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.