WikiLeaks and Canada

As far as I can tell, no-one in the world is gossiping about us. At least not much.

So what! It doesn't mean they don't care about us (does it?). It certainly does not mean that we are not important. I am sure we are on their minds now and then.. I am sure of it. At least I think we are. Aren't we?

Oh, wait! There is something. Secret cables will suggest that people think we have an inferiority complex! Ha! I told you. WE are IMPORTANT! (aren't we?)

And so what if we have an "Alice in Wonderland" view of the world! I love Alice in Wonderland. And I am sure most Canadians far prefer the Mad Hatters tea party to the Americans' current tea party.

So get out there Canadians and paint the roses red. Well not now of course. Its winter. But when Spring comes to Edmonton in mid-June, I will be out there with my paint can.

Alberta's "cookie monster"

The Province of Alberta is now experiencing a raging controversy over our health care system. In particular, Albertans are up in arms over the situation facing patients in Alberta hospitals emergency wards. Stories of patients dying in Alberta hospital emergency rooms have made front page news, across Canada. The situation has become very embarrassing for the provincial Conservative government, especially because
one of its own members, a doctor himself, and parliamentary assistant to the health minister, has been highly critical and public about the situation. He got booted from the caucus as the price to be paid for his conduct.

A particularly interesting aspect to the story concerns Mr. Stephen Duckett, who is the CEO of Alberta Health Services, the top bureaucrat who oversees the health care system in Alberta. When he was approached by news reporters about the emergency room crisis, Mr. Duckett was eating a cookie. Rather than responding to reporters' questions about the situation, he quite pointedly told them that he was too busy eating his cookie. He in fact waved the cookie in their faces to emphasis his point. A U-Tube spoof video on the cookie incident has become a must watch.

Now in truth the emergency room crisis in Alberta seems from all reports to be very
serious. Whether Mr. Duckett answers reporters' questions or chooses to continue to munch on his cookie is not the problem which needs to be dealt with. Nevertheless it is interesting to watch how this cookie eating episode has enraged Albertans, more so than the stories of people dying while waiting for treatment. It's as if the incident was just the triggering event; the event that took the cork out of the bottle and let all of the public's anger about government and bureaucracy come out. It's one thing for Martha or Henry Albertan to try to get their heads around a situation as complicated as fixing Alberta's health care system. But the public knows when its concerns are being blown off and dismissed.

Mr. Duckett has apologized. This I do not think will be enough to calm angry Albertans. Whether it will be the catalyst for our own little tea party, remains to be seen.

First they came for FOX

FOX NEWS has been the bane of liberals at MSNBC and other bastions of the extreme left for a long time. You will recall the White House war against FOX which I commented upon in earlier posts. The attempt to isolate FOX failed miserably, and only helped shoot its ratings through the roof. Apparently FOX had 7,000,000 viewers for its election night analysis, topping even the main stream media (NBC,ABC,CBS) by millions. There also have been attempts by other groups to organize boycotts of FOX NEWS. None of this has worked.

All of these efforts to marginalize FOX were welcomed by MSNBC and others. I like to switch between US news channels to see what is being said about the world (i.e. the United States); so I routinely switch between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. CNN is the most balanced and has been trying hard to move its coverage more to the center away from its traditional left leaning biases. Anderson Cooper and John King are especially good. MSNBC and FOX are totally predictable. Tune into MSNBC at any time of night and you will see a rant against the Republicans, with zero effort at balance. Tune into FOX and you will see a similar thing from the right, but with some occasional effort at presenting an opposite viewpoint ( e.g. Juan Williams and Alan Colmes).
MSNBC spends a lot of its airtime attacking FOX.

So it must have come as a great shock to those at MSNBC to hear Democrat Jay Rockefeller tell a Senate Committee that cable news has been "dumbing down America" and that he would like to see the FCC to tell FOX and MSNBC, "Out, off,end, goodbye". That is, get them both off the air. (They do that in other countries after all).

Maybe those at MSNBC and the left who want to marginalize and ultimately silence FOX will now wake up and smell the coffee. For as the old saying goes: "First they came for FOX".

A fractured party

Nancy Pelosi was today re-elected by her Democratic colleagues as their leader in the House: 150-43.

Her re-election was opposed by about 30% of her colleagues, who voted for the other candidate. 68 of her colleagues wanted to delay today's vote. Nevertheless, Pelosi pressed ahead.

This split does not bode well for the Democrats.

You can't teach old dogs new tricks

Although the Republicans were branded as the "party of no" by the Dems, many of President Obama's problems in his first two years came from resistance to change from within his own party.

The current "ear mark" issue illustrates that not much has changed, despite the drubbing that the Democrats took in the mid-terms. You will recall that candidate Obama was for change, including ending ear-marks. This was not done in his first budget. There were ear-marks galore. Now there is a proposal by the Republican caucus to ban ear-marks. And guess who is firmly opposed? Good old Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate. According to Senator Reid, he has "an obligation to the people of Nevada... not to some bureaucrat with green eyeshades".

Good luck, Mr. President. With old hands like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi leading your party back to the future, 2012 should be very interesting.

Latest spin on election results

One of the more interesting spins on the mid-term election results is that this was not a vote for the Republicans, but a vote against the Democrats. This seems to be supported by polling which shows that although voters were rejecting the Democratic candidates, they were not accepting the Republicans' policies.

This spin reminds me of the cute "Ally bank" commercials with the kids. In one of them, the mean man offers ice cream to one of two kids but not to the other, even though "new" kids are supposed to get free ice cream. When the kid who is left out complains that he is also "new", the mean guy says: "yeah, but he is newer".

So, yes, the Republicans were rejected; but the Dems were "more" rejected. And in a two party system, that makes the Republicans the winners. They get the ice cream.

(Of course the Republicans spun the 2008 general election in the same way. The population was not voting for Obama's policies, but were rejecting George Bush's.)

All Quiet On the Southern Front

I have been spending a few days down in Arizona, which is quickly becoming Canada's 11th province. It soon should have more Canadians than P.E.I. Things pretty quiet here - post-election let down, I guess. Economy seems truly to be in the doldrums, and you can see it everywhere. I just read for example in my homeowner's newsletter that the massive hotel complex/resort and adjacent golf course up the hill from our little place is on the auction block, its owner toying with bankruptcy. My little Newsletter also informs me that there is an approximately 20% delinquency rate in the payment of home owners association fees. This usually means higher fees for those who are still paying with fewer services. Which leads to more delinquencies, which leads to higher fees, which leads to more delinquencies.. you get the picture.

But it is beautiful here. Sunny, warm, bright, and relaxing.. a weekend break from home and work which is great.

On the political front, I am fascinated by Nancy Pelosi's stubborn refusal to give up her House leadership post. Her party took a drubbing in her House of Representatives. She is a polarizing figure. There are many in her own party who want her to step aside. She is feeding into the narrative that Washington will simply not change. So why does she stay on? Ego. She thinks she is the "best" person to lead her party into 2012, and preserve the achievements of the last two years. Why she thinks this is beyond me. And the fact that she holds on at the clear expense of her party's interest and probably that of the President as well, explains politicians and their disconnect with reality. Confident, isn't she?

Oh well. I am going to do some pruning.

A "talking head" takes a hit

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is the latest casualty in the purge of talking heads, pundits, and press people guilty of crossing a moving line of inappropriate behaviour. In this case, Olbermann was in violation of NBC's policy which requires staff to seek permission from the NBC mucky-mucks before they can make donations to political candidates. Olbermann made three donations to Democratic candidates without seeking prior approval. Olbermann was immediately suspended without pay from hosting his show "Countdown".

Let me be up-front on this. I intensely dislike Keith Olbermann. I find him to be exceptionally insulting, smarmy and sarcastic, even for the world of "extreme talking heads" which he inhabits, where these attributes are generally highly valued. His over the top rant against Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown for example was beyond the pale. For those of you who did not follow this, Olbermann described Scott Brown as an "irresponsible,homophobic,racist, reactionary,ex-nude model, tea bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees". The attack was so out of line and unfair that it provoked a fellow MSNBC commentator, Joe Scarborough, to call Olbermann out on it, characterizing his comments as "rhetorical extremism", which must be discouraged. The incident led NOT to Olbermann's discipline or suspension, but to NBC's President calling Joe Scarborough's public criticism of Keith Olbermann as "unprofessional behaviour" which will "not be tolerated". Can you believe that? It was Joe Scarborough, not Keith Olbermann who almost got suspended back then.

NBC's policy of not allowing their pundits and talking heads to donate to political campaigns because it might create a conflict of interest in their on air presentations is ridiculous. Anyone who watches MSNBC or FOX realizes that all of their talking head shows (as opposed to news broadcasts by real reporters) whether the ones hosted by Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, or those hosted by O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck on FOX are nothing more than free infomercials for their respective political sides. Olbermann's $2500.00 donations to three candidates is nothing compared to the free air time and promotion he gives to the Democratic candidates and their positions every night for one hour on MSNBC to a million viewers. The same can be said for FOX although in FOX's case there are a heck of lot more viewers making their infomercials a lot more valuable. The $2500 donation is a drop in the bucket, the policy is ludicrously hypocritical, and Olbermann should be and probably will be re-instated.

FOLLOW-UP:

Olbermann will be back Tuesday.

FOLLOW-UP:

What happened to the NBC policy of no public criticism of the NBC family? See Olbermann's most recent statement.

Some post-election musings

Nothing profound to say, but I guess I should have "a post-election musings" post to go with my pre-election one. (Thanks Scott for your musings, posted as a comment to my last post. As usual pithy and to the point.)

I found the evening interesting enough. Outcome overall was predicted accurately by polls. So no big surprises. That took away from the drama.

I was interested in the television coverage. Shifted from CNN to MSNBC to Fox. Found Fox coverage to be dull and unimaginative, so I didn't spend much time there. MSNBC "coverage" was interesting. Was not so much analysis and news; more like a rant with lots of sarcasm and rolling of eyes. Found it somewhat entertaining, so went there a lot. CNN had the best coverage for information and analysis. Lots of different points of views, and CNN tried to take a serious look at what was happening. In addition, all the moving maps, magic walls, and colours gave it a nice circus like atmosphere. A little too much yelling weakened the show. Do they really need 10 people yakking at the same time?

I think some lessons were learned by all sides. The tea party/Republicans discovered that weak candidates (e.g. O'Donnell and Angle) will lose even in an historic sweep election. This will be important for next time around. Should improve their choices of candidates. The Democrats have learned the obvious - that unless the economy i.e. jobs, housing, improves a lot in the next two years, the President will likely be a one term President. The public is simply not buying the "it would have been much worse had we not done what we did" message. Can the economy improve enough in two years to change the anti-Administration sentiment? No idea. The Republicans have learned that they can win in 2012. This should bring out some people who might otherwise have sat the next one out. As for Bill and Hillary, something tells me that there was schadenfreude
in yesterday's outcome. Bill cannot be accused of sitting on his hands and as for Hillary, I wouldn't count her out for 2012.

I warned you.. nothing profound or original.

Some pre-election musings

Listening to the spin-meisters pre-election rationalizations on what they think will happen on Tuesday, i.e. massive Republican gains in the House and some gains in the Senate as well, is entertaining. Some Democrats have been able to convince themselves that losing is actually winning. The reasoning behind this is that this will give the President a better chance for re-election in 2012 because he will again be able to blame the Republicans for the country's woes. This argument has some force; as we saw from the 2008 Presidential election, and what we are seeing again, is that it is easier to run against something than to run for something. The "strategy" of losing the mid-terms may work. It is apparent from recent polls that the President needs to do something to improve his re-election chances.

Another common theme from pundits, especially those on the left, is that the reason that the Republicans will likely make huge gains is that the "messaging" from the Obama administration has been poor, not that his policies have been. According to this line of argument, those who have turned away from the Democrats have done so because they don't understand the tremendous things the President and Congress have done for them in the last 18 months. Here I am not referring to Republicans who would not have supported the Administration no matter what it accomplished, but honest to goodness independents, young people and others who have no ideological bone to pick. The argument that they have failed simply to understand the situation is not very kind to them, aside from being a pretty bad messaging strategy.

I also have been thinking about Arlen Specter the past few days. He as you will recall was a Republican senator for decades. He decided to quit the Republicans and become a Democrat. Saw no future for himself as a Republican. He then lost the primary to run as a Democrat in Pennsylvania. And guess what? The Republican candidate has a very good chance of winning that seat. Reminds me of all the times I switched from one queue to another while waiting at customs or security, only to find out that the line I switched to was really slow. Oh well. Bad guess.

Follow-up on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Further to my posting on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed today to continue the stay requested by the Obama administration. The policy thus continues in effect.