This week the House of Representatives of the United States of America passed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". The vote was 244 - 188. All Republicans voted against it. All but 11 Democrats voted for it. The Bill, otherwise known as Obama's stimulus package, provides for $819,000,000,000 in spending. (Some news reports say it's worth $825,000,000,000 - but why quibble over a mere six billion dollars?)
I thought that I would take a look at the Bill to see how this $819 billion is going to be spent. But, my Lord! The Bill is hundreds of pages long, with thousands of sections, sub-sections, and sub-sub-sections. It must have taken all of the lawyers in Washington D.C. days to make this stuff up and write it down in the form of a Bill. I could not, did not, and will not read the whole thing. I bet you not many, if any, of the 432 members of the House of Representatives who actually voted for or against it, did either.
A quick skimming of the reams of pages of provisions reveals some fascinating things. The concerns of the legislators seem to run from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, it is totally forbidden to use any of the stimulus money for projects relating to casinos, gaming establishments, aquariums, zoos, golf courses or swimming pools. Okay - I can understand the hang-up over casinos - but zoos, aquariums, golf courses and swimming pools? Americans love exotic, caged animals, and fish. Swimming is great exercise. I agree that golf is annoying, impossible and frustrating. But without golf courses the whole tourist industry of already struggling Phoenix and Southern California will be flushed down the drain. As a part time Phoenician, I am concerned and hope that the Senate will rethink this provision.
Then there is the really BIG prohibition - the "Buy In America" clause. The Bill provides that all of the iron and steel used in projects related to public buildings and public works must be made in America, with some limited exceptions. That includes the iron and steel used in the building of pipelines. Curiously enough, however, there is no provision requiring that the oil and gas which travels through these pipelines must also only be produced in America. I wonder why?
Canada is steamed over the Buy In America trade protectionist measures. It, of course, shouldn't be. President Obama, who touted himself as a citizen of the world who wanted to tear down walls, when he was in Berlin, also promised that he would protect U.S. jobs and penalize companies who shipped jobs overseas, when he was in Pennsylvania. It appears that the Pennsylvania promise is the one that he actually intends to keep. This matter will at least give President Obama and Prime Minister Harper something to talk about, when Obama makes his day trip to Ottawa this February 19. (You heard me right - day trip. The President will not even be staying overnight. So much for the first big international visit.)
I particularly love the Governor Rod Blagojevich (now ex-Governor) clause. The State of Illinois was not to get any funds at all if Blagojevich was still its Governor, unless the funds were approved in legislation by the State legislature. Gotcha Rod! The Democrats having been fooled by Blagojevich once, were not going to be fooled again. They took to heart what George W. Bush so brilliantly said: "Fool me once, shame uh... shame on you. Uh.. uh.. You can't get fooled again." (See that classic again: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A). In view of this provision, it is no wonder that it took so little time for Blagojevich to get impeached by the Illinois State legislature.
The spending provisions go on and on. For example, $650,000,000 is provided for assisting in the conversion from analog to digital television; $400,000,000 for habitat restoration and migration activities; and $140,000,000 for climate data modeling. It's as if every Department of Government was asked to submit a "wish list" and as long as what they asked for sounded reasonable, poof,like magic, they got it. $819 billion is a lot of money; it can cover a lot of requests which individually only amount to a few hundred millions or so. Overnight every Department's budget has been significantly increased. So whether it had to do with agriculture, defense, homeland security, climate control, health insurance, technology, science, education, student loans, national parks, the environment, water, museums, art projects etc. etc., there was money to be had just for the asking. All of this depite the fact that the U.S. deficit is enormous already.
Both Obama and McCain were repeatedly asked during the campaign debates where they would cut spending and what promises they would shelve in view of the dire economic situation. Both candidates avoided answering the question directly, but each conceded that spending would have to be cut. Both were going to use a sharp pencil to cut out the fat and eliminate Department programs which are not working. Adding $819 billion to Department spending is a far cry from that broken promise.
My years in the Ivory Tower have taught me that the more complicated and bigger a proposal is, the more likely it is that it will get passed with little debate. It is much harder to get your mind wrapped around an elephant than it is a mouse. Had Congress been debating a small appropriation Bill to build a "bridge to nowhere", the debate would have gone on for days. But a Bill that proposes the building of a million bridges to everywhere is much harder to figure out. It's much easier just to raise your hand and vote "aye" or "nay" and go home.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Bill Clinton's Very Expensive Pearls of Wisdom
Bill Clinton spoke to an Edmonton audience of almost 2,000 people on June 20,2008. While I was not one of the lucky few who paid between $200 and $500 to listen to Bill, the Edmonton Journal's report of the event provided us all with some of the golden nuggets. Bill apparently urged his audience "to strive to work for the public interest and eliminate inequality in the world". He also spoke about "global warming" and how fighting global warming provided us with "the biggest economic opportunity since the world mobilized in preparation for the Second World War".
Boy, was he ever right! Yahoo News of Jan. 27, 2009 gave us some details of the financial documents just filed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the documents, Bill Clinton earned $6 million in speaking fees in 2008. And guess which speech made him the most money? That's right - the Edmonton one! The former President was paid $525,000 for that talk - "the most for any single event that year". I do not know how long the speech lasted. Let's assume one hour. That would mean that Clinton received $8750.00 for ever minute he stood up before his Edmonton audience talking about inequality and how there was money to be made from fighting global warming.
Some of you may not know too much about Edmonton. It has been my home for 36 years and I love it. It was Wayne Gretzky who was responsible for putting it on the world map initially. But it also has some other things going for it. It is the capital of the oil rich Province of Alberta, the gateway to the oil sands of Northern Alberta, the home of the world's largest shopping mall, as well as one of Canada's largest and most research intensive universities, the University of Alberta.
It now has the honour of being the best place in the world to get paid to deliver a speech.
Boy, was he ever right! Yahoo News of Jan. 27, 2009 gave us some details of the financial documents just filed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. According to the documents, Bill Clinton earned $6 million in speaking fees in 2008. And guess which speech made him the most money? That's right - the Edmonton one! The former President was paid $525,000 for that talk - "the most for any single event that year". I do not know how long the speech lasted. Let's assume one hour. That would mean that Clinton received $8750.00 for ever minute he stood up before his Edmonton audience talking about inequality and how there was money to be made from fighting global warming.
Some of you may not know too much about Edmonton. It has been my home for 36 years and I love it. It was Wayne Gretzky who was responsible for putting it on the world map initially. But it also has some other things going for it. It is the capital of the oil rich Province of Alberta, the gateway to the oil sands of Northern Alberta, the home of the world's largest shopping mall, as well as one of Canada's largest and most research intensive universities, the University of Alberta.
It now has the honour of being the best place in the world to get paid to deliver a speech.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
100 - 0: Good or Bad Sportsmanship?
You probably have heard about the 100 - 0 high school girls' baskeball game by now. The Covenant School's basketball team beat the Dallas Academy's basketball team 100 - 0. Both teams apparently tried hard, there was no cheating - that was the score. A clear win.
The aftermath, however, has not been so clear. Covenant School has apologized for its team's performance stating that it was "shameful" and an "embarassment". Usually that type of post-game apology to its fans comes from a team that has just been blown away by the opposition; not from the winning side. My cursory review of the blogosphere indicates that there is wide-spread disgust over the performance of the Covenant School team, its coach and its fans. The Dallas Morning News reports that people want the winning coach to be fired or to quit. The parents of the winning team are also disparaged.
Nothing but praise, however, for the losing team. School officials from Covenant praised the Dallas players "for their strength, composure and fortitude in a game in which they clearly emerged the winner" and posted an apology on the school's website. They even offered to forfeit the game. Somehow the winners became the losers and vice versa. The Dallas girls have been on television giving interviews. I watched one of these spots - the girls come across as very positive, enthusiastic, bright and delightful. One cannot help but feel "sorry" for them, although they clearly do not feel sorry for themselves. I have seen no interviews with the Covenant girls.
What can one make of all of this? Dallas Academy is a small private school with a student body of apparently only 20 girls, 8 of whom are on the basketball team. They have not won a game in the last 4 years. Covenant School is a much larger school, with a total enrolment of over 800 students. The game was clearly a mismatch, and a predictable one at that. If there is to be any fault in this matter, it should go to the organizers of this league who set up the inevitable drubbing and for not having in place a mechanism to limit lopsided games, as exists in other sport matches where young people are involved.
But how about the teams themselves - should the winners be condemned and the losers praised? No. Young athletes are all told the same thing, over and over. It's not about winning, it's about going out there and doing your best. That is what both teams did. Now I agree that "running up the score" is not a polite thing to do. There might have been some discrete, non-offensive ways to make the game 50 - 0, or 100 - 10, instead of 100 - 0. There is, however, a danger in making it too obvious that a team is no longer trying. Purposely missing baskets, tripping over one's shoe-laces so that the other team can score is even more humiliating to your opponent than simply beating them, fair and square. It shows your pity for them, instead of your respect. I would bet that most high school teams never practise the art of pretending that you are trying when you really are not. It reminds me of the popular movie, Rudy, which I hated. As I recall, Rudy was obviously allowed to score a touchdown, near the end of the movie, with the opposing players acting like clowns, falling all over the field. He was then hoisted up on the players' shoulders and paraded around. How humiliating for Rudy, I thought.
The Dallas team came out of this match feeling good about themselves - they did their best against a significantly better team. They were treated as equals, even though their skills were obviously not. They aren't crying about it- so why is everyone else?
The aftermath, however, has not been so clear. Covenant School has apologized for its team's performance stating that it was "shameful" and an "embarassment". Usually that type of post-game apology to its fans comes from a team that has just been blown away by the opposition; not from the winning side. My cursory review of the blogosphere indicates that there is wide-spread disgust over the performance of the Covenant School team, its coach and its fans. The Dallas Morning News reports that people want the winning coach to be fired or to quit. The parents of the winning team are also disparaged.
Nothing but praise, however, for the losing team. School officials from Covenant praised the Dallas players "for their strength, composure and fortitude in a game in which they clearly emerged the winner" and posted an apology on the school's website. They even offered to forfeit the game. Somehow the winners became the losers and vice versa. The Dallas girls have been on television giving interviews. I watched one of these spots - the girls come across as very positive, enthusiastic, bright and delightful. One cannot help but feel "sorry" for them, although they clearly do not feel sorry for themselves. I have seen no interviews with the Covenant girls.
What can one make of all of this? Dallas Academy is a small private school with a student body of apparently only 20 girls, 8 of whom are on the basketball team. They have not won a game in the last 4 years. Covenant School is a much larger school, with a total enrolment of over 800 students. The game was clearly a mismatch, and a predictable one at that. If there is to be any fault in this matter, it should go to the organizers of this league who set up the inevitable drubbing and for not having in place a mechanism to limit lopsided games, as exists in other sport matches where young people are involved.
But how about the teams themselves - should the winners be condemned and the losers praised? No. Young athletes are all told the same thing, over and over. It's not about winning, it's about going out there and doing your best. That is what both teams did. Now I agree that "running up the score" is not a polite thing to do. There might have been some discrete, non-offensive ways to make the game 50 - 0, or 100 - 10, instead of 100 - 0. There is, however, a danger in making it too obvious that a team is no longer trying. Purposely missing baskets, tripping over one's shoe-laces so that the other team can score is even more humiliating to your opponent than simply beating them, fair and square. It shows your pity for them, instead of your respect. I would bet that most high school teams never practise the art of pretending that you are trying when you really are not. It reminds me of the popular movie, Rudy, which I hated. As I recall, Rudy was obviously allowed to score a touchdown, near the end of the movie, with the opposing players acting like clowns, falling all over the field. He was then hoisted up on the players' shoulders and paraded around. How humiliating for Rudy, I thought.
The Dallas team came out of this match feeling good about themselves - they did their best against a significantly better team. They were treated as equals, even though their skills were obviously not. They aren't crying about it- so why is everyone else?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Back To Canada's Political Soap Opera
Now that the interminable Obama transition and inauguration are thankfully over, Canadians can refocus their attention on our home grown political drama. It has been a while since our last episode, so let me refresh your memory. When we last tuned in, the "coalition of the unwilling", i.e. the three opposition parties unwilling to seek power through an election, was attempting to overthrow the minority government of Stephen Harper. Harper frustrated this plot, by convincing the Governor General to suspend Parliament before a non-confidence vote could be held. The three headed monster, which consists of a socialist, a centrist, and a separatist, lurked away, promising to come back even more strongly when Parliament re-opened in January.
Well January is here and Parliament is about to re-open. The minority government will be presenting its budget, and the vote will take place. What will happen? Will the coalition carry through with its threat to defeat the government? You will recall that it promised to do so, no matter what was in the budget. They had lost "trust" in Stephen Harper. Bob Rea as well as other prominent coalition members made this point crystal clear.
Things have changed. The centrist Liberals, which hold the key to this matter, since both the separatists and socialists will vote against the government, have a new leader, Michael Ignatieff. He has made it clear that Canadians need another election like "we need a hole in our heads". Ignatieff would love to become Prime Minister a.s.a.p, and if he could be convinced that the Governor General would hand over power to the coalition rather than call for an election, in the event of the defeat of the minority government, he would jump at this chance. He would then become one of the most undemocratically "elected" Prime Ministers in the history of this country, as he has yet to even be confirmed as leader by members of his own party. But no matter. It is uncertain what the Governor General would do if the minority government fell - call an election or let the coalition govern - and my guess is that Ignatieff will not risk an election at this point.
So next week, the government will not fall. Bets anyone?
Well January is here and Parliament is about to re-open. The minority government will be presenting its budget, and the vote will take place. What will happen? Will the coalition carry through with its threat to defeat the government? You will recall that it promised to do so, no matter what was in the budget. They had lost "trust" in Stephen Harper. Bob Rea as well as other prominent coalition members made this point crystal clear.
Things have changed. The centrist Liberals, which hold the key to this matter, since both the separatists and socialists will vote against the government, have a new leader, Michael Ignatieff. He has made it clear that Canadians need another election like "we need a hole in our heads". Ignatieff would love to become Prime Minister a.s.a.p, and if he could be convinced that the Governor General would hand over power to the coalition rather than call for an election, in the event of the defeat of the minority government, he would jump at this chance. He would then become one of the most undemocratically "elected" Prime Ministers in the history of this country, as he has yet to even be confirmed as leader by members of his own party. But no matter. It is uncertain what the Governor General would do if the minority government fell - call an election or let the coalition govern - and my guess is that Ignatieff will not risk an election at this point.
So next week, the government will not fall. Bets anyone?
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Grinch Who Stole The Inauguration
Growing up Jewish in a culture dominated by Christmas was always a trying time for me. Christmas festivities, songs, decorations were everywhere - in school, on television, in department stores, in people's homes, in movies - everywhere! It seemed like so much fun, and there I was, on the outside looking in. To be quite honest, I couldn't wait for it all to end and for everything to just get back to normal.
I grew out of it of course and now am coping quite well. But along came the U.S. President's Inauguration and those feelings of being left out have returned. It has been non-stop Inauguration now for at least four straight days. 24 hour television coverage, waving and cheering crowds lining the tracks for the Obama inauguration express, celebrities, balls, concerts, souvenirs, millions of people in Washington and endless analysis and punditry. It goes on and on and on. There is nothing else on television and no-one talks about anything else. We in Canada have absolutely nothing to compare it with, other than perhaps a Royal Coronation, but that does not occur often and it does not even occur here in Canada.
Today is January 20. Thank God!! The formal swearing in and speech are over and now we just have all the balls, galas, and celebrities to deal with. It will soon all be concluded and things can hopefully get back to normal. I know I am Jewish and can't have Christmas. I know I am a Canadian and can't have an Inauguration. I can deal with it. As I did not begrudge my Christian friends their Christmas, I do not begrudge our American neighbours their inauguration. Enjoy the day! But, frankly, January 21 cannot come soon enough for me.
I grew out of it of course and now am coping quite well. But along came the U.S. President's Inauguration and those feelings of being left out have returned. It has been non-stop Inauguration now for at least four straight days. 24 hour television coverage, waving and cheering crowds lining the tracks for the Obama inauguration express, celebrities, balls, concerts, souvenirs, millions of people in Washington and endless analysis and punditry. It goes on and on and on. There is nothing else on television and no-one talks about anything else. We in Canada have absolutely nothing to compare it with, other than perhaps a Royal Coronation, but that does not occur often and it does not even occur here in Canada.
Today is January 20. Thank God!! The formal swearing in and speech are over and now we just have all the balls, galas, and celebrities to deal with. It will soon all be concluded and things can hopefully get back to normal. I know I am Jewish and can't have Christmas. I know I am a Canadian and can't have an Inauguration. I can deal with it. As I did not begrudge my Christian friends their Christmas, I do not begrudge our American neighbours their inauguration. Enjoy the day! But, frankly, January 21 cannot come soon enough for me.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Why Hamas Will Not Stop Firing Rockets
From a military perspective, Hamas is getting clobbered in its fight against Israel. Thousands of Hamas operatives and supporters, as well as innocent civilians, have been killed or wounded. Hamas buildings and homes have been destroyed. Hamas leaders have run away to other countries or are hiding in basements. Hamas must know that the longer they fire rockets into Israel the more suffering they will cause to their own people, since they leave Israel no alternative but to defend its own citizens. They know that this is a military battle that they cannot win. So why do they not stop firing?
Hamas' objective is not to win militarily, but to defeat Israel in the public relations war. Their desire is to turn Israel into a pariah nation - to turn world opinion against it. To a large degree, Hamas has been successful in this propaganda battle. Countries friendly to Israel before the Gaza operation have turned against it. International organizations have waded in with their condemnations. The streets are full of Israel protesters and haters, constituting a mix of leftists, anti-Americans, anti-Westerners, anti-Zionists, anti-Semites, unions, well meaning peaceniks, the uninformed, the naive. Though ostensibly wanting the fighting to stop and an end to the death and destruction, ironically these protesting countries, international organizations, and individuals have become a cheering section for Hamas, indirectly encouraging them to continue to fire their rockets. Hamas knows that the longer it fires its rockets, and the more death and destruction comes to its own people as a result, the greater will be its success in the propaganda war. To Hamas a success in its desire to demonize and isolate Israel is worth the price of the destruction of its own people. So they continue to fire.
If countries and individuals truly want the chaos in Gaza to end, they would better accomplish this goal by depriving Hamas of its political/public relations victory. This means condemning Hamas for continuing to fire rockets into Israel and for defiantly refusing to stop. Some Arab countries and Palestinian leaders, like Abbas, have realized this simple point. They know that their people will be protected by depriving Hamas of the public relations success it seeks to achieve at the expense of the destruction of Gazan society. When Hamas realizes it has lost both militarily and politically, it will stop firing its rockets. It will likely not do so until then.
Hamas' objective is not to win militarily, but to defeat Israel in the public relations war. Their desire is to turn Israel into a pariah nation - to turn world opinion against it. To a large degree, Hamas has been successful in this propaganda battle. Countries friendly to Israel before the Gaza operation have turned against it. International organizations have waded in with their condemnations. The streets are full of Israel protesters and haters, constituting a mix of leftists, anti-Americans, anti-Westerners, anti-Zionists, anti-Semites, unions, well meaning peaceniks, the uninformed, the naive. Though ostensibly wanting the fighting to stop and an end to the death and destruction, ironically these protesting countries, international organizations, and individuals have become a cheering section for Hamas, indirectly encouraging them to continue to fire their rockets. Hamas knows that the longer it fires its rockets, and the more death and destruction comes to its own people as a result, the greater will be its success in the propaganda war. To Hamas a success in its desire to demonize and isolate Israel is worth the price of the destruction of its own people. So they continue to fire.
If countries and individuals truly want the chaos in Gaza to end, they would better accomplish this goal by depriving Hamas of its political/public relations victory. This means condemning Hamas for continuing to fire rockets into Israel and for defiantly refusing to stop. Some Arab countries and Palestinian leaders, like Abbas, have realized this simple point. They know that their people will be protected by depriving Hamas of the public relations success it seeks to achieve at the expense of the destruction of Gazan society. When Hamas realizes it has lost both militarily and politically, it will stop firing its rockets. It will likely not do so until then.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The post-November 4 blues: Has the hope for change faded?
Is it just me, or does it also seem to you that a lot of the air has gone out of the euphoria filled balloon since November 4, 2008, the day of Barack Obama's historic election? Who can forget that night! 71 million people in the USA watched election night coverage. Grant Park was jammed for Obama's victory speech. Oprah and Rev. Jesse Jackson, along with thousands of others, were weeping. Salman Rushdie, in a post election appearance in Edmonton, went on at length about how hope had returned to America. The enthusiasm and "yes we can" spirit of the 1960's was back.
Election night was the high point. It's been mainly downhill since then. Belief that real change is at hand has been replaced by the sobering reality that "well, maybe we can't and won't". Obama himself seemed to signal that troubling thought in his election night speech. As you may recall, the speech was sombre and uninspiring. There was none of the rousing "yes we can" rhetoric which brought crowds to their feet during the election campaigning. Instead, I got the impression that Obama was thinking to himself: "oh my God, I actually pulled this off. Now what?".
The hard data which has come out since November 4 certainly do not support the proposition that with Obama's victory, confidence in the future has returned to America and to the world. Of course it is true that Obama has not yet taken office, and even once he does, he will not quickly or easily be able to undo the economic mess which we are in. No-one expects magic bullets or quick fixes. But what I find distressing is that no-one seems to have the confidence - "the change we can believe in" feeling - that things will get better under President Obama and his team. Remember it was this "change you can believe in" mantra which got Obama elected.
So what are the figures? On election day, the Dow Jones was at 9,625.28. As I am writing this, it stands at 8015.04. That is a drop of nearly 17% in less than three months. On the theory that the market anticipates good things before they actually happen, the market figures certainly do not evidence that investors have much confidence in the future. Retail sales in December were down 2.7%. Pending house sales dropped to a seven year low. Rather than thinking that things will be getting better under President Obama and that therefore now is a good time to jump back into the stock market, to buy a house, or to buy goods before prices rise, people think things will not be improving for a while. The change you can believe in does not seem, at least in ordinary folks' minds, to be on the horizon.
President-elect Obama has not done much to foster confidence that change is here. The team he has chosen to work with is all too familiar. There have been a lot of rookie fumbles. Whether the issue relates to Rick Warren, Leon Panetta, Bill Richardson, Blogojevich, Burris, and now Geithner, things could have been handled a lot better. The auto bail out has not impressed, and the fact that the first $350 billion was not spent as promised, has not helped restore confidence that change has come to Washington. In short, where once the question was "where's the beef", people can now not be faulted for asking "where's the change"?
Notwithstanding all of this, January 20 will be a great day. We will then wake up on January 21. So enjoy January 20.
Election night was the high point. It's been mainly downhill since then. Belief that real change is at hand has been replaced by the sobering reality that "well, maybe we can't and won't". Obama himself seemed to signal that troubling thought in his election night speech. As you may recall, the speech was sombre and uninspiring. There was none of the rousing "yes we can" rhetoric which brought crowds to their feet during the election campaigning. Instead, I got the impression that Obama was thinking to himself: "oh my God, I actually pulled this off. Now what?".
The hard data which has come out since November 4 certainly do not support the proposition that with Obama's victory, confidence in the future has returned to America and to the world. Of course it is true that Obama has not yet taken office, and even once he does, he will not quickly or easily be able to undo the economic mess which we are in. No-one expects magic bullets or quick fixes. But what I find distressing is that no-one seems to have the confidence - "the change we can believe in" feeling - that things will get better under President Obama and his team. Remember it was this "change you can believe in" mantra which got Obama elected.
So what are the figures? On election day, the Dow Jones was at 9,625.28. As I am writing this, it stands at 8015.04. That is a drop of nearly 17% in less than three months. On the theory that the market anticipates good things before they actually happen, the market figures certainly do not evidence that investors have much confidence in the future. Retail sales in December were down 2.7%. Pending house sales dropped to a seven year low. Rather than thinking that things will be getting better under President Obama and that therefore now is a good time to jump back into the stock market, to buy a house, or to buy goods before prices rise, people think things will not be improving for a while. The change you can believe in does not seem, at least in ordinary folks' minds, to be on the horizon.
President-elect Obama has not done much to foster confidence that change is here. The team he has chosen to work with is all too familiar. There have been a lot of rookie fumbles. Whether the issue relates to Rick Warren, Leon Panetta, Bill Richardson, Blogojevich, Burris, and now Geithner, things could have been handled a lot better. The auto bail out has not impressed, and the fact that the first $350 billion was not spent as promised, has not helped restore confidence that change has come to Washington. In short, where once the question was "where's the beef", people can now not be faulted for asking "where's the change"?
Notwithstanding all of this, January 20 will be a great day. We will then wake up on January 21. So enjoy January 20.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Canada and Obama
I think I speak for all Canadians when I say how happy we are that President Obama's first foreign trip will be to Canada. This follows a pattern of US Presidents making Canada their first international trip. Four of the last seven Presidents did so, according to a Canadian Press story on the subject. We were pretty miffed when George W. Bush decided not to follow this tradition when he first became President 8 years ago. Of course, George W. had his reasons. The Chretien Liberals were in power at the time, and they were not, shall we say, overly enamoured with George W. Bush. George Bush knew that, of course, and went to Mexico.
But that is all water under the bridge. Chretien's Liberals are gone and so is George W. Bush. Canadian support for Obama was huge during the election. We seemed to love him even more than did the Americans - media polls apparently indicating that 80% of Canadians would have voted for him if given the chance. So it's great that he's coming here and I am sure we will be giddy when he arrives. CBC radio has even been putting together a playlist of 49 songs for Obama, songs which best "define" Canada - see http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/obamasplaylist/
Having said that, let's get down to business. Is Obama good for Canada? Now to be frank, this is a difficult question to answer. It is difficult, and I am trying to be polite here as one would expect from a Canadian host, because I am not sure where Obama stands on any precise issue on any precise day. There has been the tendency on the in-coming President's part to, let's say, be "flexible" on the issues. Concerns have been raised about his fluid positions on the public financing of campaigns, on the timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, on bans of hand guns, on immunity for telecom firms, on renegotiating NAFTA, on school voucher programs, and on welfare reform. Now I am not conversant with all of these issues, but it does seem to me that with respect to at least some of them, e.g. public financing of campaigns, principled positions clearly were changed for political expediency. But why quibble now? Obama won a convincing victory, will be the President on November 20, and is coming to Canada first. We are happy about that.
What's next for Canada? The big issues seem to be NAFTA, energy, and maybe sovereignty over the Arctic, something raised recently by George W. Bush. Will Obama try to renegotiate NAFTA? He said he would, but then someone in his campaign team said they were just throwing it out there for political gain in a tough primary contest, and they were not really serious. He did, however, talk very tough on protecting U.S. jobs and penalizing companies which send jobs "overseas", but Canada is of course not "overseas". But then he also talked about tearing down walls when he spoke in Europe, and declared himself to be a citizen of the world. So I really don't know what he will do. Will he build trade walls or tear them down? He wants to be energy self sufficient in 10 years, but then explained that this was about not buying oil from countries that don't like the US, and heck we love the USA now that Obama is President! So he cannot mean being free from our friendly oil, can he? But then he is big on climate change, and some say that our oil is "dirty" - another dilemma. I don't know what his position will be on our claim to sovereignty over the Arctic, but I say don't bring it up when he's here.
Then there's the relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On some matters I do not think things are promising there. Prime Minister Harper is a big George Bush type of guy when it comes down to Israel in particular and foreign policy in general. Harper supported the war in Iraq and would have probably sent Canadian troops had he been Prime Minister when George Bush asked for help. Obama's major claim to fame, on the other hand, was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Obama seems keen on changing the USA's "image" in the world, by being more "balanced" in his approaches to foreign policy. Harper, on the other hand, does not seem to care too much about Canada's image with countries whose policies and ideologies he opposes. We now see Canada not merely abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Israel, but actually sometimes standing alone in voting against such motions, as it did this week in a UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning Israel's actions in Gaza. Harper is a conservative, Obama is a liberal. So they have big differences.
On the positive side, at least in terms of their relationship, they are both strong family types, with firm religious beliefs. So they have something in common and can talk about that.
So who knows what's in store? Certainly not me. I do know however that President Obama is coming here first. And who can naysay that?
But that is all water under the bridge. Chretien's Liberals are gone and so is George W. Bush. Canadian support for Obama was huge during the election. We seemed to love him even more than did the Americans - media polls apparently indicating that 80% of Canadians would have voted for him if given the chance. So it's great that he's coming here and I am sure we will be giddy when he arrives. CBC radio has even been putting together a playlist of 49 songs for Obama, songs which best "define" Canada - see http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/obamasplaylist/
Having said that, let's get down to business. Is Obama good for Canada? Now to be frank, this is a difficult question to answer. It is difficult, and I am trying to be polite here as one would expect from a Canadian host, because I am not sure where Obama stands on any precise issue on any precise day. There has been the tendency on the in-coming President's part to, let's say, be "flexible" on the issues. Concerns have been raised about his fluid positions on the public financing of campaigns, on the timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, on bans of hand guns, on immunity for telecom firms, on renegotiating NAFTA, on school voucher programs, and on welfare reform. Now I am not conversant with all of these issues, but it does seem to me that with respect to at least some of them, e.g. public financing of campaigns, principled positions clearly were changed for political expediency. But why quibble now? Obama won a convincing victory, will be the President on November 20, and is coming to Canada first. We are happy about that.
What's next for Canada? The big issues seem to be NAFTA, energy, and maybe sovereignty over the Arctic, something raised recently by George W. Bush. Will Obama try to renegotiate NAFTA? He said he would, but then someone in his campaign team said they were just throwing it out there for political gain in a tough primary contest, and they were not really serious. He did, however, talk very tough on protecting U.S. jobs and penalizing companies which send jobs "overseas", but Canada is of course not "overseas". But then he also talked about tearing down walls when he spoke in Europe, and declared himself to be a citizen of the world. So I really don't know what he will do. Will he build trade walls or tear them down? He wants to be energy self sufficient in 10 years, but then explained that this was about not buying oil from countries that don't like the US, and heck we love the USA now that Obama is President! So he cannot mean being free from our friendly oil, can he? But then he is big on climate change, and some say that our oil is "dirty" - another dilemma. I don't know what his position will be on our claim to sovereignty over the Arctic, but I say don't bring it up when he's here.
Then there's the relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On some matters I do not think things are promising there. Prime Minister Harper is a big George Bush type of guy when it comes down to Israel in particular and foreign policy in general. Harper supported the war in Iraq and would have probably sent Canadian troops had he been Prime Minister when George Bush asked for help. Obama's major claim to fame, on the other hand, was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Obama seems keen on changing the USA's "image" in the world, by being more "balanced" in his approaches to foreign policy. Harper, on the other hand, does not seem to care too much about Canada's image with countries whose policies and ideologies he opposes. We now see Canada not merely abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Israel, but actually sometimes standing alone in voting against such motions, as it did this week in a UN Human Rights Council resolution condemning Israel's actions in Gaza. Harper is a conservative, Obama is a liberal. So they have big differences.
On the positive side, at least in terms of their relationship, they are both strong family types, with firm religious beliefs. So they have something in common and can talk about that.
So who knows what's in store? Certainly not me. I do know however that President Obama is coming here first. And who can naysay that?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Sid Ryan's Canadian Union of Public Embarrasment
Those who have been reading Canadian newspapers will know of the proposal by Sid Ryan, President of the Ontario Branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees to ban all Israeli academics from Ontario universities unless they publicly declare their opposition to the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. Mr. Ryan went so far as to compare Israeli government actions in Gaza to the criminal actions of the Nazis. Due presumably to the outcry that these comments have produced, Mr. Ryan has apologized for his Nazi comparison and has softened the proposed ban. Apparently now only Israeli universities are to be banned from collaborations with Ontario academics and institutions or something like that. Frankly, the whole idea of a "ban" of any type is so dispicable and ridiculous that the details of what type of ban is being proposed is irrelevant.
The proposed ban reeks of witch hunts and McCarthyism. Individuals who wish to pursue their academic careers in the Province of Ontario must openly declare their opposition to the Israeli government's actions. I can see the televised Hearing now:
"Professor Bloggs, do you now or have you ever supported the Israeli government? Tell us what is in your heart and mind, Professor Bloggs. Renounce the Israeli government, ask this Hearing for forgiveness from your evil thoughts, and then and only then will you be allow to deliver your lecture on the reproductive organs of the fruit fly in an Ontario university."
There are so many obvious things that have been said and can be said against this evil proposal, that I will not insult your intelligence by repeating them here. Those who are interested in signing a Petition against this ban can go to the Scholars For Peace in the Middle East website (http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=4893).
The whole thing makes my blood boil.
The proposed ban reeks of witch hunts and McCarthyism. Individuals who wish to pursue their academic careers in the Province of Ontario must openly declare their opposition to the Israeli government's actions. I can see the televised Hearing now:
"Professor Bloggs, do you now or have you ever supported the Israeli government? Tell us what is in your heart and mind, Professor Bloggs. Renounce the Israeli government, ask this Hearing for forgiveness from your evil thoughts, and then and only then will you be allow to deliver your lecture on the reproductive organs of the fruit fly in an Ontario university."
There are so many obvious things that have been said and can be said against this evil proposal, that I will not insult your intelligence by repeating them here. Those who are interested in signing a Petition against this ban can go to the Scholars For Peace in the Middle East website (http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=4893).
The whole thing makes my blood boil.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Academic Hirings: Getting Rid of Bias
If your university's approach to hiring new faculty members is anything like ours, the drill is as follows. Candidates are short listed by a committee based on their academic record, research and writing achievements, references, and prior teaching experience (if any). Once the short list is generated, those on it are invited to come to the faculty to give a "job talk", meet faculty members, the dean, and the hiring committee. In-put is then solicited from the faculty, and the hiring committee advises the dean, whose responsibility it is to make the hiring decision. Simple and straight forward. Is this the best process? I would argue that it is not. My suggestion - get rid of the job talk and the informal visit to the faculty. Hire on the best evidence - the hard evidence. Get rid of the shmoozing and you will hopefully get rid of the bias.
Everything one needs to know about a candidate's record of achievement and scholarly potential is in the file. A one hour chat with faculty about the candidate's research interests is no substitute for knowledgeable faculty members actually reading what that candidate has published. An informal faculty seminar to determine a candidate's communication skills and teaching ability is no substitute for looking at teaching evaluations or assessments of earlier teaching. A short visit to determine a candidate's "personality" traits is no substitute for considering serious references from people who actually knew and worked with that candidate.
It is true of course that one can and should do all of these things in addition to the job talk and visit. What harm, you may ask, is there in adding the visit to all of the other evidence that you have? My answer is that in addition to the practical difficulties that setting up the visit entail, including the faculty's expenses, the scheduling nightmare, and the inevitable delays in the ability to make quick offers, the visit introduces the real potential that irrelevant factors will either consciously or subconsciously affect the hiring decision. Things such as the candidate's looks, manner of dress and speech, or personality traits that have absolutely nothing to do with being a successful academic, may actually play a role in that person's career opportunities and the faculty's decision to hire the best people that it can.
If one did a cost/benefit analysis, I would venture to say that the costs of having these types of visits far outweigh the benefits that they produce. Colleagues opposed to my idea (and that basically is everyone who has heard it) say that visits may reveal flaws in the candidate's academic and research abilities, intellectual stature, or personality which are important to the hiring and would not have been exposed otherwise. That would mean that we would have found something relevant in a short visit that the candidate's previous professors, doctoral or masters defence committees, students, colleagues, employers, referees, and peer reviewed journal editors, missed. How likely is that?
As I stated, I have found no-one who supports this idea. I do not know if any Canadian or U.S.A. university has abandoned the job talk visit as an integral part of its hiring process and based its hiring decision solely on the candidate's hard record. So I guess the odds are that I am being simply contrarian or crazy in proposing this. What do you thnk? Crazy idea or an idea whose time has come?
Everything one needs to know about a candidate's record of achievement and scholarly potential is in the file. A one hour chat with faculty about the candidate's research interests is no substitute for knowledgeable faculty members actually reading what that candidate has published. An informal faculty seminar to determine a candidate's communication skills and teaching ability is no substitute for looking at teaching evaluations or assessments of earlier teaching. A short visit to determine a candidate's "personality" traits is no substitute for considering serious references from people who actually knew and worked with that candidate.
It is true of course that one can and should do all of these things in addition to the job talk and visit. What harm, you may ask, is there in adding the visit to all of the other evidence that you have? My answer is that in addition to the practical difficulties that setting up the visit entail, including the faculty's expenses, the scheduling nightmare, and the inevitable delays in the ability to make quick offers, the visit introduces the real potential that irrelevant factors will either consciously or subconsciously affect the hiring decision. Things such as the candidate's looks, manner of dress and speech, or personality traits that have absolutely nothing to do with being a successful academic, may actually play a role in that person's career opportunities and the faculty's decision to hire the best people that it can.
If one did a cost/benefit analysis, I would venture to say that the costs of having these types of visits far outweigh the benefits that they produce. Colleagues opposed to my idea (and that basically is everyone who has heard it) say that visits may reveal flaws in the candidate's academic and research abilities, intellectual stature, or personality which are important to the hiring and would not have been exposed otherwise. That would mean that we would have found something relevant in a short visit that the candidate's previous professors, doctoral or masters defence committees, students, colleagues, employers, referees, and peer reviewed journal editors, missed. How likely is that?
As I stated, I have found no-one who supports this idea. I do not know if any Canadian or U.S.A. university has abandoned the job talk visit as an integral part of its hiring process and based its hiring decision solely on the candidate's hard record. So I guess the odds are that I am being simply contrarian or crazy in proposing this. What do you thnk? Crazy idea or an idea whose time has come?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
US Democracy: I Never Said It Is Perfect
Followers of earlier postings will know that I recently have been suffering from democracy envy. While our neighbours to the south have had a two year frenzy of participatory democracy, which will culminate in Barack Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, Canadians have watched a gong show of democratic activity. We have snoozed through an election which few voted in and even fewer cared about, and which resulted in a "No Change You Can Believe In" transformation of Canada. This was soon followed by a Larry, Moe and Curly failed coalition effort. Then we saw the suspension of Parliament (we sophisticates in Canada call it a "prorogation" ), soon to be followed by the appointment of 18 people to a Senate which does little, costs a lot, and most agree ought to be abolished. A new interim leader of the Liberal party was selected, not by members of his party, but by its National Executive. It was, to be fair, an easy decision since he ran to be the leader of his party, unopposed. Then to welcome in the New Year, the Prime Minister capped it all off by appointing a new Supreme Court of Canada Justice, without a smidgin of Parliamentary oversight. So to recap - new government, new Liberal leader, 18 new Senators, and new Supreme Court of Canada justice. Wow! It sort of reminds me of the song about the 12 days of Christmas and all the things I received from my true love - "one new government, one new Liberal leader, 18 new Senators, a new Supreme Court of Canada justice, and a partridge in a pear tree".
But I want to be fair. While we in the north have been struggling to stay awake and keep up with the "breaking news" from Ottawa, our friends to the south have gone wacko. The election was great, but have you seen what has been going on there since November 4? We can start with Governor Blagojevich, who apparently put a Senate seat up for sale on e-bay, along with Sarah Palin's official airplane. Then Blag said he would "fight, fight, fight", sort of reminding me of the cheerleaders I saw in the Fiesta Bowl parade. The lucky winner of the Senate seat was former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, but his Senate hopes were frustrated by a recalcitrant Illinois Secretary of State who either forgot to or refused to sign the required paperwork, resulting in a goal line stand by the Senate Secretary who refused to let Burris into the Senate. And if you think all this is messy, all has not gone that well in Obama land either. First there was the Rick Warren fiasco, followed by Governor Richardson's withdrawal as Commerce Secretary, followed by Obama's choice of Leon Panetta as CIA director. The Rick Warren pick was just plain dumb, Obama presumably didn't know that Richardson had troubles brewing when he picked him for the Commerce Secretary post, and Obama just plain forgot that it would probably be a good idea to tell Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein about Panetta, before she read about it in the newspapers. (An honest mistake, we all forget to do things now and then). Meanwhile there is a major war going on in Gaza, and the trillions of bail outs and stimuli packages just get bigger.
As our friend Charlie Brown would say: "Good grief". And 2009 is barely 6 days old.
But I want to be fair. While we in the north have been struggling to stay awake and keep up with the "breaking news" from Ottawa, our friends to the south have gone wacko. The election was great, but have you seen what has been going on there since November 4? We can start with Governor Blagojevich, who apparently put a Senate seat up for sale on e-bay, along with Sarah Palin's official airplane. Then Blag said he would "fight, fight, fight", sort of reminding me of the cheerleaders I saw in the Fiesta Bowl parade. The lucky winner of the Senate seat was former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, but his Senate hopes were frustrated by a recalcitrant Illinois Secretary of State who either forgot to or refused to sign the required paperwork, resulting in a goal line stand by the Senate Secretary who refused to let Burris into the Senate. And if you think all this is messy, all has not gone that well in Obama land either. First there was the Rick Warren fiasco, followed by Governor Richardson's withdrawal as Commerce Secretary, followed by Obama's choice of Leon Panetta as CIA director. The Rick Warren pick was just plain dumb, Obama presumably didn't know that Richardson had troubles brewing when he picked him for the Commerce Secretary post, and Obama just plain forgot that it would probably be a good idea to tell Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein about Panetta, before she read about it in the newspapers. (An honest mistake, we all forget to do things now and then). Meanwhile there is a major war going on in Gaza, and the trillions of bail outs and stimuli packages just get bigger.
As our friend Charlie Brown would say: "Good grief". And 2009 is barely 6 days old.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
A Good Old Fashioned Parade
One of the most depressing highlights of the year for me when growing up in Canada was watching the Rose Bowl parade on New Year's day. While I froze in the icy north, I watched beautiful floats festooned with flowers slowly winding their way down the steets in sunny, warm California. I could almost smell the flowers. Watching it all unfold was an act of sadomasochism.
This year I was in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl parade. And what a parade it was. No, there were no flower festooned floats. The floats have been replaced by huge inflatable figures. Yes, it was sunny and warm. But what struck me most as I watched the nearly three hour long parade pass before me was the incredible American "spirit" of it all. And the tradition. It was almost as if I had been transported back in time to more innocent days; days without Iphones and Ipods. I could have been watching a movie of a parade shot in America decades ago. There were endless lines of high school and university marching bands, cheerleaders being thrown into the air, baton twirlers, and clowns. The uniforms and instruments of the serious young musicians glittered in the sun. The Sheriff of Maricopa County and his posse went by, as did a host of Marshalls on horseback, as if they had come straight out of a John Wayne film. There were huge inflatable American flags, eagles, and other treasured symbols.
But the highlight for the huge crowd, and curiously enough for me, was when a smallish contingent of American troops marched by. They marched along like the other parade participants. They were not showy and decked out as heroes with medals and fancy uniforms. They came in their plain military fatigues - no tanks, modern weaponry or sophisticated equipment. Just the soldiers. It was not a show of US military force, as one might see from other nations eager to boast about their superiority. It was simply about young people, who had decided to serve their nation.
These young men and women in uniform were greeted by a steady and strong applause from everyone around me. I am sure this greeting followed them throughout the long parade route. It was the crowd's way of showing its support, its love of country, and most of all its gratitude for these men and women. It was a glorious moment. And a great parade.
This year I was in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl parade. And what a parade it was. No, there were no flower festooned floats. The floats have been replaced by huge inflatable figures. Yes, it was sunny and warm. But what struck me most as I watched the nearly three hour long parade pass before me was the incredible American "spirit" of it all. And the tradition. It was almost as if I had been transported back in time to more innocent days; days without Iphones and Ipods. I could have been watching a movie of a parade shot in America decades ago. There were endless lines of high school and university marching bands, cheerleaders being thrown into the air, baton twirlers, and clowns. The uniforms and instruments of the serious young musicians glittered in the sun. The Sheriff of Maricopa County and his posse went by, as did a host of Marshalls on horseback, as if they had come straight out of a John Wayne film. There were huge inflatable American flags, eagles, and other treasured symbols.
But the highlight for the huge crowd, and curiously enough for me, was when a smallish contingent of American troops marched by. They marched along like the other parade participants. They were not showy and decked out as heroes with medals and fancy uniforms. They came in their plain military fatigues - no tanks, modern weaponry or sophisticated equipment. Just the soldiers. It was not a show of US military force, as one might see from other nations eager to boast about their superiority. It was simply about young people, who had decided to serve their nation.
These young men and women in uniform were greeted by a steady and strong applause from everyone around me. I am sure this greeting followed them throughout the long parade route. It was the crowd's way of showing its support, its love of country, and most of all its gratitude for these men and women. It was a glorious moment. And a great parade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
