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.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
