debt, the war in Afghanistan, and is becoming an increasingly and disturbingly polarized country, Congress is worried about the President being called a "liar" and passing resolutions about it. Go figure.

Remembering The FLQ Crisis

Reading the news that portions of the "manifesto" of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (the "FLQ") will be read out during the commemoration of the Battle on The Plains of Abraham brings back vivid memories of living and working in Montreal during the FLQ crisis.

As I noted in my posting of February 16, 2009, the Battle on the Plains of Abraham between the French and British occurred 250 years ago. The British won and gained France's possessions in eastern North America. This year's event which was to commemorate this historic event included a dramatic re-enactment of the Battle. This outraged a group of separatists in Quebec, and the re-enactment was cancelled. The separatists did not want to be reminded of this "profoundly tragic" happening.

So someone came up with a better idea. Why not read some writings, some texts that have "shaped this corner of the world"? Included among these words are apparently excerpts from the "FLQ Manifesto". This document is the cornerstone of the FLQ crisis that gripped Canada, and particularly Quebec, in 1970. The FLQ claimed that although "not an aggressive movement", its goal was to purge Quebec society "for good of its gang of rapacious sharks, the big bosses who dish out patronage and their henchmen, who have turned Quebec into a private preserve of cheap labour and unscrupulous exploitation". It was time for Premier Bourassa to "get what's coming to him: 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized!". The FLQ asserted that it had "had enough of promises of work and of prosperity, when in fact we will always by the diligent servants and bootlickers of the big shots...; we will be slaves until Quebeckers, all of us, have used every means, including dynamite and guns, to drive out these big bosses of the economy and of politics, who will stoop to any action however base, the better to screw us". It promised that "the day is coming when all the Westmounts of Quebec will disappear from the map". They were "prepared to go all the way" to achieve victory.

During the FLQ crisis, a British trade official (James Cross) was kidnapped, and a Quebec Cabinet Minister, Pierre Laporte, was murdered. The War Measures Act went into effect, army tanks were in the streets, hundreds were arrested. The crisis ended in a few months with the release of Cross and the deportation of the FLQ criminals to Cuba.

This was an interesting chapter in Canadian history. Having been born and raised in Montreal, I was a law student in McGill from 1967 - 1970 and was articling in a small law firm during the FLQ crisis. The air of crisis and terror was palpable. Pierre Laporte was a friend and client of the senior partner of the firm and his death was particularly shocking for us. I was a student during the March 1969 "Operation McGill Francais" when thousands of people marched to the gates of the university demanding that McGill become a Francophone university. I recall that the windows of the university buildings were boarded up, and everyone was evacuated from campus, in anticipation of potential destruction and violence. I recall soldiers with guns on roof tops, and searches before we could enter the court house. There was no love loss for Anglos, even from otherwise moderate persons, and the expression "maudit Anglais" (damned English) was an expression heard by me much too frequently.

The Province of Quebec, City of Montreal and Nation of Canada have come a long way since the FLQ Crisis. Montreal is a vibrant, fun, and international city. McGill is a great university which continues as an English university attracting students from all over Canada and the world. Both of our children, born and raised in Alberta, chose to go there for one of their degrees.

I haven't thought too much about the FLQ Crisis since I moved away from Quebec in 1972. The current "FLQ Manifesto reading" controversy has brought back some of the memories. Ironic, isn't it, that re-enacting the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was too painful for the separatists to bear, but reminding us all of the FLQ crisis and what the FLQ stood for and did, is just fine.

Burn After Signing

The latest in a number of dubious Obama high level appointees is Mr. Van Jones. Obama's so-called "green-jobs czar" resigned his position with Obama's Administration due to controversy surrounding his signature on a 2004 "911 Truth Statement" petition, as well as some choice words directed at Republicans.

I find the petition controversy the most interesting. In 2004 a so-called "alliance of 100 prominent Americans", as well as 40 family members of 9/11 victims, called "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur". The Statement demanded "real answers about 9/11". The 12 questions suggested a "Bush administration cover up", and generally implied that the 9/11 tragedy may have been deliberately allowed to happen by "people within the current administration", "perhaps as a pretext for war".

Van Jones, who was executive director of the "Ella Baker Center for Human Rights", signed the "Truth Statement". Other well known signatories (at least well known to me) included actor Ed Asner, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Richie Havens, and Ralph Nader.

Now there is nothing inherently wrong about individuals questioning whether people in the US Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. The idea that US Administration officials wanted thousands of Americans to die in a terrorist attack is abhorrent to me, but hey, in America people can believe whatever they want. Go for it. So if Mr. Van Jones wanted to put forth a 9/11 "conspiracy theory" along with others, that was his right.

But what is Van Jones' reaction to the news that he signed the petition? Did he stand by it, and explain why he felt that way at the time?

Oh no. He now states that he does not agree with the 9/11 truth statement and in fact he never did, even when he signed it. He evidently "did not carefully review the language in the petition before signing", according to an Obama source.

Give me a break! The Statement is as clear as day. Did he never read it? Does a person sign a short and concise highly provocative statement limited to 100 prominent signatories and posted on a web site without bothering to read it?

It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing.

Obama's Approval Ratings Tumble

I have pointed out in earlier postings how President Obama's personal approval ratings were much higher than approval of his policies, and wondered when this gap would be narrowed. Would Americans continue to strongly approve of the President's performance even though they did not like his policies as much? It appears that the answer to that question is "no".

Polls indicate a steep drop in the President's job approval by Americans. The Rasmussen poll shows for example that only 45% of those polled approve of the President's job performance while 53% disapprove. Gallup Daily tracking shows the President's job approval at 50%. This is a drop of 19% from his high of 69%. The Zogby Interactive Poll shows that 48% disapprove of the President's performance with only 42% approving. Zogby also points out that the sharp drop came from Democrats and from young voters.

The drop in Obama's job approval rating is particularly serious for him because he has yet to deal decisively with two huge problems - health care reform and the war in Afghanistan. One might have thought that with the economy apparently improving and the country backing away from the brink of depression, Obama's popularity would still be high. Not so. The health care reform proposals floating around, especially the public insurance option, are not popular with voters. So if Obama proceeds to push them through, assuming he even can, this should add to his negative numbers. The war in Afghanistan is "Obama's War". He has been campaigning for an aggressive US involvement there even before he became President. Yet it seems that popular support for this military engagement is not strong. So what is Obama to do? Back away from his war, or go full steam ahead?

Here is some trivia. Answer the following questions before you check out the figures.

One:

How long did it take George W Bush to fall below 50% after getting elected?

(a) 6 months
(b) two years
(c) three years

Two:

If Obama falls below 50% before November (and some polls already show him to be well below that), how would this compare to previous Presidents since World War II?

(a) it would place him in the average range
(b) it would be the fastest drop to below 50% ever
(c) it would be the third fastest drop to below 50% ever

Three:

What is the average time it takes to drop below 50%?

(a) 12 months
(b) 18 months
(c) 23 months


For answers, see the Gallup Poll.

Now It's "Heath Slocum's" Turn

A couple of weeks ago, Y.E. Yang stared down the Tiger.

This week, it was Heath Slocum. Slocum has a 20 foot putt, and drains it. Tiger has a seven foot putt, and blows it by the hole. Slocum wins.

Is the era of the Tiger coming to an end?

Hamas and the Holocaust

I find the following story very depressing.

According to reports, Hamas is concerned that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is considering teaching Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip about the Holocaust. According to the report, there is currently nothing in the current UNRWA curriculum about it.

Hamas has condemned this plan. Why? Because Hamas "refuses to let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists".

The relationship between the Holocaust and the Palestinian - Israeli conflict was also on the mind of Archbishop Desmond Tutu this week. He stated that the Palestinians and the Arabs are paying the "penance" for the Holocaust.

A few thoughts.

It is frequently argued that all criticism directed at the State of Israel and its policies should not be equated with anti-Semitism. One can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. I agree - one can be. Hamas, however, leaves one with no doubt about where it stands in relation to the Jewish state and the Jewish people. It is one thing to argue, as does Tutu, that world guilt over the Holocaust has played a role in the creation and support of the State of Israel. Hamas might have a political/strategic concern over anyone being reminded of the Holocaust. It is quite another for it to allege that the Holocaust is "a lie".

When outsiders (and I include myself in that category) lecture to Israel about how it should conduct itself, it would be useful for us to remember who Hamas is and what it stands for. Israel turned over the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians and completely left it. It is now in the control of Hamas - the group that thinks that Zionists invented "the lie" of the Holocaust. This is Israel's neigbour. Israel is a country home to those few who were able to survive the Holocaust, and whose families and friends by the millions were lost. I am sure that they take very little comfort from the knowledge that their neighbour thinks that their experience was all "a lie".

Doer Does Washington

Hot off the Press!!

Less than one day after Gary Doer resigned from the Premiership of Manitoba in the middle of his term, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him as Canadian ambassador-designate to Washington.

This is interesting. As I noted in my blog post on Ms. Sarah Palin, it is not uncommon for those in either the public or private sectors to leave their jobs before their terms of office end. I, for one, do not call these persons "quitters" and as far as I can ascertain no-one has called Premier Doer a quitter. He has been widely praised in fact for his past service, which praise seems to be well warranted. Ms. Palin's decision to leave her Governorship was not as well received by observers.

It is interesting to note the timing of the appointment. Apparently, Premier Doer and Prime Minister Harper have been chatting for over two months "on topics ranging from hockey to politics" before the offer was made. Premier Doer's resignation came on Thursday, the offer on Friday. Was Premier Doer's decision to resign motivated by the "greener pastures" of being Ambassador to the United States, or did the offer come as a complete surprise a day after he stepped down? Unclear - you decide.

Finally, Premier Doer was a New Democratic politician. The Harper Conservative government sits on the other side of the political spectrum. I am not sure how Doer's N.D.P. principles on the environment or Canada's military involvement will be reconciled with the Conservative party's very different views on these issues. But as Doer himself concedes he is now "working for the Canadian prime minister".

And so it goes in Canadian politics.

Sweden's Reponse: Freedom of Speech?

No matter what one might think of Donald Bostrom's article on Israeli soldiers who allegedly kill Palestinian civilians for their organs (see my last posting), what is one to make of the Swedish government's continuing refusal to condemn the allegation? According to several reports, for example the Huffington Post, the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Reinfeldt stated that "it was not the government's place to comment on newspaper content and stressed the importance of a free press in Swedish democracy". According to another source, not only did the Swedes refuse to condemn the article, they chastized their own Ambassador for doing so, and removed the condemnation of the article from the Embassy's web site. Apparently, this is a matter of respect for the Swedish constitution's protection of free speech.

Now I am not an expert on the Swedish constitution. It seems startling to me, however, that it goes so far as protecting the free speech of one person by restricting the government's right (or anyone else's right for that matter) to comment on the content of that speech. Can anyone say anything they want in Sweden without the risk of official condemnation?

To go off on a bit of a tangent, take the current Glenn Beck controversy. Glenn Beck is a conservative Fox news talk show host who stated that President Obama was a racist who had it in for whites. This is if course a ridiculous and scandalous charge. As a result of this comment, many advertisers have withdrawn their ads from the Glenn Beck show. This is all well and good. It's a free market and if companies feel they lose more customers than they gain by sponsoring a show, withdraw. I was wondering, however. If Glenn Beck had written an article in a major Swedish newspaper calling President Obama a racist who hates whites would the Prime Minister still think that the Swedish constitution prevented him from commenting? Would he chastize the Swedish Ambassador to the United States if the Ambassador condemned that comment?

Perhaps experts in Swedish constitutional law could enlighten me on this matter of Sweden's protection of free speech.

Sweden's Shame

As reported in the August 20 National Post editorial by Barry Rubin, "The blood libel that won't die", a major Swedish newspaper, "closely tied to the Swedish Social Democratic Party", published an article libeling the Jewish State of Israel. According to the author of the article, Donald Bostrom, the Israeli army deliberately murders Palestinian civilians in order to traffic in their organs.

This is yet another blood libel of the Jewish people. It is reminiscent of the libel that Jews kill Christian children in order to use their blood to bake Passover matzos, the unleavened bread which most Jews, whether religious or not, eat with their families during the Passover holiday. It is impossible to measure the depth of the hate and depravity of those who either publish or believe in this garbage.

But the real story for me is not that these libels are perpetuated by haters, for there is nothing new there, but that they do not elicit the same level of outrage from those groups, governments and individuals who are only too willing to bash the State of Israel at every opportunity. What so far, for example, has been the reaction of the Swedish government to this scandalous claim? According to Haaretz, although the Swedish ambassador to Israel condemned the article, the Swedish Foreign Ministry has not. The Swedish government even went so far as to distance itself from its own Ambassador's condemnation stating that it was the Ambassador's own view, which was designed for an Israeli audience. Some Swedish politicians have even condemned the Ambassador herself who should be "recalled and taught the basics of Sweden's freedom of speech".

And where are the left wing trade unions, the "Palestinian apartheid week" types, and the academic boycotting bunch? Should they not be consistent and be demanding that Swedish academics and universities condemn the story or else face an academic boycott? Or is a libel of the Jewish people not a matter of too much concern for them?

The incident might serve to remind all those observers of the Middle East conflict of the dangers and evil forces which the State of Israel must constantly confront. It might serve to remind them why the Jewish people are naturally reluctant to trust others for their protection and security. And if it does that, then maybe the article's publication will have done some good.

A Wife's Power

According to Forbes magazine's list of the world's 100 most powerful women, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is number one, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is number 36, and Mrs. Michelle Obama is number 40.

Interesting, no? Ostensibly Michelle Obama has no real "power", other than the ability to influence people, such as her husband. Granted, she does have great "media reach", and like other non-elected celebs, such as Oprah, can affect what clothes and other goods people buy, and maybe even what they think about important issues. But in Mrs. Obama's case, one would suspect that Mr. Obama will do all the talking on these types of more important matters.

And how about Hillary? She actually dropped in the power quotient from when she was a Presidential candidate. But she is now Secretary of State - isn't that pretty important? I was wondering. Was she higher up when she was simply President Clinton's wife without any real political power? Maybe she would be higher up now if she did actually "channel" her husband, something she has let us all know, in no uncertain terms, that she DOES NOT DO, thank you very much! Perhaps Michelle is high up there because she actually does some channelling.

I know, I know. This is not all that important. Indulge me.

Dylan's Run In With The Cops

Thanks to "A Loyal Fan" who brought the following story to my attention and asked me to blog on it.

A young female police officer recently stopped Bob Dylan and asked him his name and what he was doing wandering around a low income neighbourhood. She apparently did not know who he was. He stated who he was, and why he was in the area (he was there for a concert). She called in a second police officer (a male) for assistance. They asked him for his I.D. He said he did not have any on him. They asked him to accompany them to his hotel. He did. He was vouched for. The officers thanked Dylan for his cooperation. Dylan was apparently very nice about the whole thing. Incident over.

So.. what do I (or you ) make of this when one compares it to the Professor Gates incident?

My first point is obvious. The threesome should not expect an invitation to the White House any time soon for beers and pretzels. No need for a "beer summit" here. The incident was handled appropriately by all three involved, so there is no need to "incentivize" them to behave like responsible adults. This is no big loss, at least to the cops and the President. If Dylan's concert performances are any indication, although he is a great performer, he is a very lousy conversationalist. It would be a deadly dull evening.

As to what else one could make of this (assuming it is all truly reported), it is all fascinating speculation.

Did Dylan cooperate because he was stopped by a young female cop?
Did Dylan cooperate because he is white and does not carry around the baggage of racial profiling?
Did Dylan cooperate because he is a cool dude and not a pretentious Harvard professor?
Did the three of them act civilly because they did not want to have to have a beer at the White House with Obama and Biden?

I do not know. But it's interesting, isn't it?

Finally a Golfer With "Balls"

Y.E. Yang's victory over Tiger Woods in the P.G.A Championship was fantastic!

Tiger is a great player. Maybe the greatest ever. One advantage this type of dominating player has is that every other golfer around him seem to melt like butter when Tiger is on their tails. They triple bogey, miss 5 foot putts for wins, and look like anything but winners.

Not Y. E Yang. He played with Tiger on the final day, trailed him by two strokes, and beat him by three. This time it was Tiger who looked worried.

Yay Yang! A golfer with real balls.

The Health Care Debate

The US debate on health care reform is fascinating. The town halls are bringing out the best and worst of American democracy. Citizens are involved, elected officials are forced to face their constituents and hear their concerns. The media is all over this, and the polarization of American society despite this new age of bringing everyone together is obvious for everyone to witness.

The rhetoric is heated. Much has been made of the "death panel" charges. But lest it be thought that extremist talk is only on one side of this issue, let's not forget liberal talk show host Ed Schultz's wild accusation that Conservative commentators actually want President Obama to be shot. Wow! Talk about a guilt trip.

Then there's been a lot of fudging of the facts. Some of it comes from President Obama. In the President's New Hampshire Town Hall on health care, the President stated that it was far more lucrative for doctors to amputate a diabetic's leg, then to properly treat him in the first place. The President stated that the surgeon would be reimbursed $30,000, $40,000 or even $50,000 for the amputation. Wrong says the AMA in their August 12 Health Care Bulletin. In actual fact, the surgeon would receive between $541.72 to $708.71 for the amputation. The AMA and others also take umbrage with the suggestion that doctors would thus prefer to amputate then to treat, but in all fairness I do not think that that is what the President implied. This mis-statement however follows upon earlier statements by Obama that doctors perform needless tonsillectomies for the money, and that the AARP endorsed the President's health care proposals, which the AARP quickly denied.

And so it goes. It seems that the only thing all sides can agree upon is that they do not want Canada's health care model. We have been all over the news as the model to avoid. Great! Now we can add that to the other things Americans know about us, such as cold weather and hockey.

Sarah Palin

As my readers will know, I was on vacation when Sarah Palin announced that she would step down as Governor of Alaska before her term expired. I gather this created quite a fuss. I wrote back then that I would comment on Ms. Palin later. Well, that time has now come.

First, let me address the concern that Sarah Palin is a "quitter" and should have served out her full term. What do I make of this charge? My basic position, which I apply to Sarah Palin and all others who leave their positions in mid-term for "greener pastures" elsewhere, is that this is the wrong thing to do. Absent some pretty compelling personal reasons for being unable to live up to the commitments one has taken on, one should fulfil them. Thus, Sarah Palin should have served out her term of office.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that I feel the same way about those in both the private and public sectors who quit jobs mid-term to advance their own careers elsewhere. In my domain, for example, it is very common for Senior Administrators, such as Deans, Vice-Presidents, and Presidents, who have taken on defined terms of office, to use these positions as launching pads for better positions elsewhere. Thus, after extensive searches, costing tens of thousands of dollars, universities are put back in the position of having to replace these fleeing persons. Do we call them "quitters"? No - we praise them for their skills in career advancement and celebrate their departures. The losing university takes "pride" in the fact that their people are of such high quality that they are recruited to go elsewhere.

This happens frequently as well in the public service. Those elected as Senators, or Governors, for example, do not hesitate to seek "higher" office when the opportunity presents itself. The American administration, from the top down, is full of them.

Now one will counter this latter point by arguing that first, these people have no choice since they do not dictate the timing of their departures, and second, that they still are serving the public, but only differently than before. True enough. But take Sarah Palin. Why did she leave when she did and not wait it out? Well, I do not know Ms. Palin so she did not let me know. But I speculate that she felt that she could be more effective for her causes and have more influence in determining American policy if she were out of the Governorship of Alaska. Yes, she could have waited, but perhaps she felt that there was an urgency at this time in American history, given the state of the country and her conservative base. No - she was not leaving for another public service "job", but in her mind at least perhaps the cause she had to leave for was just as important. And there is little doubt now that this is the task which Sarah Palin has embarked upon.

Second, I remain fascinated by the obsession others have with Sarah Palin, especially that she is now private citizen Sarah Palin. Okay - when she was a Vice Presidential candidate, especially when the head of the ticket was a 72 year old guy, I can see why her policies, background, experiences would be of concern. But now? The USA has lots of problems which are not being dealt with well by elected officials. Surely what these people think and do is a lot more important than Sarah Palin's comings and goings, her speeches, where she appears and so on.

There are some things I liked about Ms Palin, especially when she was a Vice Presidential candidate. I thought she energized a flagging campaign and gave McCain, a very decent, courageous and experienced man, a better chance to become President. She was fresh, different, and ready to take things on. Did I like all of her policies or views? No, but she was not running to be President. Would she have made a great President if anything happened to McCain? Probably not. I resented the unfair attacks on her and her family, the media's hypocrisy and double standards, and the sexism. But that is now water under the bridge. I have moved on. Have you?

Good On You, Bill.

Let me be straight up. I do not like Bill Clinton. I did not like the fact that he had inappropriate sexual relations with a young female intern at the White House. If this had happened in the private sector, he would have been fired. No impeachment, no trial - just goodbye. Do you think a lawyer who had sex with a female articling student in the firm's library would last more than a day at that firm? I do not like the fact that Clinton lied under oath and lied to the American people. He was disbarred for his misconduct. I do not like the fact that he publicly humiliated his family with his philandering. I do not like his sense of entitlement and his arrogance. I did not like his behaviour during Hillary's primary contest, probably costing her a lot of support. I do not like the fact that he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for whispering sweet nothings in the ears of adoring fans, although that is probably more envy than anger on my part. So there are many things I do not like about Bill Clinton. In fact, you can take Dr. Seuss's "Green Eggs and Ham" story and substitute Bill Clinton for every mention of "green eggs and ham" - that would sum up my feeling.

But, I have to give credit where credit is due. Bill went to North Korea, posed with Kim Jong-il in a bizarre photo, in which both men looked like they had just been told that their favourite dog had been run over by a tank, groveled a bit, and came home with journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling. It was your perfect "win-win-win-win". North Korea got rid of its problem, the journalists were freed without much fuss, Bill gets to be back in the limelight, which he obviously needs periodically for his very survival, and the Obama administration is freed from having to do anything much, which is the President's favourite course of action.

I suspect that the whole deal was signed, sealed and delivered before Bill got there, and as long as everyone kept to the script, everything would go just fine. I know there will be many who feel this was caving in to a crazy person, like negotiating for hostages, but that's not my view. One sometimes has to put some water in one's wine to get results, and this was the "teachable moment".

Good on you, Bill.

The Ubiquitous President

Here is an excellent post on the ubiquitous President. It confirms my impression that Obama seems to be "on" a lot, and explains the strategy.

Sotomayor's Confirmation

Now a certainty - as I long ago predicted.

Interesting process. Canadians who seem wedded to our judicial appointment process always denigrate the US system as being a "circus" etc. This was no circus - it was dignified, useful and interesting.

I recently was in US and at a dinner with friends. I asked them to name the members of the Court. My doctor pal was able to name 8 of the 9.

Challenge - next time try this out with your friends re the Canadian Supremes. I would be very surprised if they could name very many. Why? Because our system has no transparency. Canadians do not know who is in the running, what their views are, and how they got there. Pity - since the Charter has made them very important players in the lives of all Canadians.

Rewarding Obnoxious Behaviour

Question:

How can one get invited to the White House, presumably at taxpayer's expense, and have a beer with the President?

Answer:

Be obnoxious.

So, let's see. A Harvard Prof gets incensed because a police officer has the audacity to question his identity. He raises a raucus. He gets arrested.

A police officer, who presumably realizes that the obnoxious "suspect" is who he says he is, decides to teach him a lesson and arrest him anyway for "disorderly conduct". Charges are dropped.

The President of the USA, who in the midst of a economic recession, decides he wants to act like the school Principal, and wades in. He calls the police stupid. He then discovers that perhaps the blame was not entirely on the police, and ( as he is wont to do), backs down .

Now to reward them both (or to "incentivize" their bad behaviour) he invites them both to the White House for a beer.

This is truly a "teachable moment".

Obama And Gates

Question:

Why would a lawyer, law professor and President of the USA publicly condemn a police officer over an incident about which the former knows nothing?

Question:

How does one "calibrate" one's words???

Just thought I would ask.

Obama's Health Care Speech

I know I am still on vacation, but I could not resist.

I listened to Obama's Press Conference on health care reform while I was on the treadmill at the Y in Phoenix. Again I was impressed by his apparent intelligence, his "down to earthiness" and his logic.

But once one drills down a bit, one sees the problem I have with the President. One of Obama's favourite rhetorical tricks is to set up a "straw man" and then shoot it down. For example, he compared his health care reform ideas with the current situation where a doctor who sees a patient with a sore throat is "incentivized" (an Obama made up word) to perform a tonsillectomy rather than treat the sore throat ( which may be caused by an "allergy", according to Doctor Obama) because a tonsilectomy pays more. Who the heck is this unethical doctor?? Do doctors actually perform surgeries because they "pay more"??? Does Obama have evidence of this or has he just made it up? We should not be "incentivizing" this doctor, we should be suspending him.

Oh, Obama. You just break me up.

On Vacation !!!

Do not fear... I have not abandoned my blog. The I.T.P. is on vacation. Yay!!

Lots to write about when I get back. Lots on my mind.. Sarah Palin ( I like her, still... maybe even more!), the Michael Jackson death saga, Obama ( do you all still think he is doing a great job???), etc.

So.. I will be back.. probably in a couple of weeks.

Enjoy those crazy, lazy, hazy days of summer, and I will see you in September...or sooner even.

ITP

An Update

June has been a slow month for my blog. There is not much out there which has provoked me of late. The death of Michael Jackson has completely taken over the air waves, even though there is never anything new to report. The media, which was totally consumed by Iran for a few days, has now found a new bone to chew on. It's all quite boring.

So I thought it might be timely to go back over a couple of my earlier postings and topics and bring them up to date.

I'll start with my favourite topic - President Obama. I have written quite a lot about him. On March 22, for example, I complained about his need to always be in our faces - perhaps a professor's never ending obsession with publicity (hence my blog??). This provoked a lot of angry comments, although I suspect most of them came from one commentator under a series of juvenile, made up names. Well, the President has not lost his interest in controlling the media and the messages. He even jokes about the reporters being in bed with him, openly mocking the journalists, who apparently have no clue about their roles as members of the fourth estate. The President has now decided that the fawning media is not fawning enough, so he has taken to planting a reporter in his press conference, so that he can be asked the appropriate question. This has not gone over well with the mainstream media suitors, whose own affections have been spurned. Even the Obamaniac, Bill Maher, has been critical of Obama's need for constant attention. Then there is the ethics concern over the appointment of Tom Brokaw to the President's Commission On White House Fellowships coming shortly after he participated in what has been describes as an "in the tank" interview with President Obama.

In my posting of February 18, I commented on the fact that there was a disconnect between Obama's personal popularity and approval for his policies. I wondered how long the disconnect between Obama the personality and Obama the policy maker would go on. Well it appears that this disconnect still continues; although Obama's personal approval rating is beginning to fall.

In my posting of May 6, I wished Poor Arlen Specter good luck with his new found faith in the Democratic Party. Well, it looks like he is going to need it. Poll results show that only 28% of registered voters in Pennsylvania think Specter should be re-elected. It looks like the issue of his seniority might become moot.

Iran - What Now?

In my previous two postings on the topic of Iran, I made two general points. The first ("Iranians Give Their Answer") was that Iranians had overwhelmingly re-elected Ahmadinejad as President, despite his virulently anti-Semitic, anti-West, anti-U.S., Holocaust denying, terrorist supporting rhetoric and actions. I recognized that there were allegations of electoral irregularities, but no clear evidence of massive voter fraud which would account for 11,000,000 or so votes. I also referred to pre-election American conducted polling which predicted the result. The second posting ("Who is Hossein Mousavi?) looked at the "reformist" Hossein Mousavi and his history. The suggestion there was that his policies and views are not that much different than those of Ahmadinejad.

A few days have past. There have been massive protests in Iran, accompanied by violence, a media clamp down, and general ugliness. The election of Ahmadinejad has been confirmed by Iranian authorities. A fair question can be asked of me - have my views changed?

The answer is "no". As for the election, we still have not seen any definitive evidence that Mousavi actually won. The fact that there are millions of people in Iran and in the West who wanted Mousavi to win, and Mousavi supporters who are prepared to risk their lives on the streets of Iran to make their point, does not make the case for a rigged election. At any event, the point is now surely moot as the election results have been confirmed by Iranian authorities and nothing anyone in the West does will change that fact.

As far as what Mousavi himself stands for, again there is no change in my position. He clearly wanted to win, thinks he won, and is apparently prepared to become a "martyr" for his own cause. His history of anti-West, anti-US, anti-Israel views and his previous willingness to crush dissent is a matter of record.

As for criticism of Obama for not doing more, I have to say here I am with Obama. Despite the views of some of my critics who falsely claim that I have a "nervous twitch" when it comes to Obama and disagree with every one of his policies, as with some of his other decisions, I agree with his position. There is nothing useful or helpful he can do about "regime change" in Iran, and getting involved by supporting Mousavi and the protesters, will unify the Iranian people against the US. Of course, he should condemn the violence and the deprivation of human rights, as he has in fact done. But in terms of influencing the outcome of the election by his words or deeds, or supporting one group of Ayatollahs against another - no. The best thing that the USA can do, is to stay out of what seems to be an internal power struggle.

Who Is Hossein Mousavi?

Lost somewhere in the great debate over the validity of the results of the Iranian election, at least in most of the main stream media, is the question: "Who is Hossein Mousavi and what are his policies?".

I decided to try to find out. It seems relatively clear that at least from the perspective of about 20-30 odd years ago, Mousavi was a hard line radical. Pierre Tristam in "Profile: Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Iran's Radical Turned Reformist" notes that when Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran between 1981-1989, he was "a hard liner" and "firm radical". He defended the taking and holding of American hostages, supported the creation of Hezbollah, opposed ending the Iran-Iraq war, and supported the nuclear-enrichment program. As far as his attitudes to the State of Israel are concerned, The Blog in the Weekly Standard citing a Reuters report in 1988 has the following choice quotes from Mousavi: "Israel should be annihilated", and was "a cancerous tumour". The Blog also asserts that in 1989 Mousavi said that Rushdie was "a tool of the Zionists", "who should be killed".

Of course, as you may rightly point out, that was then and now is now. Perhaps the hardliner has mellowed and no longer holds to those views? He did, for example, harshly criticize his opponent Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust, but his problem with the denial seemed to be more a public relations one, as it isolated Iran and affected its international standing. Mousavi does admit that "some people were killed there, some Jews were killed there", which I guess is sort of a step in the right direction. Although I do not believe that Ahmadinejad himself ever denied that anyone was killed in the Holocaust; he just wants to "study" it. As far as Israel is concerned, the current Mousavi does not recognize it. In an interview with Der Spiegel, he is in favour of one state, decided by a "poll of all Palestinians", although Jews living in the region can also vote. We all can guess as to the result - bye, bye Jewish state. This however is also the sometimes expressed view of Ahmadinejad, so again no big change there.

Even President Obama concedes that "the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised".

Perhaps some of you may have more insights into the policies of the reform candidate Hossein Mousavi which you would like to share? One warning, however - politicians, being politicians, do not always carry through with their rhetoric.

The Iranians Give Their Answer

On March 19, 2009, President Obama spoke directly to the people of Iran. He spoke of the "common humanity that binds us together" and of the "promise of a new day". He told the Iranian people that "you too have a choice".

The Iranians have given their answer to President Obama and have made their choice. They have overwhelmingly voted to continue their support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over reformist candidate Hossein Moussavi. Yes, I know that there are many who are questioning the results and the fairness of the election. There probably were irregularities. But there would have had to be massive fraud to overturn results which showed that Ahmadinejad out polled his rival by nearly two to one, gaining approx. 63% of the vote. Assuming that the vote is more or less representative of the feelings of Iranians and meets Secretary of State Clinton's "hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", what is their will and desire"?

Ahmadinejad is a vicious anti-Semite, anti-American, anti-Westerner, Holocaust denier, nuclear program developer, supporter of terrorism and terrorist states, and downright crazy nutbar. Unlike Hillary, I for one hope that the outcome does NOT reflect "the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", because if it does, there is big trouble ahead. When, (NOT if), Israel goes after Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq's and Syria's, I will remember this election choice made by the Iranian people. President Obama probably is beginning to learn that "sweet talk" and disparaging comments over his predecessors' foreign policies will not get the USA very far. Obama has offered his hand of friendship. What he got in return was a clenched fist. Act One is over. Now let's see what Act Two brings.