I wish we Canadians could import some American energy. I do not mean oil, gas ,or coal. I am referring to the "people energy" that electrifies that country on a regular basis.
It is the week-end before the November mid-term elections and the folks down there are engaged. Rallies are taking place all over the country, whether it is the "Rally to Restore Sanity" organized by America's "most influential" man, Jon Stewart and his comic pal Stephen Colbert, or the Tea Party Express RV Tours (which some - not me - might call Rallies to Create Insanity). The media are all over these happenings, and the blogs are bursting with stuff.
Yes, Canada is a great place to live (aside from the horrible weather), and I do not plan to leave, even if the Americans would let me in. The USA, as they say, is a great place to visit, but would you really want to live there? So I am staying put, and will survive the monotony of on-going political dead-lock and periodic visits from the Royals. But that does not mean I cannot enjoy the southern excitement and pretend I am part of it all. So while many of you might be sitting on the edges of your seats waiting for the Grey Cup (in Edmonton, in November, outdoors!), or for the arrival of the Great Pumpkin, I cannot wait until Tuesday, November 2. I will be glued to the television set.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
President Obama and The Daily Show
I just watched President Obama on the Daily Show. Not a bad half hour. Not exactly riveting, a bit boring at times, but interesting nevertheless.
A few preliminary observations. I thought Jon Stewart did a very good job in asking some tough questions and not letting the President off the hook too easily. This is no mean feat. Obama is the President of the United States after all, and the audience was clearly with him - no shoe throwers out there. Stewart, without being rude, was able to get across his disappointment with the President's performance to date. This put the President on the defensive and I doubt that his responses, frequently a bit long winded, changed any minds out there about this common concern. Stewart joked quite a bit about the overblown campaign rhetoric - "we are the ones we have been waiting for" type of thing. He made his point quite effectively. Part of Obama's problem now is the incredibly unrealistic expectations which the Obama campaign itself created about his transformative Presidency.
Stewart let a couple of obvious points go. President Obama blamed a lot of his troubles on the so-called 60 vote "requirement" to get things through in the Senate. Stewart could have noted that Obama had his 60 votes until Scott Brown's victory in January 2010. The trouble with getting his agenda through was at least up until then, with his own party, not with the Republicans. As well the refrain often heard from the Obama administration is that these have been the two toughest years since the Great Depression. This historical narrative skips over World War II, the Vietnam war, and a few other weighty problems which Presidents have faced. But I do not fault Stewart. He was not there to debate the President, and I think he did a good job in "keeping the President honest" while still giving the President his chance to speak.
As for the President, I also give him credit. He was a good sport to go on the show, and as usual exhibited his intelligence. Although defensive, he got his points across.
Good television; but certainly not a game changer for next week.
A few preliminary observations. I thought Jon Stewart did a very good job in asking some tough questions and not letting the President off the hook too easily. This is no mean feat. Obama is the President of the United States after all, and the audience was clearly with him - no shoe throwers out there. Stewart, without being rude, was able to get across his disappointment with the President's performance to date. This put the President on the defensive and I doubt that his responses, frequently a bit long winded, changed any minds out there about this common concern. Stewart joked quite a bit about the overblown campaign rhetoric - "we are the ones we have been waiting for" type of thing. He made his point quite effectively. Part of Obama's problem now is the incredibly unrealistic expectations which the Obama campaign itself created about his transformative Presidency.
Stewart let a couple of obvious points go. President Obama blamed a lot of his troubles on the so-called 60 vote "requirement" to get things through in the Senate. Stewart could have noted that Obama had his 60 votes until Scott Brown's victory in January 2010. The trouble with getting his agenda through was at least up until then, with his own party, not with the Republicans. As well the refrain often heard from the Obama administration is that these have been the two toughest years since the Great Depression. This historical narrative skips over World War II, the Vietnam war, and a few other weighty problems which Presidents have faced. But I do not fault Stewart. He was not there to debate the President, and I think he did a good job in "keeping the President honest" while still giving the President his chance to speak.
As for the President, I also give him credit. He was a good sport to go on the show, and as usual exhibited his intelligence. Although defensive, he got his points across.
Good television; but certainly not a game changer for next week.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A Tale of Two Cities
Although Canadian political stories frankly seem rather boring to me compared to what is going on with our neighbour to the south, occasionally a Canadian political happening catches my eye. That happened this past week when cowtown elected Naheed Nenshi as its new mayor, while Torontonians were busy electing Rob Ford as their new guy. Now I know very little of either man aside from what I have been reading about them in the past few days. In fact, before this week I had never even heard of either of them. But this seems to be newsworthy. And when was the last time one could say that about a Canadian municipal election?
Nenshi is reportedly "young, funny, educated, a visible minority" and apparently the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. The "Muslim" part is apparently no big deal to Calgarians. I think this is typical of Western Canadian attitudes to diversity and multiculturalism. As I have noted before in a letter which I wrote years ago to the Edmonton Journal, since moving to Edmonton in 1973, my family and I have experienced nothing but an open and tolerant society in Alberta, one which welcomes diversity. Unlike my experience with anti-Semitism as I was growing up in Montreal, my children never faced any anti-Semitic taunts while attending public schools in Edmonton. Being Jewish, Muslim, gay, a woman, or whatever, has not stopped anybody in Alberta from rising to the top. All one has to do is look at Alberta's highest court judges, Presidents of universities, mayors of cities, Lieutenant-Governors of the Province, to see that being a member of a minority group has not been a disadvantage.
What might be more surprising in the election of Nenshi as mayor of Calgary is not that he is a Muslim, but that he apparently is a liberal thinker, a university professor, a person interested in assisting non-profit companies and so on, - not your typical stereotype of the super conservative, corporate obsessed, wild west, gun toting, Calgarian.
While Calgary was electing Mayor Nenshi, Torontonians were electing Mayor Rob Ford. Now again I do not know much about the man, other than what I have been able to glean about him from recent newspaper reports. He seems to be fiscally very conservative, frequently irreverent, and certainly controversial. His election has the good people of Toronto buzzing.
So there it is. An interesting Canadian political story. Now back to the U.S. mid-terms next week.
Nenshi is reportedly "young, funny, educated, a visible minority" and apparently the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. The "Muslim" part is apparently no big deal to Calgarians. I think this is typical of Western Canadian attitudes to diversity and multiculturalism. As I have noted before in a letter which I wrote years ago to the Edmonton Journal, since moving to Edmonton in 1973, my family and I have experienced nothing but an open and tolerant society in Alberta, one which welcomes diversity. Unlike my experience with anti-Semitism as I was growing up in Montreal, my children never faced any anti-Semitic taunts while attending public schools in Edmonton. Being Jewish, Muslim, gay, a woman, or whatever, has not stopped anybody in Alberta from rising to the top. All one has to do is look at Alberta's highest court judges, Presidents of universities, mayors of cities, Lieutenant-Governors of the Province, to see that being a member of a minority group has not been a disadvantage.
What might be more surprising in the election of Nenshi as mayor of Calgary is not that he is a Muslim, but that he apparently is a liberal thinker, a university professor, a person interested in assisting non-profit companies and so on, - not your typical stereotype of the super conservative, corporate obsessed, wild west, gun toting, Calgarian.
While Calgary was electing Mayor Nenshi, Torontonians were electing Mayor Rob Ford. Now again I do not know much about the man, other than what I have been able to glean about him from recent newspaper reports. He seems to be fiscally very conservative, frequently irreverent, and certainly controversial. His election has the good people of Toronto buzzing.
So there it is. An interesting Canadian political story. Now back to the U.S. mid-terms next week.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Rights Delayed Are Rights Denied
On September 9, 2010, a judge of the Federal District Court ruled that the U.S. military's "don't ask don't tell" policy was unconstitutional. In her decision, Judge Virginia Phillips noted that the policy infringed "the fundamental rights of United States service members in many ways." It violated their guarantee of due process, and their free speech rights. [See: "Judge Rules That Military Policy Violates Rights of Gays, New York Times, September 9, 2010]
The judge's decision was followed by her ruling in October that the U.S. military must stop enforcing the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The judge ruled that this order was the only way "to prevent the continued violation of their (gay service members') rights". [See: "Judge orders don't ask don't tell injunction" Associated Press, October 12 2010]
Despite the opinion of some US legal experts that the Obama administration need not and might not appeal the order, the Obama administration did appeal. On October 20, a Federal Court of Appeal panel granted the Administration's request and stayed the order pending a full appeal of Judge Phillips' decision. Thus the unconstitutional discriminatory policy went back into effect. [See: "Appeal Court delays injunction against "don't ask don't tell" CNN US Oct. 21 2010]
President Obama promised in his campaign to end the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Despite progress towards achieving that result (recall it has been over 21 months since Obama went into office), the policy still is in effect. Obama is still in favour of ending the policy and has promised that it will be done "on his watch". This of course will happen. There is wide agreement that the policy should end, and after Judge Phillips' decision I would assume that there will be even fewer out there who will continue to defend it. There are of course reasons given for the Obama's administration's opposition to Judge Phillips' order, including respect for the roles of the judiciary and Congress, the need for an "orderly" end to the policy, and the need for the Department of Defense to finish its review of the policy.
It must be upsetting to many, as it is to me, that ending a policy which has been declared to be a breach of fundamental constitutional rights, which discriminates against gays, which few Americans support, and which will ultimately end anyway, will continue to be held up for the reasons given. Every day of delay means another day that the fundamental constitutional rights of gay service members will be denied.
The judge's decision was followed by her ruling in October that the U.S. military must stop enforcing the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The judge ruled that this order was the only way "to prevent the continued violation of their (gay service members') rights". [See: "Judge orders don't ask don't tell injunction" Associated Press, October 12 2010]
Despite the opinion of some US legal experts that the Obama administration need not and might not appeal the order, the Obama administration did appeal. On October 20, a Federal Court of Appeal panel granted the Administration's request and stayed the order pending a full appeal of Judge Phillips' decision. Thus the unconstitutional discriminatory policy went back into effect. [See: "Appeal Court delays injunction against "don't ask don't tell" CNN US Oct. 21 2010]
President Obama promised in his campaign to end the "don't ask don't tell" policy. Despite progress towards achieving that result (recall it has been over 21 months since Obama went into office), the policy still is in effect. Obama is still in favour of ending the policy and has promised that it will be done "on his watch". This of course will happen. There is wide agreement that the policy should end, and after Judge Phillips' decision I would assume that there will be even fewer out there who will continue to defend it. There are of course reasons given for the Obama's administration's opposition to Judge Phillips' order, including respect for the roles of the judiciary and Congress, the need for an "orderly" end to the policy, and the need for the Department of Defense to finish its review of the policy.
It must be upsetting to many, as it is to me, that ending a policy which has been declared to be a breach of fundamental constitutional rights, which discriminates against gays, which few Americans support, and which will ultimately end anyway, will continue to be held up for the reasons given. Every day of delay means another day that the fundamental constitutional rights of gay service members will be denied.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Freedom of speech is great, unless you choose to exercise it.
Freedom of speech is a great right. But be careful before you exercise it.
Juan Williams is the latest journalist/commentator to learn that harsh lesson. National Public Radio fired Juan for a comment he made on Fox to Bill O'Reilly. Juan stated that he gets "nervous" or "worried" when he gets on a plane and sees another passenger in Muslim garb. That was it. Goodbye Juan. After ten years on National Public Radio, Juan Williams is fired within a couple of days of making his comment.
Juan is only the latest casualty to suffer the loss of a job for something he or she said. A few weeks ago Rick Sanchez of CNN got fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot and suggesting that people like Jon, i.e. Jewish people, control the media. Sanchez, who apparently had been a target of Stewart's The Daily Show made the comments in a lively interview on talk radio.
Then there was Helen Thomas. Helen got fired by Hearst News for telling a reporter in a sort of impromptu sidewalk interview that Jews should go back to countries from where they came, including Eastern European countries, where millions had been killed in the Holocaust.
And before Helen Thomas there was employee Shirley Sherrod. She got summarily fired from the Department of Agriculture for comments she had made earlier which some thought were racist (against whites). When the true meaning of her statements were made clear, Shirley was offered her job back.
No-one has a "right" to keep their jobs and subject to actions for wrongful dismissal or human rights violations, employers should be able to fire who they want. But should all of the above have been fired for what they said?
Let me start with the easiest case first - Shirley Sherrod. I think everyone agrees that her firing by the Obama administration was rash, precipitous and uncalled for. No-one defended it - neither on the left nor the right.
The other cases are less clear. Helen Thomas' comments were hateful and ignorant, and I for one was happy to see her go. Had she been kept on at Hearst, I think she would have been very ineffective as a White House press correspondent, with no credibility. She would not have done her employer any good. At the age of 90, she was probably well past her "best before" date anyway and there were few if any defenders as far I am aware.
Rick Sanchez's comments were flippant and ill considered, but probably not fireable speech. After all, Jon Stewart makes his living by insulting others and in my view is fair game. Sanchez's comments about Jews controlling the media, which were sort of obscure, were stupid because Jews don't control the media. And what is wrong with controlling the media anyway, even if we did?
Juan Williams' firing was inexcusable. He is a well regarded civil rights advocate, has made it crystal clear on Fox News that he is totally opposed to racial profiling and scapegoating, and no-one, I mean no-one, can doubt his bona fides. That he feels "nervous" or "worried" when he is on a plane with someone in "Muslim garb" seems very weird to me, but hey, if that's how he feels, that's how he feels. One cannot isolate however that one sentence from Juan Williams' clear beliefs in civil rights and equality which he frequently espouses. If he was a bigot, he would not have lasted on politically correct NPR for ten years.
NPR made a huge mistake. It is time for fellow journalists on NPR and on other networks to stand up for Juan. It would be great if other NPR reporters refused to work for NPR until Juan Williams is offered his job back. I hope that happens, but doubt that it will.
Juan Williams is the latest journalist/commentator to learn that harsh lesson. National Public Radio fired Juan for a comment he made on Fox to Bill O'Reilly. Juan stated that he gets "nervous" or "worried" when he gets on a plane and sees another passenger in Muslim garb. That was it. Goodbye Juan. After ten years on National Public Radio, Juan Williams is fired within a couple of days of making his comment.
Juan is only the latest casualty to suffer the loss of a job for something he or she said. A few weeks ago Rick Sanchez of CNN got fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot and suggesting that people like Jon, i.e. Jewish people, control the media. Sanchez, who apparently had been a target of Stewart's The Daily Show made the comments in a lively interview on talk radio.
Then there was Helen Thomas. Helen got fired by Hearst News for telling a reporter in a sort of impromptu sidewalk interview that Jews should go back to countries from where they came, including Eastern European countries, where millions had been killed in the Holocaust.
And before Helen Thomas there was employee Shirley Sherrod. She got summarily fired from the Department of Agriculture for comments she had made earlier which some thought were racist (against whites). When the true meaning of her statements were made clear, Shirley was offered her job back.
No-one has a "right" to keep their jobs and subject to actions for wrongful dismissal or human rights violations, employers should be able to fire who they want. But should all of the above have been fired for what they said?
Let me start with the easiest case first - Shirley Sherrod. I think everyone agrees that her firing by the Obama administration was rash, precipitous and uncalled for. No-one defended it - neither on the left nor the right.
The other cases are less clear. Helen Thomas' comments were hateful and ignorant, and I for one was happy to see her go. Had she been kept on at Hearst, I think she would have been very ineffective as a White House press correspondent, with no credibility. She would not have done her employer any good. At the age of 90, she was probably well past her "best before" date anyway and there were few if any defenders as far I am aware.
Rick Sanchez's comments were flippant and ill considered, but probably not fireable speech. After all, Jon Stewart makes his living by insulting others and in my view is fair game. Sanchez's comments about Jews controlling the media, which were sort of obscure, were stupid because Jews don't control the media. And what is wrong with controlling the media anyway, even if we did?
Juan Williams' firing was inexcusable. He is a well regarded civil rights advocate, has made it crystal clear on Fox News that he is totally opposed to racial profiling and scapegoating, and no-one, I mean no-one, can doubt his bona fides. That he feels "nervous" or "worried" when he is on a plane with someone in "Muslim garb" seems very weird to me, but hey, if that's how he feels, that's how he feels. One cannot isolate however that one sentence from Juan Williams' clear beliefs in civil rights and equality which he frequently espouses. If he was a bigot, he would not have lasted on politically correct NPR for ten years.
NPR made a huge mistake. It is time for fellow journalists on NPR and on other networks to stand up for Juan. It would be great if other NPR reporters refused to work for NPR until Juan Williams is offered his job back. I hope that happens, but doubt that it will.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
THE TROUBLE WITH SMART PEOPLE
Left wing pundits and politicians frustrated with the continued inability and stubborn refusal of the American voter to understand and appreciate the accomplishments of President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress, have turned to insult. This is apparently their last last ditch effort to get their message across before the November 2 mid-term elections.
Maureen Dowd in her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times "Making Ignorance Chic" whined that "Sarah Palin has made ignorance fashionable". Joe Klein in his Times op-ed was even more forthright. In his piece entitled "Ignorance As Authenticity" Klein writes that "there is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts". Even President Obama, in a much more moderate and temperate manner, blames his administration's failure to get through to the folks, on his politics, not his policies. In other words, the Administration has failed to dumb it down enough.
The American voter can perhaps be excused for disdaining its experts. After all experts have taken America into two wars, one of which is increasingly becoming out of control, a gzillion dollar debt and deficit, high unemployment, and a massive housing crisis. So why not try something new and completely different? How much worse can it get? At least that's what the unwashed masses must be thinking and with just cause.
In a recent speech to University of Alberta law students, Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada told his audience that a lawyer's most important attribute is good judgment. Perhaps the same applies to politicians. Good judgment is what the American people are looking for in their politicians. It matters little to them whether their candidates can wax on about their favourite Supreme Court judgments, name the current leaders of other countries, or can draw a map of the world. That's the stuff for professors and advisers. If successful, the politicians will be able to afford to hire all the experts they need to educate them. They can learn all that important stuff from them once in office.
One might in fact argue that the problem with smart people is that they think they do not need to listen to or take the advice of others. Why should they? They know soooo much. I for one would rather be led by a person who knows what they did not know, than one who knows everything.
Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd provide excellent illustrations of my point about good judgment. Do they really think that being obnoxious is going to help their cause? Are the dummies out there going to be enlightened by the insults and change their minds about which politicians to support? Of course not. Anyone with good judgment will realize that this will only energize these folks and broaden the base. President Obama learned that lesson in the Pennsylvania primary against Clinton. I am sure he is none too pleased with the type of support he and his party are getting from the likes of Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd. As they say "with friends like these, who needs enemies".
Maureen Dowd in her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times "Making Ignorance Chic" whined that "Sarah Palin has made ignorance fashionable". Joe Klein in his Times op-ed was even more forthright. In his piece entitled "Ignorance As Authenticity" Klein writes that "there is something profoundly diseased about a society that idolizes its ignoramuses and disdains its experts". Even President Obama, in a much more moderate and temperate manner, blames his administration's failure to get through to the folks, on his politics, not his policies. In other words, the Administration has failed to dumb it down enough.
The American voter can perhaps be excused for disdaining its experts. After all experts have taken America into two wars, one of which is increasingly becoming out of control, a gzillion dollar debt and deficit, high unemployment, and a massive housing crisis. So why not try something new and completely different? How much worse can it get? At least that's what the unwashed masses must be thinking and with just cause.
In a recent speech to University of Alberta law students, Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Supreme Court of Canada told his audience that a lawyer's most important attribute is good judgment. Perhaps the same applies to politicians. Good judgment is what the American people are looking for in their politicians. It matters little to them whether their candidates can wax on about their favourite Supreme Court judgments, name the current leaders of other countries, or can draw a map of the world. That's the stuff for professors and advisers. If successful, the politicians will be able to afford to hire all the experts they need to educate them. They can learn all that important stuff from them once in office.
One might in fact argue that the problem with smart people is that they think they do not need to listen to or take the advice of others. Why should they? They know soooo much. I for one would rather be led by a person who knows what they did not know, than one who knows everything.
Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd provide excellent illustrations of my point about good judgment. Do they really think that being obnoxious is going to help their cause? Are the dummies out there going to be enlightened by the insults and change their minds about which politicians to support? Of course not. Anyone with good judgment will realize that this will only energize these folks and broaden the base. President Obama learned that lesson in the Pennsylvania primary against Clinton. I am sure he is none too pleased with the type of support he and his party are getting from the likes of Joe Klein and Maureen Dowd. As they say "with friends like these, who needs enemies".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
