Ivory Tower Pundit

The Fall of Michael Ignatieff: A Teachable Moment

2011-05-08T08:20:00.000-07:00

For those of you who do not follow Canadian politics, May 2, 2011 was an exciting day. Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party finally won their majority government. The New Democratic Party became the official opposition winning 102 seats in the new Parliament. The "Bloc Quebecois" Canada's "federal separatist" party (don't even ask what that is all about!) was virtually wiped out, winning only 4 seats and losing their official party status. And the Liberal party, aka "Canada's Natural Governing" party was humiliated, winning only 34 seats and losing their "official opposition" status. Its leader Michael Ignatieff, at one time thought to be a lock for our next Prime Minister (even by yours truly) brought his party to an historic lost, losing his own seat, and resigning the next day. He will be teaching at University of Toronto, presumably on how not to succeed in politics.

This gets me to my "teachable moment". Although there are undoubtedly a bunch of reasons why the election turned out as it did, let us go back to look at how and why Michael Ignatieff became the leader of the Liberal party. His first try was in Dec 2006. He was the favorite to win but lost to Stephane Dion. Two years later in December 2008 the Liberal party, eager to get back into power, even if this meant forming a coalition government with the other two opposition parties, unceremoniously turfed Stephane Dion. Rather than having a proper leadership convention, with debates, and all party members having their say, the Liberal party insiders anointed Michael Ignatieff as their new leader. Less than three years later, Ignatieff takes his party to an historic defeat and loses his own seat. The humiliated Stephane Dion, who unbeknownst to me, has been quietly labouring in the back ground all these years, wins his own seat. Ah, poetic justice.

Perhaps if the Liberal party had not been so eager for power in 2006 and had been patient enough to go through a conventional leadership process, party members would have realized in 2008 why they didn't like Ignatieff in 2006 and chosen someone else as their leader? Observers say that Ignatieff lost in 2011 because he didn't "connect" with the voters. Well, he obviously didn't connect in 2006 either. And maybe he wouldn't have connected in 2008 if put to the test.

So there's a lesson in all of this. Dispense with a democratic and participatory leadership convention at your peril.

The death of Bin Laden

2011-05-07T13:42:00.000-07:00

This is a very treacherous topic to write about, unless you are prepared to join the celebratory throngs, both Democrats and Republicans, who think the killing of Bin Laden was the greatest thing to have ever happened. I must admit that I am happy that they finally got him. It does satisfy a human instinct for revenge, even though this may not be the most admirable of our instincts. Whether it's "justice" or not, as normally understood in countries that believe in the rule of law or due process is another question altogether.

The celebrations in the street, the high-fives, did bother me. As has been said by others, this is not a sport. I found it tasteless.

Some of the verbiage bothered me. The President's statement that they had "cut off the head" of the organization by killing Bin Laden was to my mind a terrible metaphor. He should not have used it. The statement by others that this was one of the greatest military operations ever was preposterous.

I found the following piece by Glenn Greenwald extremely good and thoughtful. Maybe you will too.

Wow, I Am Actually Paying Attention!

2011-04-27T22:01:00.001-07:00

I do not usually blog about Canadian politics. The reason for this is simple - it's BORING!

Face facts folks. The French language "leaders" debate was actually moved because it conflicted with a hockey game. (We in Canada do not actually vote for our "leader"; but that's a different story). In Alberta, the same party has been in power for almost forty years. The Federal Liberal party was in power for nearly 70 years in the 20th century. We are now having our third Federal election in the past five years, with no great movement occurring in that time period. The country seems happy with the status quo - our economy is strong, our "loonie" is strong, our housing market is strong, separatism is a dormant issue.. you get the picture. So forgive me for yawning.

But wait! Things might be happening. The latest polls apparently show that our perennial last place party, the New Democratic Party, under its leader Jack Layton, (who has been the leader for 8 years despite the fact that his party comes in last every time) has surged in the polls, doubling its support from 14% to 28% in the last few days. It has overtaken the Liberals, who under its leader Michael Ignatieff, have taken over the last place spot. What does this mean? Well, I do not know for sure. But it could mean that the governing Conservative party will win but only with a minority government, and the three opposition parties (one of which is actually dedicated to the break up of Canada, but that's another story) will defeat the minority government and form a "coalition" government under, you guessed it, Jack Layton. Canada will have a "socialist (sort of) Prime Minister.

So now I am paying attention! I await May 2 with great anticipation. I may even try to get early election results from the East, by phoning my son, which I believe I am legally entitled to do. But I cannot blog about it until the polls close in Vancouver, sorry.

Ah, Canada. You got to love it!

2011-04-26T16:09:00.000-07:00

Okay. Here is a problem.

Canada is a big country. We have several time zones. So on May 2, 2011, the polls in Eastern Canada will close hours before the polls are closed in Western Canada. Once the polls are closed in a region, vote counting will begin there and results will be announced there. But, oh my God, what happens if people in the West hear about the election results in the East before their polls close? They may be "influenced" by the results! They may not even vote!!! So, what do Canadians do about that?

Choices:

A. Do nothing. Let free speech prevail. Be like the Americans ( who also have time zones) and suck it up.

B. Have staggered closings so that all polls close at the same time no matter where you live.

C. Do not start counting anywhere until all polls are closed.

D. Make it illegal to transmit results from one part of the country to another part, even by tweeting.

So.. what did Canada decide?

New York Times and Goldstone

2011-04-05T06:55:00.000-07:00

You would think that an op-ed by internationally recognized jurist Richard Goldstone would be of interest to New York Times readers.

I guess not.

Explaining broken promises

2011-04-04T12:39:00.000-07:00

As I noted in an earlier posting, an interesting aspect of the upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign will be how President Obama explains a string of about faces. The latest one involves the use of military trials in Guantanamo. Of course, the dilemma for the Republican nominee is that it will be hard to criticize the President for breaking a promise when he ends up doing something favoured by Republicans. Should be tricky.

By the way, there is a Canadian Federal election happening now. When something interesting happens there, I will let you know.

Turning a blind eye to atrocities

2011-04-02T16:54:00.000-07:00

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different".

So said President Obama in his Libyan speech to the American people. American exceptionalism; a concept now seemingly embraced by President Obama. As I heard this line, I wondered which nations the President had in mind. Not Canada, I hoped. I also found it an odd comment coming as it did from a person who considers himself a citizen of the world.

And as I read the news reported every day concerning the terrible atrocities being committed elsewhere, for example, in the Ivory Coast, I think back upon that comment and wonder why in the world the President bothered to make it.

The Goldstone Report Part 2

2011-04-02T16:49:00.000-07:00

Some of you might be interested in the U.N. Goldstone Report, Part 2.

Iraq and Libya: Striking Similarities

2011-03-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

Is it just me or does it also appear to you that the U.S. (i.e. Obama) led invasion of Libya is strikingly similar to the U.S. (i.e. George Bush) led invasion of Iraq. Both were originally justified on grounds which were soon departed from. In Iraq, when it became clear that there were no WMD's, the rationale for the war became "regime change". In Libya, the war originally was justified on the "no fly" zone premise - i.e. make sure that the Libyan air force could not be used to attack civilians. When that was quickly accomplished, the West began blowing up Libyan tanks and armor on the ground in order to assist the opposition in their desire for "regime change". Thus in both cases the removal of brutal dictators from power became the raison d'etre for the intervention, although in neither case did it start out that way.

Another similarity is that neither country posed an immediate and direct threat to American or western interests. Yes, both dictators funded and supported terrorists, who did pose a threat. If anything, Iraq posed a greater threat to Western interests and the interests of its neighbors than did Libya. (Remember the invasion of Kuwait?) Libya, in fact, has in recent years shifted somewhat towards assisting the West in fighting Al Quaeda, much more so than one could say of Saddam. Thus, if this was the basis for either of the wars, the invasion of Iraq was more justifiable than the Libyan adventure.

Both countries had repressive and cruel dictators. Although it is difficult to place them on a cruelty scale, if one did, it seems to be that Hussein would best Gaddafi on this scale. After all, he massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, using chemical weapons to do so. And if one were to use the removal of oppressive dictators as the justification for a foreign intervention, it would be impossible for the West to stop at either Iraq or Libya.

There is one difference. George W. actually sought and obtained Congressional approval for his war. President Obama did not. He was not even around for his war, deciding to go on his South American trade trip instead.

Now do not get me wrong. I am glad that Saddam Hussein was deposed, and I will be glad if Gaddafi is. The fact that we cannot and do not get rid of all repressive dictators is no reason not to get rid of some of them. What bothers me, as it always does, is the hypocrisy of those who were so quick to condemn George W for Iraq, but who now describe the Libyan intervention as a "just war". At least those on the far left who want Obama impeached are consistent.

George W. must be chuckling to himself right now. It will be very interesting to hear what President Obama has to say tonight and what the reaction will be.

The 2012 Presidential Campaign

2011-03-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

The 2012 Presidential campaign will be very interesting to watch. It will clearly be very different from 2008 for obvious reasons.

First, President Obama will be unable to focus his campaign on being the anti-Bush. This will rob him of his major, and one might say his principal, 2008 message. President Obama will have his own record to defend. Things can no longer be blamed on George W.

Second, President Obama will be unable to campaign on a "Change You Can Believe In" theme. No-one will be buying that. The past three years have been more like "business as usual" for US politics; arguably even worse than usual.

Third, there will be a lot of 2008 campaign promises not kept which will be targets for opponents. For example, not only is Guantanamo not closed. but military trials have been supported by the Administration. Promises of transparency in legislation have not been kept. A lot of Bush era foreign policies have been followed. I am sure opponents, both on the left and the right, will be able to come up with a long list of broken promises.

Fourth, the President seems to have lost the "far" left. Calls for his impeachment by Democrats and liberal supporters regarding his Libya intervention are really quite amazing. Obama's weak defense of the treatment of Private Manning while in detention has drawn the wrath of human rights groups and liberals. The President strangely enough now seems to appeal more to soft conservatives than to liberals.

Fifth, the world has not gone well. Peace in the Middle East between the Israelis and Palestinians seems to be further away now than ever. The turmoil in the Arab world itself, involving the attempted overthrow of American friendly regimes, has caught the President off guard. Talking with one's enemies, like Iran's Ahmadenijad, has not happened and is not going to happen. The US unemployment rate is still very high, housing sales have slumped terribly, the deficit has ballooned. Through this all, President Obama has seemed strangely absent.

The one strong card the President has of course is that a Republican must emerge who can beat him. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, however. The 2012 Presidential campaign will be a lot different than the last one.

President Obama and Private Manning

2011-03-14T09:13:00.000-07:00

President Obama has been "assured" by the Pentagon that the treatment of Bradley Manning while in detention meets U.S. standards. Statement Department spokesman P.J. Crowley disagrees with that assessment and has resigned ( i.e. been fired) as a result of his public statements to that effect. The incident is disturbing. Not only does the treatment of Private Manning, the alleged Wikileaks leaker, appear to me to be inhumane and degrading, but it yet again points out the hypocrisy of those who continue to defend President Obama. If George Bush had said that he had been assured by the Pentagon that the treatment accorded to detainees met U.S. standards and was appropriate, would he have received such a free pass? No need to answer - this was a rhetorical question.

The most ridiculous comment of the week

2011-03-11T08:04:00.000-08:00

A "coup d'etat" is a "sudden extrajudicial overthrow of a government" typically by a military; so says Wikipedia.

So when Robert Reich describes what the legitimately elected representatives did this week in Wisconsin in passing legislation taking away the collective bargaining rights of unions as a "coup d'etat", Mr Reich definitely wins the prize for the most ridiculous comment of the week. If there was any coup at all in Wisconsin ( and there was none by the way ) it was by Democratic senators who fled the state and hid from law enforcement officials so that the government could not function, or by the protesters who tried physically to block the proceedings.

Why the legislation was passed and whether it is good or bad for Wisconsin residents and workers is a legitimate question. But to describe the process as a "coup d'etat" shows the reluctance of many opponents to engage in a serious conversation about this and thereby to try to tone down what has become an angry and potentially violent situation.

The Defunding of National Public Radio

2011-03-10T19:46:00.000-08:00

Excuse me if I wade into a debate which admittedly does not affect me in any way - the question of whether the American taxpayer should be required to continue its funding of NPR. It is, however, an interesting debate and I simply cannot resist.

As a frequent visitor to the States, I listen to NPR quite a lot. I have breakfast while the Dian Rehm show is on. I listen to the Prairie Home Companion with Garrison Keillor, and I love Car Talk with brothers Click and Clack. In the evenings there is continuous Jazz on our local NPR affiliate. So I am a fan. I find the political discussions generally biased in a liberal direction. That frequently irritates me, but I have an easy solution. When I can't take it any more, I turn the station off.

If Americans needed to be reminded why NPR should stop receiving tax payer money, the Schillers did an excellent job of that. Ron Schiller was the Executive VP in charge of fund raising, who in a conservative "sting" operation made no bones of the fact that he is a committed liberal who believes that the Republican party and especially the Tea Party supporters are stupid, extremely racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic. Democrats are much smarter according to Ron, but apparently not so smart that they know when to keep their mouths shut and to recognize when they are being set up. But no matter; Ron was fired and now joins several other high ranking NPR executives who have recently lost their jobs.

Vivian Schiller was the NPR CEO who was fired (or in the parlance of high level firings - "resigned") for a few reasons. For one thing, she hired Ron Schiller. She also badly bungled the firing of Juan Williams. In short, things have been going badly for NPR in recent days under her watch.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with radio and television anchors, fundraisers, or other employees to have political views and biases on important issues of the day. I would be shocked if they did not. People who work in these fields are obviously very interested in politics and current affairs, and probably very well informed. Of course they have views. And they should not be afraid to express them! BUT, when they are working for a publicly funded outfit and are counting on the tax dollars of the very people they disdain and insult, well then something is clearly wrong. It is one thing to think middle Americans who support conservative causes are stupid and racist, but quite another to have these very same people forced to support you and your organization. That is "Chutzpah".

Ron Schiller was right in one thing he said to the fake Muslim Brotherhood putative donors. NPR does not need public money and would be better off without it. It would liberate them from from the shackles of political correctness; it would allow them to openly tell the listener how they feel about things, instead of having to skulk around the water cooler, disdaining their fellow Americans in secret. Listeners who don't like what they hear can tune in to something else. People who do like it can offer their financial support in terms of donations to keep their stations alive and flourishing. We in Alberta have done just that with internationally acclaimed radio station CKUA.

Perhaps public funding made sense when radio and television stations needed the money so that people in smaller, rural communities could have access to entertainment and news, particularly when it was not commercially viable for private broadcasters to access these areas. But now with satellite, internet, and a gzillion choices, most of them free and easily accessible, is there any need to publicly fund news and entertainment outlets? And when Americans see the mountain of government debt that the US has accumulated, the escalating costs of health care, and cutbacks in all sorts of more important services, it is not surprising to see that the majority of those recently polled (see my last posting) want this public funding support of NPR to stop. Maybe thanks in part to the Schillers it now will.

FOLLOW UP:

Another suspended NPR employee for falling into yet another trap and apparently agreeing to protect an "anonymous" donor from government scrutiny. Also a letter from NPR journalists expressing outrage at Ron Schiller's comments. See here.

The Polarization of the Media

2011-03-09T12:08:00.000-08:00

The firing of National Public Radio's CEO Vivian Schiller is an interesting event, about which I will have more to say in my next posting. It feeds directly into the current debate as to whether any "news" outlet should be the recipient of public moneys and, more particularly, whether NPR should be "defunded". We in Canada have had similar discussions about the funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, although I do not believe there is any serious move or appetite in Canada for "defunding" to happen to the CBC.

As an observer of American cable news outlets, I have frequently commented on how polarized the American media is, reflecting the deep divisions that exist in the public itself. MSNBC plays out in left field, FOX in right, and CNN floats around the center. It was therefore interesting to me to note the recent "polling" which MSNBC and FOX are conducting on their respective web sites as to whether NPR should be defunded. If you look at the MSNBC poll, you will discover that at the time of this posting, 55% feel that NPR should be defunded, as opposed to 42% who feel it should not be. The same question asked on the FOX website produces a vote of 93% who are in favour of defunding while only about 5% support continued funding. Not only does this demonstrate the vastly different audiences which support these networks, but it more importantly shows that despite NPR's pronouncements that it is an objective and professional news outlet, it does not appear that way to the public. Liberals love NPR because they obviously think that NPR promotes their political views. Conservatives hate NPR because they perceive the opposite. Thus whatever NPR thinks it is doing, i.e. representing different viewpoints and the diversity of public opinion, it certainly is not coming across that way to the American public.

The Party of No Show

2011-02-23T21:30:00.000-08:00

When Republicans in the U.S. Congress repeatedly voted "no" to Democratic legislative measures, they were dubbed the "Party of No". Well, Democratic state senators in Wisconsin have taken their "no" one step farther. They have become the party of "no show".

In order to block Republican attempts to pass budget cutting legislation, including taking away the collective bargaining rights of public union employees, the Democratic senators in the Republican controlled house fled the State of Wisconsin. They apparently hid out in Illinois in an undisclosed location. This prevented any votes on the controversial bills, since the house had lost its quorum. (Indiana Democratic senators followed suit in their state).

I found this whole episode fascinating. It struck me as somewhat undemocratic. After all, there were November elections, and the Republicans won. They are proceeding with their promised legislative agenda, just as the Democratic Congress proceeded with theirs (health care etc.) when they were in control of the US Congress. Although the Republicans in Congress voted "no" to the Democratic legislation, they at least showed up, debated, and voted.

But perhaps "all is fair in love and war and politics". And if not showing up to vote prevents a vote, maybe the Wisconsin senators were just exercising their democratic right to stay away from the house in order to prevent the vote?

But then I wondered, why hide out in Illinois? Why couldn't they have just stayed home in Wisconsin? I gather that Wisconsin state senators cannot just not show up. They apparently can be compelled by law to attend the session. Thus they had to flee and hide. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

Another interesting side bar to this whole budget cutting episode is that apparently some teachers who attended the protests and missed work were getting fake "sick notes" from doctors. This would prevent them from having their salaries docked because they were absent from work without cause. Now if this is true, it is a bit disturbing, no? It is one thing to stand up for what you believe in, even if there is a price to be paid for your convictions, but another to try to avoid taking responsibility for your act, by lying about it. Especially by teachers, who probably get a lot of "sick notes" and other excuses, from their students. It will be interesting to see how the teachers explain their behaviour to their students, when they recover from their illnesses, and return to work.

Who would have thought that Wisconsin state politics could be this interesting?

Helen Thomas: An Encore Presentation

2011-02-21T18:45:00.000-08:00

For those out there who doubted where Helen Thomas stood on the topic of Jews and Israel, doubt no more. In a revealing interview on CNN, Ms. Thomas tries to explain her earlier comment that Jews living in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany or wherever else they came from. After all, explains Thomas, Jews could have just stayed in Poland after they were liberated from concentration camps, since they were not being persecuted anymore. Is this woman serious? What is she saying - that those few Jews who were able to survive the camps should have just picked themselves up, knocked on the doors of their confiscated homes and businesses, and announced they were back? A recent piece in the Huffington Post discusses the "welcome" that Jews who stayed in Poland after the war received, and it does not fit Ms. Thomas' description.

Then there is the favorite defense of the Thomas types. They go on the offensive, claiming that you cannot criticize Israel in the United States. If you do, so they explain, you will be called an anti-Semite. Also, according to one of Thomas' earlier opinions, Jews control the media, making it difficult or dangerous to criticize Israel at any event.

Now let's get this straight. It is absolutely true that all critics of Israeli policies are not anti-Semitic. In fact, some of the most vocal criticisms of Israeli policies come from Israelis and Jews. But what is also true is that some critics of Israel are in fact anti-Semitic and it is the latter motivation which impels their criticisms.

Is Thomas anti-Semitic? Hell no, says Helen! Jews are not even Semites, so how can she be anti-Semitic? So I guess antisemitism does not even exist, at least in so far as Jews are concerned, according to Helen Thomas.

Free speech is important and I am glad Helen Thomas exercised hers. For as I have written before, I would far prefer to know what opinion leaders really think about the important issues of the day, then chase their thoughts underground. Helen Thomas does not regret what she said although she regrets going public about her views. I for one am glad she did. For I now know a lot more about Helen Thomas as a previous important White House press room journalist than I did before.

Tiger's Spit

2011-02-14T18:49:00.000-08:00

Golf fans will be well aware by now of Tiger Woods' infamous "spit". It was on the 12th green in the "Omega Dubai Desert Classic" as Tiger crouched over his ball figuring out his next putt. As far as spits go, it was a classic. No holding back on that one.

The commentator was horrified. Not only did Tiger spit, but he left it there, on the pristine green, for the next foursome. Now golfers are pretty fussy about the quality of the greens they play on. Little bits of dust are dutifully picked up. Ball marks are repaired. But what do they do with a gob of spit? And what if their ball rolls over it? Does spit change the ball's direction or speed? Who knows.

Tiger was fined by the European tour. Fines I think are pretty common for "spitting in public". I am not sure what Tiger's fine was. He also apologized. Yet again. But we are getting pretty used to that with Tiger.

What is it with athletes and spitting? Baseball players seem to spit a lot. Athletes wearing face masks rarely spit; makes sense. Some athletes never spit. When was the last time you saw a table tennis player spit?

Spitting can (I think) be brought on by exertion; especially in cold weather. Or by congested lungs. In some places it is fairly common. Ever been to India? But golf is generally a non-spitting game, although I have seen other golfers ( including Tiger) spit.

Tiger of course does his commercial brand no good by his golf course antics( spitting, throwing his clubs, swearing). The fact that he also has not won a tournament in more than a year does not help.

So there it is. After watching Egypt go from a military dictatorship to a military dictatorship in the past couple of weeks, the Tiger story is light relief.

Egypt ten days later

2011-02-09T18:47:00.000-08:00

It has been ten days since I last posted on the turmoil in Egypt. I admitted then that I did not know what to think with respect to the probable outcome of all of this. Will this uprising end as did the most recent Iranian protests (or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests for that matter), with no positive change in the country, or will it end more significantly? If it ends in significant change, will be it a positive or negative one? I suggested that "time will tell". It still will.

There have been some developments, perhaps only superficial, but changes nonetheless. The violence seems to have subsided, at least for now. The protesters and Egyptian army are both in a holding pattern. The media has mainly left, and the wall to wall coverage has ended. There is a new face for the government, that of Vice President Omar Suleiman. From the reports I have seen, he is definitely not the person who is going to bring democratic change to Egypt.

What is interesting are the perceptions of how the Obama administration has handled this crisis. The reviews are mainly negative - both from the left and the right. The pro-protester supporters outside of the country see the defence of the protest movement as weak, cautious, and unhelpful. The pro-Mubarak supporters see the defence of the regime, as weak, cautious and unhelpful. So they both agree. There are not many out there who think the Obama administration has handled this crisis well, with confidence and determination. The Hillary Clinton "3:00 a.m." phone call ad comes to mind.

Many think that the administration in this crisis, as in others, seems to be constantly playing catch-up. Like a golfer - throwing grass clippings in the air, testing the wind, before choosing the appropriate club. (What is really annoying to me is seeing the golfer throw the grass in the air AFTER the shot has been played.) The administration has gone from saying little, to supporting a orderly transition, to supporting a transition that should have occurred yesterday. Cutting off aid has even been suggested.

Its not up to outsiders to dictate the outcome in Egypt. If I could have my druthers, I would choose a democratic, stable, pro-West, secular government in Egypt. But I am not an Egyptian resident and it's not my call. I will continue to watch and wait, and hope for the best ( while fearing the worst).

Turmoil in Egypt

2011-01-31T18:17:00.000-08:00

As I watch the 24/7, wall to wall coverage, of the street protests coming out of Egypt, I frankly do not know what to think. Is this the "real deal", an event which will have profound lasting effects in Egypt and the Middle East, or a re-run of the Iranian protests of 2009? You will recall that "historic" event - endless television coverage and analysis, predictions of big change, but ultimately nothing. The protests ended, and the government remained intact, probably even more repressive than it was before. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt an emerging savior - Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei in Egypt. There was then in Iran as there is now in Egypt, criticism of the Obama administration from progressives for its not doing more to support the protest and protesters. Not exactly "regime change" a la George Bush and Iraq, but not exactly staying out of it either.

Unlike the Iranian uprising however the Egyptian one is a lot more politicized in the West. No-one in the West liked Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, so if they fell, a unanimous "good riddance". Whoever replaced them could not have been more hostile to the West as that regime was and is. The devil we know in Iran could in no way be better than the devil we do not know. In Egypt it is however different. There are many who are very concerned that if Mubarak falls, Western interests are in real jeopardy. Egypt is an important and "stable" (so we thought) American ally. There is obvious concern in Israel where an unstable Egypt, with Muslim Brotherhood as part of its government, cannot be good news. Other voices however are decidedly much more optimistic and even joyful at this turn of events. "Change in repressive societies is good" and "we should embrace instability" says Anne Appelbaum in Slate. That may be all well and good for Ms Appelbaum, who like me, lives thousands of miles from Egypt. I am not so sure that Egyptians who are currently guarding their homes from looters and protecting themselves from violence are embracing instability with such enthusiasm.

I do not know of course how this episode will end. Will it end with a whimper or will it be more meaningful and lasting? If meaningful, will it have a positive or negative meaning? Time I guess will tell.

THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

2011-01-26T12:58:00.000-08:00

What struck me most as I sat through the somewhat dull but informative State of the Union speech by President Obama was how much President Obama has transformed himself in the last two years. The polarizing, divisive and narcissitic rhetoric of the 2008 election campaign and the two subsequent years was gone. The language of "I am the change you have been waiting for", "I will restore America's reputation in the world", "I will repair the damage that 8 years of Bush have caused", "I will clean out the corruption of Washington" and so on, is no more. Instead the focus was on the greatness of American innovation, America as the "beacon of light" to the rest of the world, the greatness of the military (even to the extent of urging colleges to allow army recruiters back on campus), the will to defeat the terrorists, the importance of small business and higher education, refocusing on the three r"s, reducing the deficit and working together, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There was no more blaming, and apologizing for America. It was a speech typical of what one might hear at a university convocation address from an Honorary Doctorate recipient. It was aimed at the middle class, the well educated, and the ambitious. It has positioned President Obama for the 2012 election. The President clearly has decided to combine his strong intelligence, and enormous rhetorical skills, with main stream American values. This will be a tough combination for Republicans to beat in 2012. What remains to be seen is how the more "progressive" elements of American society will view the President's metamorphosis, and more interestingly whether the new rhetoric will be matched by the President's legislative agenda.

The messages are moderating on cable news

2011-01-23T20:45:00.000-08:00

The departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC is consistent with the trend towards moderation which I have been observing on the three cable news networks which I regularly watch - CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. This has been going on for some months, but it accelerated, and understandably so, after the Tucson tragedy. Polarizing and unbalanced analysis is no longer fashionable nor entertaining. And in this respect, few commentators were as polarizing as Keith Olbermann. One should revisit his rant against Senator Scott Brown if evidence of this is necessary.

Take CNN. During the last Presidential election it was crystal clear who the CNN commentators were supporting. They were fully behind President Obama and the Democratic ticket. More recently, however, the tone at CNN has changed. They are making a far greater effort to provide balanced coverage of American politics. In this they are led in particular by John King and Anderson Cooper, two persons who I have always admired at CNN. Witness for example Anderson Cooper's grilling of Rep Steve Cohen who recently compared the GOP's opposition to health care with the Nazi's "big lie" tactics. Cooper was unrelenting in his tearing apart of Cohen's pathetic efforts to explain himself for his use of such violent and polarizing rhetoric, noting that this was not the first time Cohen has engaged in such theater, while at the same time decrying the lack of civility in public discourse.

Then there is FOX, a network which many people consider the most unbalanced of the three. Funnily enough, when I question some of those who strongly hold this view they admit that they do not subscribe to FOX and never watch it. Their views however are shaped by stories they read about FOX and perhaps by the efforts, long ago abandoned by the WH, to isolate and marginalize FOX. I watch some programming on FOX, depending on the show time. I usually catch some of Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, rarely Glenn Beck. The thing about FOX is yes, they are a conservative/Republican news voice, but not exclusively so. They regularly have liberal and opposing views expressed, either by regular contributors or "one of" interviews. One can note Juan Williams, Democrat Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes and others among this group. They have Charles Krauthammer, who is, in my opinion, one of the smartest political analysts around. They also have experienced news people like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. That FOX is losing its image as a crazy, marginal, illegitimate news network is becoming evident by the increased willingness of liberal favourites like Jon Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg to appear on FOX, and the impending interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly. FOX is becoming more mainstream, as is CNN. It however is moving from the right to a more middle point, with CNN moving from the left.

Then there is MSNBC. It has the most moving yet to do. As far as I can tell there are simply no alternative views expressed on MSNBC. Its motto is that it "leans forward"; by that I take it that it sees its mandate as being the progressive voice on television. That is fine if that is the role it wants to play; but it cannot have any pretense of balance. It also has to face the fact that ideological based shows generally are only preaching to the converted. Few others are watching. And with the American base moving to a more conservative position (as I believe President Obama himself is doing), the numbers of the converted for MSNBC are diminishing. Perhaps with a new owner and the departure of Olbermann, MSNBC will revisit what it wants to be and where it wants to go. It is after all a "for profit" commercial entity, and if the profits are diminishing, then the script will have to change. It will be interesting to watch MSNBC to see what happens, post Keith.

A Palin Free Month..Yay!!

2011-01-22T14:26:00.000-08:00

A loyal reader sent me this. I love it.

Thanks Sam.

FOLLOW UP:

Another interesting piece on the media (and others') obsession with Palin.

Keith Olbermann Fired

2011-01-22T08:21:00.000-08:00

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's most popular pundit is gone.

While this might come as a surprise to many, it was not to me. I saw this coming long ago, as it is a part of a general rethinking of cable news networks' ideologically dominated "news" shows. It is happening at CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even FOX.

More about this soon. (Got to shovel snow from my roof now).

AMNESIA

2011-01-15T11:55:00.000-08:00

A few years ago, I attended a lecture concerning the ethical issues surrounding the use of drugs which induce amnesia. These drugs apparently are used in order to cause persons who have undergone painful and traumatic experiences to have their memories of these experiences lessened or erased. I was unfamiliar with this issue before and found the talk very interesting. One of the ethical issues raised by the lecturer concerning the use of amnesia inducing drugs was the wisdom in creating a situation in which we allow ourselves to forget things which although painful are important that we remember. An example given was war. Is society better off if soldiers returning from wars do not remember the horrors of war or is it more important that they and we remember the pain caused by terrible events and times so that we are more diligent in ensuring that they do not happen again? (For those interested in learning more about this issue, they can find a number of scholarly studies and discussions. See, for example a legal paper by Professor Kolber.

I thought of this issue of us wishing to forget or sanitize the past in the current controversies over the deletion of offensive words from literature and music. As you are probably aware, there is a controversy concerning the deletion of the 'N' word from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The debate is so intense that even writing the word in news reports and discussions of the issue is avoided, the word being replaced by the phrase "the 'n' word" (as I myself have done here). I concede that my own unwillingness to use the word here may seem hypocritical to some, in view of the point of this posting. (But in my defence I note the obvious. This posting is not a classic piece of literature and I can fully make my argument without offending anyone.)

I note in passing that I recently attended a theatrical production of "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"
a 1982 play by African American playwright August Wilson. The play was put on by the Arizona Theater Productions in Phoenix. It is about an African American blues legend, her band, and her record producers. The "n" word is used liberally in the script, dozens of times, when the band members were referring to each other. If the word had not been used, the play simply could not have been performed. I must admit I found the use of the word jarring. It made me feel uncomfortable. Seated near me were several African American members of the audience. I noted that they did not return to their seats after the intermission for the second half. I wondered how they felt about the play and whether they left because of that.

Another similar controversy concerns the use of the word "faggot" in the Dire Straits 1985 song "Money For Nothing". The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned the playing of the song on Canadian radio unless that word is replaced by a non offensive one. This ruling has resulted in very strong protests and plans by at least one radio station to play the original song over and over.

These efforts to sanitize literature, music, art ( there is a debate now in Vancouver concerning the cancellation of an exhibit of paintings devoted to the memory of missing and murdered women) are in my opinion understandable but misplaced. No-one wants to be offensive and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others. But how can we remember the nature of the horrors and injustices of the past if we are prevented from having actually to see them as vividly as we can? Is amnesia an answer? And what of the rights of the novelists, song writers and artists who struggle to communicate their messages as effectively and skilfully as they could? Should we be rewriting their literature, songs and repainting their art works so they do not cause offence? This is not a black and white issue - there are grey areas. But surely rewriting "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or the song "Money for Nothing" does not fall into a grey area.

Is the blame game now over?

2011-01-12T20:43:00.000-08:00

In his Tucson memorial service speech, President Obama could not have been more clear in his urgings to put an end to the blame game. A significant portion of the full text was devoted to that theme. For examples:

"But at a time when our discourse has become so polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking to each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

"Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "When I looked for light then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we have to guard against simple explanations in the aftermath."

"For the truth is, none of us can know exactly what triggered the vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped these shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions inn order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. That we cannot do. That we cannot do."

"As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves all the ways that our hopes and dreams our bound together."

"If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate - as it should - let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle."

Eloquent words, a strong message, well put - as is typical of President Obama's incredible rhetorical ability. But the question is. Will these words take hold? Will the pundits and politicos treat the speech as a buffet, where one can pick and choose what one likes and ignore the rest? More to the point, will they even see themselves in it, or instead think that the President was actually talking not about them but about someone else? (I recall for example when President Obama told Congress people that it was necessary to change Washington and end the climate of corruption. Everyone there stood up and applauded. It was as if the President could not have been referring to them but to some other non-existent politicians somewhere else).

Will the substance of talk radio, cable chatter, newspaper op-ed pieces, and political speeches now change? Or will it be business as usual, while everyone praises the speech? Let's watch.

Tucson

2011-01-10T21:18:00.000-08:00

I have delayed writing this post. What can I say about the tragic events in Tucson which has not already been said by others? Nevertheless, before I can move on, I must say something. So some thoughts.

What happened in Tucson last weekend was simply horrible. We were at a restaurant counter in Phoenix when CNN started breaking the news of the shootings in Tucson. As the afternoon wore on, the news began to reveal the enormity of the tragedy. A Congress woman shot in the head fighting for her life, several dead including a nine year old girl and a Federal judge, many more injured. The next day, when the interviews were aired of the parents of the young girl, it was hard not to cry. The composure of the parents as they spoke of their precious daughter was unbelievable. Their strength and their faith must be very strong. The tales of the heroes who risked their lives to help the wounded and bring down the shooter were inspiring. Where do these heroes come from? Is the act of risking one's own life to save others instinctive or learned behaviour? What would I have done had I been there?

The tragedy must have reinforced negative views that some of us have of the United States, or maybe Arizona. Too many guns out there, too many unstable persons on the loose. Is that the problem? Could anything have been done? Or are these things inevitable?

What happened next however totally took me by surprise. What I think I have seen before when Americans suffer a national tragedy is a coming together. A putting away of the divisions, and a unity of purpose. Not this time. What happened next was an obscenity. As all of you know who have been following this story, especially on the cable news channels and on the internet, what happened next was a despicable, insensitive, and hateful debate about "blame". The victims were still fighting for their lives, the dead not yet buried, but the pundits and political opportunists were at it. Action from the left, reaction from the right.

I will not enter that debate. I have neither the information nor the expertise to even begin to try to explain what happened and why. And even if I did, now is not the time. Perhaps some of those who jumped in when they did are regretting that decision; at least I hope so. For their sake, I hope the victims and their families who might have been watching this spectacle, will forgive them.

Change You Can Believe In

2011-01-06T14:06:00.000-08:00

Here is a brief profile of President Obama's new Chief of Staff: William Daley.

Some followers are not that happy.

Is this the change you can believe in?

You decide.

Follow up: The Firing of Juan Williams

2011-01-06T14:02:00.000-08:00

For those of you interested in the Juan Williams' firing over at National Public Radio, there was some fall out today.

One senior executive fired; another lost her "bonus".

Hear what Juan has to say about it

Happy New Year From Phoenix

2010-12-31T16:11:00.000-08:00

Spending some time in cold Phoenix. The temp actually got down to below freezing for this year's Fiesta Bowl Parade. As I wrote in earlier years, going to the annual parade is like going back to the fifties. Cheerleaders, marching bands, horses, floats, Sheriff Joe, politicians ( the governor, mayor etc.), football stars, the Shriners in small cars, police, etc.. you name it, it is on parade. It's good old fashion Americana at its best and I love it.

Hope everyone has a great 2011. It should be an interesting one politically in the USA, and who knows, maybe in Canada.. The minority government must be due for its periodic re-election and the Liberal party for a new leader. So I am looking forward to it all.

Happy New Year!

Barack Obama and Same Sex Marriage

2010-12-22T20:39:00.000-08:00

The political year seems to have ended very well for President Obama. Because of Republican co-operation he got his (amended) tax bill through, DADT was repealed, the Smart Treaty was approved, as was the bill to assist 9/11 first responders. It is interesting to consider why all of this has happened after the Nov mid-terms and why Obama has had more success with compromise now than before. It seems that the "party of no" has become the "party of yes". Interesting.

In his year end Press Conference, Obama was, as usual, very impressive. Smart and articulate. He answered the questions very adroitly. On one answer, however, Obama, in my opinion, fared very poorly - the one dealing with same sex marriage.

Obama continues to "struggle" with this issue, but apparently, from his answer, seems to still be opposed. Or in the least he is not prepared to come out, defend it and say he is in favour.

My question is simple: What in the world is the source of this "struggle"? For a person who speaks so passionately about fundamental values, basic dignity, and human rights, in relation to topics such as immigration reform, Don't Ask Don't Tell, redistribution of wealth, and education and health care rights, you would think that the issue of gay marriage would be an absolute no brainer. For persons truly committed to human rights and dignity for all, there is no question that gays and lesbian couples who want to make a marriage commitment to one another, should be free to do so. Marriage is obviously meaningful to them and deprives no-one else of anything. Traditionalists or religious people can continue to think it is wrong, weird, sinful or whatever, but so what? Gay marriage has nothing to do with them. It is simply none of their business.

So back to Obama. What is behind his "struggle"? Political expediency? Getting re-elected? His own personal religious beliefs? His links to his community? Bigotry? Indifference to the rights of others? Is he disingenuous when he talks about basic values and dignity?

Whatever the answer is, it is not good. This is not a small point. It goes to the heart of who President Obama is and what he really believes and is prepared to put himself on the line for.

Back Home

2010-12-21T09:01:00.001-08:00

Back home from Australia.

Tort Law conference in Sydney was quite impressive. Good line-up of speakers, including Lord Hoffmann, recently retired from the House of Lords. Lord Hoffmann is well known for his erudite tort law judgments, particularly in reference to issues of causation and public authority liability. Lord Hoffmann gave an excellent account of the economic torts, with particular reference to OBG v Allan. The Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, Chief Justice French, opened the two day conference with a very thorough and scholarly talk, over viewing the conference themes. My topic was on public authority liability discussing the Canadian experience, which is quite unique in the Commonwealth.

Kudos to the organizers, Jamie Edelman (Oxford) and Simone Degeling (UNSW) for a great job.

Soon back to politics.

Happy New Year!

Aussie Update

2010-12-15T16:21:00.000-08:00

A little travel update.

Adelaide visit was great. Irene's etching exhibit at Port Adelaide at the Jackalope Gallery was very well done. Wonderful gallery, lots of attendees, great wines and cheese etc. The owners Kathy and Nancy did a great job.

Kangaroo Island visit - saw lots of animals on a beautiful island. Kangaroos, koalas, echidnas, seals, sea lions, birds, etc. Also beautiful, beautiful beaches.

Now in Sydney for the tort law conference. Excellent program. Starts tomorrow..

Big news here - the tragedy with the boat refugees. Unbelievable what people will do to leave despotic terrible regimes. Story is still developing.

More later.

Off to Adelaide

2010-12-10T15:58:00.000-08:00

First some travel notes. Leaving Tasmania today for Adelaide. Went up East Coast for a couple of days to Freycinet National Park. Gorgeous beaches.. white sand for miles, and turquoise waters. The sand squeaked as you walked on it. Shore birds (eg the Pied Oystercatcher) nesting on the beach. But if you come you can leave your "bathers" at home.. water is freezing.

Had dinner last night with a mate who lives in Burnie. John Dewar, used to teach at U of Alberta and worked at the Law Reform Institute. Really good bloke. Finished off a lot of Tassie wine.

Ok.. now to current affairs.

Julian Assange has gone from wanted man to international cult hero. Thousands signing petition defending him. It has become a free speech and presumption of innocence issue. The belief is that the US wants him, will try to extradite him from Sweden, bring him back to US for trial. Obama Administration is not getting good press here over this whole affair.

Oprah tour continues. Apparently the Aussie tax payer is funding this thing to the tune of $3,000,000.00. Governments say it is good for tourism.. will bring throngs of Americans here. Sure.

I see that Congress has defeated DADT. That seems to put Obama Administration between rock and hard place. They could have let court ruling striking it down alone ( as I suggested ). But no.. they wanted to leave it to Congress. Well now what? Obama administration should have thought their strategy out a few steps ahead.

Cheers.

Julian And Oprah

2010-12-08T03:13:00.000-08:00

Two big names in the news down under.

Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, is front page on today's The Australian. Assange, an Australian citizen, has condemned his government for not stepping up to the plate to defend him against "the numerous public threats of violence against him". In an article published in The Australian, he notes for example the numerous calls in the US for him to be "taken out" by US special forces, and a call by "an advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister's office" that he be assassinated. The Australian angle is interesting. I wonder how the Canadian government would have reacted if Assange were a Canadian citizen?

Then there is the Oprah tour. About 300 Oprah fans, both from the US and Canada, are visting Australia compliments of Oprah. Although apparently mocked by Australia's "elites", the editorial in The Australian commends Oprah for the impact that this "extraordinary woman" has had on her fans. She is noted as having "pioneered discussion of social issues once taboo on mainstream American television". So there it is. All I can add is "good on you, Oprah".

DOWN UNDER

2010-12-07T12:06:00.000-08:00

Quick report from Hobart, Tasmania.

I am in Australia for tort law conference, and Irene has art exhibit in Adelaide. Came to Tasmania for a few days. Hobart is a picturesque, charming place. But haven't explored much yet.

Few interesting notes. Everybody here seems to be from someplace else. Our waitress last night from Flagstaff. She came to school here because she thought it was going to be like Hawaii. She got over it in a few months. Now likes it. Our hotel check in clerk is from Regina. Why he would have wanted to leave is beyond me. The waiter in Sydney was from England. Restaurant manager from South Africa. So we are still on the lookout for a real Tasmanian devil.

On the Sydney-Hobart flight watched two hours of live Fox News. O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta. No CNN. No MSNBC. Curious.

I guess big news back in US is Obama's cave in on Bush tax cuts. I gather Dems on the left are unhappy.. very unhappy. Hillary, where are you?? Will keep on eye on that.

Thats it for now. Just wanted to say hello. Hello.

"GET OVER IT"

2010-12-04T08:28:00.000-08:00

I said it before Charles Blow of the New York Times did. I disagree with Charles Blow on a bunch of things. I also give Sarah Palin a lot more credit than he does.

But having said all of that, I agree with his recent piece in the New York Times totally. Advice to the anti-Paliners out there (whether on the "left" or the "right"):

"GET OVER IT"!

Read his piece.

The Media's Obsession With Palin

2010-12-01T21:17:00.000-08:00

It seems that almost everyday I look at the CNN website, there is at least one story about Sarah Palin. Examples of such juicy headlines include: "Rollins: Sarah Palin, you're no Reagan"; "Palin Lashes Out At The Media"; "Palin Delivers A Gaffe Filled Message"; "Palin Ratings Rebound"; "Palin's Intentions Questioned As She Heads Back To Iowa"; "Palin Hauls In Nearly $500k In Just Over A Month"; "Barbara Bush Tells Palin To Stay In Alaska"; "Rove Calls Actions By Palin Smart"; "Palin Must Be Stopped Says Scarborough"; "Palin Slams Obama Administration Over Wikileaks Fiasco"; "McCain Compares Palin To Reagan"; "Romney Takes A Swing At Palin" and on and on and on.

And that, my friends, is from only CNN, only from the last couple of days, and only after I spent about 15 minutes searching. Can you imagine what I would have turned up if I had done some real research and looked at other sources?

If you were a visitor from Mars and saw all of this Palin attention , you would legitimately wonder: "Who the heck is Sarah Palin? Boy, this Sarah must be a very, very important person!!"

And you might be surprised to find out, well, no. Palin WAS the governor of Alaska (population 700,000 - less than Edmonton Alberta!) Palin now holds no political office. She actually holds no political, governmental, bureaucratic, or any other office at all. She might not even have an office. She is not a big shot company executive. She ran for Vice-President and lost.(The winning Vice President, Joe Biden, is hardly ever talked about by the way.) She "might" run for President in 2012, but she will most likely not get her own party's nomination and if she did, by some fluke, she would get clobbered in a national Presidential election. So she is very unlikely to hold any political office ever, ever again.

So why all the fuss, you might ask? Well, frankly, I do not know. I am sure legions of future PhD students in political science, sociology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology etc. will spend years studying the topic of the "Sarah Palin Mystique" and try to find out why there is this incredible media Sarah Palin obsession.

You might also be interested in finding out, as was I, that this media obsession does not seem to be met with the same obsession by members of the ordinary public. In the Yahoo Buzz Index of top recent Yahoo searches, Sarah Palin's name does not even show up in the top 20. "Tony Parker" shows up. "Eva Longoria Parker" shows up. "Eliza Dushku" shows up. "Nina Garcia De Castellanos" shows up. But not Sarah Palin. (And please, please do not ask me who these people are. I do not know.) So go figure.

WikiLeaks and Canada

2010-11-30T21:44:00.000-08:00

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"

2010-11-23T18:40:00.001-08:00

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

2010-11-20T07:44:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-17T14:20:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-16T19:32:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-16T10:53:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-12T07:50:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-03T18:24:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-01T18:21:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-11-01T18:15:00.001-07:00

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.

American Energy

2010-10-30T08:52:00.000-07:00

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.

President Obama and The Daily Show

2010-10-27T22:18:00.000-07:00

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 Tale of Two Cities

2010-10-26T21:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Rights Delayed Are Rights Denied

2010-10-24T15:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Freedom of speech is great, unless you choose to exercise it.

2010-10-21T12:12:00.001-07:00

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.

THE TROUBLE WITH SMART PEOPLE

2010-10-20T08:41:00.000-07:00

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".

WELCOME TO SIKKIM

2010-05-04T09:59:00.000-07:00

IRENE'S FINAL E-MAIL FROM INDIA:

Afghanistan and Sikkim were two countries that I dreamed of visiting since
childhood. Afghanistan because of the book "Caravans" by A.J. Cronin (if I
remember correctly) and Sikkim because of the National Geographic coverage
when the monarch married an American, Hope Cook, around the same time that
Grace Kelly was married to Prince Rainer of Monaco.

It looks doubtful that I will ever make it to Afghanistan but Sikkim
remained possible. Sikkim ceased to be an independent nation and became part
of India in 1975. Sikkim is tucked into the northeast corner of India, in
the Himalayas, wedged between Tibet and Bhutan. On the map, it does not seem
that far from Calcutta.

Lewis and I had enough of car and plane travel for awhile. Our bodies were
still shaking for a long time after the 9 days on the roads of Orissa and
our wallet was a bit drained by the flight from Bhubaneswar to Calcutta. It
seemed that it was the perfect time to travel by train.

Our friend (and travel agent in Orissa) booked us 2 tickets on the
Kanchanjunga Express from Calcutta to Shiliguri... eight hours 2nd class *air
conditioned*. From Shiliguri we would need a car or Jeep. This sounded
a lot better than the train we took on our last
trip: Deradhun to Varanasi...22 hours, 2nd class non a/c!

The only downside to the train that I saw was that it departed Sealdah
Station, Calcutta at 6:35 AM. Even the driver who was going to take us said
that he didn't mind if we took a taxi instead. We packed our bags after
dinner, instructed the hotel staff to wake us at 5 and pretended to get a
few hours of sleep.

It was all remarkably easy. Sealdah Station was bustling even at 6 AM but
the electonic board displayed the Kachanjunga EXPRESS' departure at 6:35 AM
from platform 9A. We sat on the floor with the other travellers and waited
for the train to come. There is one thing that you can count on in India and
that is the railway system! The train arrived on time. There were crowds
jostling forwards and backwards but gradually a line seemed to form in front
of the 2nd class carriages non-airconditioned. Lewis and I pressed on
down the track looking for the telltale sign of a/c compartments - the
sealed
windows.

Sure enough, about 10 cars down, we saw a sealed window unit...and a
computer printout sheet listing passenger names and seat assignments. There
we were Klar, L and Klar, I in seats 35 and 36. How efficient is that! The
car began to fill up. There was a lot of movement on the platform of goods
being hauled, people bustling, hawkers selling foodstuffs but soon I felt
the train start up. I looked down at my watch: 6:35 AM.

There were lots of surprises on this train ride, some good, some not so. On
the good side were the sheets, blanket and towel provided to each passenger.
Lots of people toiled the aisle selling cookies, candies, chai, coffee so we
were not neglected and had entertainment to boot. The toilet stall
actually had a toilet seat, no toilet paper however.

The not so good part was that the train was scheduled to
arrive in Shiliguri at 6:15 PM making it almost 12 hours to travel 600 kms.
It meant too that we would arrive in the dark and have to decide whether to
go on the mountain roads at dusk.

Our neighbours on the train all said that it was best to find a hotel for
the night because there were no Jeeps at the train station and we would lose
time going to the right station.They had all sorts of worries, concerns and
lots of misinformation.

When the train finally arrived (on the dot) we were swarmed by touts
offering cars to
Darjeeling or Gangtok (Sikkim) . Within minutes we were installed in a Toyota
Qualis (similar to a small land cruiser) of questionable vintage. Our driver
was about 30, lean, and unusually silent. The drive was to take 4-5 hours
and according to the travel agent in Orissa, the roads were good (obviously
he has not made the trip).

The road was fine for about 45 minutes but then we began to gain altitude
and the road became steep and sinuous with tight hairpin turns and dropoffs
heading into darkness.

The growing nightfall made it hard to see the countryside but it was heavily
forested at times. The occasional roadside stall lit up with an electric
bulb but nothing in the way of towns to speak of.

Then after about 2.5 hours, the driver pulled over in front of a row of
stalls and said: Break. Want tea? It was more a statement than a question.
We got out and went into a small "restaurant'" , the term is used quite
loosely. We had been up since 5 AM and had only eaten a bit of leftover rice
from dinner the night before as well as some cookies I had stashed in my
bag. Who knew what would be open when we reached Gangtok. So we pulled out 2
red plastic lawn chairs and sat at the arborite table, swept away some of
the flies and ordered vegetable momos (Tibetan dumplings) and black tea.
Maybe it was the lack of sleep or lack of food but they remain among the
best momos we have had so far!

Back into the car we scrambled and back to the crumbling, twisting roads.
Many parts had rock piles occupying 1/2 the area, a sign of future
improvements. During the daylight hours, men would be using a sledgehammers
to break up the rocks. Women would load the gravel and sand onto baskets on
their head and saunter down the steep hillside to fill the potholes. At
night , the rocks were just another obstacle on the road.

The benefit of night travel on these roads is that the headlights illuminate
beyond the tight curves giving oncoming traffic a hint of what is to come.
Our driver was slow, steady and cautious. We were far from the fastest
vehicle on the road and I was quite grateful for that.

At 9:30 PM we saw the sign "Welcome to Sikkim" at one end of a small
bridge. At the other end was a levered barrier. We stopped at the gate
and handed our passports to the driver who handed them to the border
guard. He looked at them and barked :"permits!!". We pointed to our
Indian visas. "permits for Sikkim?!" Although the guidebooks mentioned
permits obtainable at the border as well as a variety of tourism
offices, we had been informed that they were no longer necessary.
..apparently we were wrong.

We asked to buy them at the border. I think that the guard had been
waiting his whole career to give us his reply because he seemed to
shout it with glee:"Shiliguri. Back to Shiliguri. Office closed.
Office open 8 AM!" He repeated Shiliguri with the staccato of a
machine gun.

What were we to do? We drove the 40 minutes back to the momo
restaurant. The row of houses and foodstalls were shut tight in the
darkness. We did the only sensible thing: the driver slept in the
front seat, Lewis in the middle, and I slept with the luggage in the
back!

We were awake early and got to the West Bengal/Sikkim border by 7 AM.
Our driver spoke to the border guard who suggested we go and have
breakfast at the Sikkim hotel right next to the border office. We did
just that. The restaurant manager went and arranged our permit for
Sikkim. We went back to the border guard with our passports and
permits at 8 AM and he called over the permit official --- the same
fellow who had wanted to send us back to Shiliguri.

He noted the permit numbers in a book and said something about last
night. I said we slept in the car...but why couldn't he have let us
stay in the hotel?? He replied: Office close 8 PM. Welcome to Sikkim.

The marriage didn't last. - the king and Hope Cook.

A HOTEL IN CALCUTTA

2010-05-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

IRENE'S FOURTH MESSAGE FROM INDIA:

Yet another report from India:
With memories of "City of Joy" by Dominique Lapierre in mind, we expected to NOT like Calcutta and were steeling ourselves to its onslaught. On the cab ride into town we commented to each other about how we seemed to like the city already! That was a surprise. The city seemed more intimate and manageable than either Delhi or Mumbai. In speaking to Indians about their cities, a number of them referred to Calcutta as a "city with soul" and a "laid back atmosphere".

Yes, there are still slum areas in Calcutta but we did not see the miles of shacks that line the airport around Mumbai. Apparently in the 1970's as East Pakistan was fighting to become Bangladesh, more than 4,000,000 refugees fled to Calcutta and completely inundated the city's infrastructure. There is still much poverty here and yes, there are people sleeping on the sidewalks, but many of the shantytowns and slum areas have been cleaned up.

Traffic is less of a nightmare as bus lanes and taxi zones are being created. Somehow, the city is more approachable than some of the other chaotic places we have been to.

The Fairlawn Hotel:
We tried repeatedly to book a room at the classic and inexpensive historied Fairlawn Hotel and our efforts paid off. We had read that it was a quirky place to stay and were looking forward to the experience. We did not know what to expect as our cab rounded the corner of the white classic India Museum and turned up Sudder St. The sidestreet was lined with a mix of storefronts and 2-3 storied buildings that left little space for sidewalk. There was a green iron gate in a wall. The driver honked and someone opened the gate. The cab turned sharply in to a little courtyard. At the back was an area obscured by high shrubs and what appeared to be a 2 story victorian house with an open veranda and entry. The Fairlawn Hotel has been owned by Violet Smith's family since 1936 - and I do not think there has been a thorough housecleaning or garage sale since!

We presented our passports and signed the usual registration while trying to read framed histories of the building! Our double room with a/c was 2800 rupees (app.$67.00) including breakfast and high tea. We followed the bellboy up the carpeted stairs past hundreds of framed bits of memorablia that lined the walls - photographs of notables, framed letters from Dominique Lapierre, posters of "City of Joy". photos of film stars and actors, family photos of Violet Smith, her parents, her children and grandchildren, framed articles from newspapers around the world about the hotel...one could spend hours just getting upstairs!

The upstairs contained several guestrooms, each door hidden behind a floral curtain, as well as a large salon with Victorian settees, armchairs, and coffee tables and a canopied square veranda which overlooked the "garden" (now a beer garden!). Off the salon was a walkway which led to a 2 story row of guestrooms behind the main house. The walls of the public areas were also crammed with framed memorabilia as well as glass-fronted cabinets containing everything from boxes of souvenir silver spoons to oriental tourist tchatchies and children's school projects!

Our room was large with a sitting area as well as a desk and armoire. Over the bed hung a portrait of a turbanned maharaja with an imposing mustache. There would be no tomfoolery under his watch! Even though the linoleum on the floor was peeling in several places, the room was spotless. There was a glass bookshelf with a variety of books left by travellers of all nationalities. We left a large volume on Indian Tort law that Lewis had acquired in Hyderabad and been lugging around as well as the memoirs that an academic had gifted to Lewis and we borrowed a guidebook for a few days.

We enjoyed meeting Violet Smith. Approaching her 90th birthday, she still is downstairs at breakfast to greet her guests and go over the books with her staff. She is more than eager to relate the story of the Fairlawn...I think she enjoys the notoriety of her age and tells you lots of details whether you are interested or not. There were a few details which made us bond with the hotel.

The land was acquired in 1798 and the house was erected in 1803 by a British family and served as their home for a generation. Then the building was used a a court house, a "sadar" in Bengali. This became distorted into "sudder" and became the name of the street, Sudder St. As Calcutta grew, the neighbourhood became a Jewish enclave and the home passed through a succession of Jewish owners. 1915 saw a flood of Armenians flee Turkey and move to India including Violet Smith's parents and the area around Sudder St. absorbed them as well. Today Violet Smith is one of the last of the Armenians and Mr. Nahoum who owns Nahoum's bakery down the street is the last of the Jews.

Violet's mother began the hotel and built the annex at the back. During the second world war, the Fairlawn was used to house Canadian troops and was called Canada House for the duration. After the war, the hotel was restored to its intended use. It is one of those places where locals as well as tourists enjoy the atmosphere.

We met a number of other guests there including a judge from Texas, a woman from Brussels who had spent 2 years volunteering in Bengal at a handicapped children's centre and a Canadian woman from Stratford who was about to spend her week in Calcutta volunteering at Mother Teresa's hospital.

I will not be getting a commission from the hotel but would readily recommend it to anyone heading to Calcutta.

Best,
Irene

THE INDIANIZATION OF LEWIS

2010-04-30T09:37:00.000-07:00

HERE IS IRENE'S THIRD INDIA E-MAIL POSTING:

There was no reason to be shocked when Lewis came down to the hotel lobby barefoot for tea yesterday. He was initially skeptical as to whether we should be returning to India on this trip rather than heading to a new destination altogether. With every new movie we saw that was set in India and every news report from India, he remembered more and more the things that did not appeal to him in India. The country does indeed show some of the worst, ugliest, most revolting aspects of mankind but it also has the most exquisite, appealing and beautiful.

India somehow manages to seduce you. It works its way into your soul and permeates your being. It has been interesting to watch as India transforms Lewis. I think that the first sign was the head wagging! When an Indian person is following a conversation, the head inclines slightly and with moderate speed from side to side (ear towards shoulder). I would be relating something to Lewis and suddenly realize that his head was wagging!!

More inscrutable is the swivel. Think of nodding "no" but only turn your head slowly and go just half way....then stop. Is that a "yes" or a "no" or an indication of disinterest? I am still not sure but Lewis seems to be adopting that habit too!

Then, when I would tell Lew a story , he would start saying "aachaa" (the Indian version of "uh-huh"). He says it even when we are talking with Indians. It is now a part of his lexicon. The latest is "tee-kay" (okay, fine) which is stated frequently.

Before we left on the trip, Lew vowed that this trip would be easier than the last one...that we would not make it so hard on ourselves. We would stay in more upscale places and have reservations made ahead of time. I did reserve a hotel in Delhi for our arrival but getting a room at the lovely Hotel Ganges View in Varanasi was impossible so I booked us in at the basic Sahi River View Guest House next door(1200R or about $27). We went to make dinner reservations at the Ganges View and were told that there had been a cancellation. A room was available for 3100R. "Why on earth should we change! We have checked in already and why pay 3 times the price! What more do we need?" was Lewis' reaction. I can understand that- why live excessively in a country where so many lack basic necessities. I had not thought of Lewis as the new Gandhi.

Our carry-on luggage is now straining at the zippers and is increasingly hard to "carry on". Lewis has begun to collect "dhokra". I do feel badly for our kids because this new collection of primitive handcast metal sculptures will occupy a large space in the garage sale they will have to hold to liquidate our estate.At the tribal markets in Orissa Lewis was in full form negotiating for the figurines.

And the food....!!!! Usually Lewis complains about the food in India. All of that heavily spiced and sauced food! But now he has rediscovered his love of Indian Chinese food (Chindian, I call it). It is a bit sweeter, saucier and without the heavy soy base of the Chinese food we usually have at home. Chindian, chindian, chindian. He eats heartily and feels great. He also now maintains that he will stay a vegetarian....well with chicken....and maybe shrimp....fish perhaps...eggs definitely. Am I am losing him to India?

On our last day with car, driver and guide in Orissa, we stopped at a roadside dhaba (eatery) for a lunch break. Lew and I weren't hungry so we waited at a little drink shack at the side of the highway (another story there) and sipped our Thumbs Up (coca cola equivalent). " Just a minute". said Lewis and he got up. I looked over and there he was standing next to a pile of garbage and debris , his back to the road and with that unmistakable posture of a male marking his territory.

I think the Indianization of Lewis is complete.

DELHI UNDERGROUND

2010-04-29T08:51:00.000-07:00

IRENE'S SECOND POST FROM INDIA:

At present, we are in the NE state of Orissa and we are visiting
the tribal area. It is fascinating and very far removed from the email
I had prepared when I was last at an internet facility. Nevertheless,
I will proceed in order of the voyage. Just to keep you well informed
our itinerary is Delhi - Varanasi- Hyderabad- Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-
Calcutta - Gangtok (Sikkim) - Darjeeling - Delhi (perphaps a change or
two as we proceed. We are still relatively healthy!

Lewis was to meet with the vice chancellor (dean) of law at the National Law
Unversity, Delhi. We had imagined going to an old British colonial building
in the heart of Delhi perhaps with a leafy green courtyard. Instead we were
told that NLU Delhi is located in Dwarka - a remote suburb not far from the
airport.

Delhi above ground can be a very challenging experience. As our friend
Suhail told us," Delhi is not as organized as Mumbai. In Mumbai they do lane
driving". In Delhi, road traffic is a free for all. I often feel that the
vehicle I am riding is a ball in a multi-ball pinball game and someone else
is pulling the pin and tilting the surface. Cars clog every available
opening between the curbs creating ever changing flows of traffic. Gridlock
is not uncommon. Vehicles fight for supremacy and priority. Suhail's sage
advice to us: "Take the metro". Lewis had been told that the law school was
"just opposite the metro station" so we decided to try our luck.

If we were dubious about Delhi aboveground, what chaos would reign below? We
venture out of our tranquil Golf Links neighbourhood and flag a passing
rickshaw. A brief negociation of fare takes place and we speed off to
Paligiri Maidans Metro station.It is surrounded by lots of rickshaws, cars
and buses at the entrance. We passed through, put our knapsack on the Xray
belt, Lewis walks to the "gents'" scanner and I to the "ladies". I received
a very timid frisking from a bashful young woman in a khaki uniform who
averts her eyes.

We proceed to the wicket to purchase our tokens - fare is the equivalent of
50 cents. We follow the signs to the platform to await our train. The
station is spacious and CLEAN!!! An LED display announces the time of
the next train. A prim voice announces its arrival in Hindi and then repeats
it in English. Should we be expecting something more sinister? Where is
India?

The train is quiet and modern. There are maps above each door and stops
illuminate as we travel along the 45 stop length. Announcements in Hindi and
English rattle off the various stops and ask passenger : "Please do not sit
on car floors"..., "Remember to yield your seat to the physically
handicapped, the elderly and ladies"..."Kindly refrain from spitting in the
cars or in the station". It seems that every stop elicits a new request!

The metro ride to Dwarka 14 takes over 45 minutes. We are amazed at the
expanse of Delhi. The metro runs below ground in central Delhi but soon
climbs its way above most of the buildings and we are treated to quite a
view. Endless buildings are punctuated by occasional squares of green. Only
one unpleasant slum on the way to Dwarka. Innuumerable temples, huge white
gleaming stupas or red sandstone pyramidal temple entryways with gigantic
painted cement Shivas, Durgas, and Kalis. And just before Dwarka stop is an
area with sheds and yards housing dozens of water buffalo. We cannot figure
out if it is the Delhi Dairy or a stockyard.Suddenly the buildings, by some
unheard agreement, disappear - there is an expanse of open undeveloped land:
Dwarka 14.

We descend from the spanking clean, steel and glass metro station to a
dusty, treeless, featureless development zone. A few bicycle rickshaws are
in a line across the street, their drivers sleeping in the heat.We can see
several cement blocks of buildings rising in the distance , a mile or so
away. We rouse a driver and we perch awkwardly on the narrow board that
masquerades as a seat. We are grateful for the rickshaw's awning as the sun
is now very hot. Our driver rises on his pedals, leans heavily, and we begin
our progress to the newest law school in India...by bicycle.

Looking over my shoulder, I marvel at the constant contrast of India: the
most modern hand in hand with the old. Leaving a clean efficient metro with
computer driven trains that run on time to catch a dilapidated bicycle that
will bring us to the campus of the law university! And we could not have
made it to Lewis' appointment without either.

Irene

Mr. and Mrs. Magoo Do India 2

2010-04-27T22:35:00.000-07:00

Hello Everyone:

I know it's been a long time. But the Pundit is back. Irene and I spent the last few months in India and Phoenix. While we were in India, Irene sent a series of e-mails to friends describing her experiences. They make for interesting reading. I thought that it would be a good, non-controversial, way to return to punditry by posting her India memoirs on the blog. So here it is: the first one. Hope you enjoy them, and if you do, pass it on.

The Sounds of Delhi:

I think of this trip as " Mr. and Mrs. Magoo Do India 2" . Our first trip, 4 years ago, despite everyone's warnings and dire predictions went so smoothly that we were perhaps deluded into thinking that travel in India was a piece of cake.

We have been here for over a week. Four days spent in Delhi and three in Varanasi and maybe we are indeed the Magoos but we find travel here to be easy to manage and ever fascinating.

Arriving at the modern Indira Gandhi airport was smooth...not even a line up at immigration. Having only carry-on luggage for the month meant we could immediate proceed to the "Prepaid Taxi" counter. We gave the address of our hotel and paid the required amount to the ticket seller. We brought our receipt to the first in line at the queue and our second trip to India was underway!

Our taxi was one of the typical Delhi fleet. The cars look like 1958 Vauxhalls or Holdens that have been bashed around, scavenged, and generally mistreated but manage to run on determination alone (not unlike much of the Indian populace).

After a few kilometers, the driver made a swift stop at a gas station. Drivers never seem to like investing too much money on fuel - obviously they are not confident that they will be able to find another paying customer among the 1.4 billion people here. In reality, they often rent their cars and rickshaws to use for a few hours in the hope of making a few rupees in that time. Obviously they do not want to leave too much fuel in the tank for the next renter.

We fueled up, asked directions to the Delhi neighbourhood a few times, and finally made it to the Ahuja Residency. The hotel is small - a converted house in a leafy residential and central neighbourhood, the Golf Links, near the Khan Market. It became our oasis in Delhi.

The area is completely gated and each block of the neighbourhood is built around its own small park.

On our first morning, I woke at 5:30 AM and listened to the sounds of our new world. It was as though a symphony was being created outside. First there was a distant staccato-a wavering musical teletype of a muezzin supported by a soft, far-off bass of a train. These sounds soon quieted and a swelling chorus of birdsong took over filling the airspace. Over a period of time the birdsong reached a crescendo and then lapsed as the sky gradually filled with colour and our day began.

Watching the birds from our rooftop terrace was a real pleasure in Delhi. We had forgotten the variety of species. There were green parrots thrusting into the air , squawking and flying in pairs from park to park; mynas hopping about; kite hawks soaring and crows and magpies gurgling from the branches, smaller birds warbled.

As we walked through the neighbourhood on our way to the market area, the cacaphony of traffic waited for us just beyond the gate. One step out and the honking of horns becomes relentless! Honks of cars, beeps of auto rickshaws, meeps of scooters, and bells of bicycles all colliding and assaulting eardrums. It seems as though the din will never diminish until at the end of the day, we again cross the threshold into our neighbourhood and the pastoral sounds take over.

With best wishes to you all from a world away,
Irene

I Have Been Golfing With Tiger

2010-01-15T14:51:00.000-08:00

Some of you may be wondering where I have been. No posts for a while. I confess. I have been playing golf with Tiger on his yacht "Privacy". Hence no blogging. The yacht has a great course - bit long (7000 yards) - but then Tiger is a good driver (the golfing type). I played terribly. Kept hitting it into the water. Tiger and I made a pact. I would come out and blog again when he resumed golf. I broke the pact.

I am in Phoenix. We have had lots of guests over the holidays, and great weather, but now it's back to work. Reading tort cases on line. Who cares if it's sunny and in the 70's (sorry, in the 20's) outside. Nothing beats a good tort case, I say.

Lots have been going on of course that I could be commenting on. What's with the Conservatives, eh? I leave and they have a 15 point lead and three weeks later, all squared. I guess its that "proroguing" thing again. Worked last time for Harper. Pressed his luck I guess.

I get a lot of cable chatter here. Frankly, I am getting sick of it. The polarization in the media in the USA is over the top. Haiti of course is the big story. An unbelievable tragedy. Yet even that can be politicized. Nut bars like Rush Limbaugh come out with moronic theories about Obama being more concerned about Haiti than he was the underwear would be bomber because of race. Democrats praise Obama for his speedy response drawing negative analogies to Bush and Katrina. The cable networks boast about their complete 24/7 coverage of the tragedy running the same clips over and over. Health care debate seems to have taken a bit of a side line but it seems like it will happen. I guess the interesting race to watch is in Massachusetts Tuesday. If the Republican wins, that is big stuff. Might be bad for the health care bill.

Anyway, just wanted to say hello. Hello.

WHERE HAS THE PUNDIT GONE???

2009-12-20T15:25:00.000-08:00

I know. I have not posted since December 2. Tiger Woods. The story has gotten a lot better since then. 14 alleged mistresses. Soon he will have played a whole round of 18.

And it's not as if things have not happened in that interval. The Copenhagen fiasco, the U.S. health care circus, the slumping in the polls President, the emergence of Alberta's new political "party" - the "Wildrose Alliance", amongst others. So I cannot blame this silence on the lack of things to "pundificate" on. Maybe it has been exam setting, exam marking, brutally cold weather, endless snow shovelling, a a trip here and there which has just frozen my "pundicasity".

In a couple of days, we head out to Phoenix and then to India on a 6 month sabbatical leave. When we are settled down, I will be back with the "punditry". First from Phoenix, and then hopefully from our travels in India.

I apologize to those who have frustratingly checked the ITP daily only to find a absence of any "pundifications". Soo.. here's the plan. I will be absent from my world of "pundalatry" for at least a week more. Trying to "pundulate" in a Motel 6 in Twin Falls, Sweetgrass, or even Salt Lake, is too stressful for this ITP. But I promise.. by the first week in January, you will be grateful for my past silence because I will be back in full throttle. For one thing, I will have FOX NEWS to watch, and that always gets my pundit juices flowing.

So.. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that. You can stop looking for a week or so.

Now.. back to marking.

TIGER SHOULD SHOW UP

2009-12-02T19:18:00.000-08:00

When I first heard that Tiger Woods was "seriously injured" in a car accident, I was pretty shocked. That would have been a big story. Tiger is the greatest golfer of his time, and probably the greatest ever. A serious injury could have ended his career, and that would have been big and bad news, not only for Tiger but for the golf world.

When it became clear that Woods was not seriously injured, and the story changed into a gossipy, speculative one about Tiger,his wife and other women, I began to lose interest. After all, rumours that a very rich, celebrity athlete might have engaged in extra marital affairs, leading to domestic turmoil is not shocking. We read about it every day.

What interests me more now is Tiger Woods' behaviour since the accident. Playing a cat and mouse game with the police who were simply trying to do their jobs was chicken poop behaviour. The police have better things to do than to be jerked around by Woods. If Tiger Woods did not want to be interviewed, which is apparently his legal right, he should have had the decency to come out and say it in the first place. Having the police come back three times over phoney baloney excuses is beneath a person of character.

And what is this with his refusal to show up at his own charity tournament, which he is hosting? Granted, he probably is in no mental condition to play 4 rounds of golf, although with Woods, his victory at the U.S. Open with a bum leg shows that he probably could have played and won this tournament, even with his sore ribs, scratched face, and shattered pride. But not to show up at all?

The Chevron World Challenge is a major fund raising event to support the Tiger Woods Foundation. Woods' physical presence at the tournament even if he is not playing would demonstrate its importance to him and give it a big boost. Not showing up because he is embarrassed by his private conduct shows a lack of character and courage. Woods cannot hide forever. He will have to face the music soon enough. Get it over with, Tiger! Come out and support your own tournament. Be a man.

I hope Tiger comes out to the Chevron World Challenge. Let's see if he does.

BLOGGED DOWN

2009-11-24T22:11:00.000-08:00

I always feel guilty when I have not posted for a few days. I worry that I will have let down my loyal readers. Don't get me wrong. I know I don't have that many loyal readers. On a good day, I might get about 50 or so visitors. That's not a lot in the blogosphere. But still.

One of the reasons that I have not posted anything since last Wednesday is because I have been away at a conference. I find it difficult to post things and deal with comments when I am travelling. But I am now back and can no longer use that excuse.

Another problem that I have been having lately is that posting on my favorite topic - President Obama - is becoming less fun for me. You see, I am essentially a contrarian. And criticizing the President is now becoming a bit too common place for my style of blogging. Everyone seems to be a critic, even those who strongly identify with and support him. They are crowding me out.

For example, take a look at today's Real Clear Politics.com. Roger Cohen, a self-professed "admirer" of the President, in his article entitled "Obama in His Labyrinth", published in the New York Times no less, writes that he is "worried". The President "feels over-managed, over-scripted to me, to the point where he's not showing the guts that prevailed at various difficult moments in the campaign". The opinion piece goes on to explain the author's disappointment with a long list of Obama's non-achievements to date.

Another commentator, Richard Cohen, who confesses that he supported Obama in the primaries against Hillary and voted for him "with both glee and enthusiasm", writes in his article, "Missing Barack Obama" (the title says it all) of a President "whose moral clarity has been dissipated". Rather than moral clarity it has all become "an Obama gray". The author lists his personal disappointments and wonders where the Barack Obama of the "famous speech on race" has gone.

There are several other similar pieces from David Kuhn's "Obama's Failing: Too Much Head, Too Little Gut" to the more scathing piece by Pat Buchanan "Our Pushover President". Andrew Malcolm's article "Now Democrats join Dick Cheney's critique of Obama" points out negative reviews from some other friendlies - Arianna Huffington and Leslie Gelb.

All of these critical pieces and others like them can be seen in just the one day, November 24, postings on RealClearPolitics. com. What is also interesting to note is the absence of any positive assessments.

So there it is. Unless the tide turns or I quit being a contrarian (unlikely I agree), I will have to write about other things.

"GOING ROGUE" GETS EXTRA SPECIAL ATTENTION

2009-11-18T09:51:00.000-08:00

Palin's book, "GOING ROGUE" is apparently getting extra special attention by the Associated Press. Apparently 11 staff members were assigned to "fact check" the book. According to the FOX News story, this compares to zero, which is the number of those people AP assigned to fact check books written by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Joe Biden, Barack Obama, the Clintons, Rudy Guliani, or Newt Gingrich. Interesting, no?

By the way, the President does not intend to read the book. No time. Obama does think that Palin is a "credible candidate" for the Presidency should she decide to run in 2012, displaying a lot more graciousness and respect for her constituency than most of her detractors.

FOX WAR WINDING DOWN

2009-11-18T08:24:00.000-08:00

It appears that the White House has decided to wind down its war against FOX News. First came the news that Communications Director and Field Commander Anita Dunn, who led the battle on the part of the White House, was stepping down from her post. More encouragingly, the President granted FOX news an interview during his China trip. Good sense has prevailed. Now let's see what the President decides to do about Afghanistan.

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

2009-11-16T13:25:00.000-08:00

I love an old joke told by Yogi Berra. The one about how a New York restaurant is always so crowded and hard to get into that no-one ever goes there anymore.

And so it goes with everyone's favorite person to talk about, Sarah Palin. Respected conservative commentator David Brooks (who I really like by the way) thinks she is "a joke". Brooks might think Palin is a joke, but it's Sarah who is the one laughing all the way to the bank these days.

Barely a year ago, Sarah Palin was a little known Governor from Alaska. Today she is the talk of the town - an American political celebrity, with millions of followers, huge influence, and lots of dough, with much more of it all to come. Take a look, for example, at the news stories of the day from Real Clear Politics website's eclectic collection. It's all about Sarah Palin. She's on the cover of Newsweek, in a very dazzling photo. The story lines are a mixed bag - "How Palin Can Win the GOP Nomination"; "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah Palin"; "Why Sarah Palin Is Bad For the GOP"; "Palin Tells Her Side of the Story"; "Palin Braves Another Week of Bashing"; "Palin Image Is A Fraud"; "Sarah Palin: Rogue For President" - and that's just from one day of Real Clear Politics. She is on television with the Queen of T.V., Oprah, and with Barbara Walters. And on it goes. Palin, Palin, Palin.

This does not usually happen with people who are second on the ticket in a losing cause. I am not an expert on what has happened historically to failed Vice Presidential nominees but I would be surprised if many have had as much ink, and influence, as Sarah Palin (unless they subsequently ran for and became President).

Like her or hate her, Palin is a phenomenon. By saying this I am not pretending to say that she qualifies for being President, because she does not. I am not saying that she will become President, because she will not. I am not saying that I agree with all or even most of her views, because I do not. I was attracted to her freshness, her willingness to take on the establishment, her populism, and her courage and dignity in facing down the mocking sexism and viciousness which constantly greeted her, when she was on the McCain ticket. I thought then that McCain was the better suited of Obama or McCain to become President and I defended Palin because I thought she would help the ticket.

I continue to marvel at how this failed Vice Presidential candidate has not faded at all from the political scene, but in fact dominates it even more. She did not become Vice President, but she did not merely lick her wounds and retreat to Alaska. She continues to stare down her detractors and she continues to drive them crazy. As my mother always told me when I was being bugged by my older brother - "just ignore him". Advice to the Palin haters - why don't you try ignoring her?

HIDING THE PHOTOS

2009-11-15T12:18:00.000-08:00

CNN reported today that the Obama Administration has again decided to block the release of new photos of alleged abuse of suspected terrorists and foreign troops in US custody. Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed an order Friday blocking the release of all photos of detainee abuse taken between Sept. 11, 2001 and Jan. 22, 2009. The reason given is that the release would "endanger U.S. troops serving abroad".

The ACLU which has been taking legal action to have the release of these photos bluntly states that this "about-face" by Obama ( he had at one time agreed to the release of the photos) "makes a mockery" of his promise of greater transparency and accountability. The decision to block the photos release is in opposition to a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals 2008 decision that they must be released.

So what do I think?

Despite the fact that I am generally hawkish on the "war against terror", the decision to block the photos' release is the wrong one. The argument that it will endanger US troops abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq seems spurious. The troops are already in great danger in both places. They are also planning to leave Iraq. News of the photos' existence is well known. Hiding them will make the assumed abuse even worse in the imagination of those who hate America anyway. Covering up the truth never works, especially when the cover-up is so well publicized.

Obama is supposedly (to his admirers at least) the "unBush". This is a characterization which I reject as being false in terms of his foreign policy realities, other than for his rhetorical and the symbolic gestures. The present issue bears that out.

Obama's major achievement to date has been convincing most of the world that America will be a different (and in their view a better) place with Obama at the helm. He convinced the Nobel Committee of that, for example. So why block the photos? The abuse did not occur on his watch, so the "unBush" narrative is not harmed by the photos' release. In fact, it is strengthened. The cover up alienates a lot of Obama's supporters, and provides yet more ammunition for those who never fell for the rhetoric in the first place. More importantly it contravenes the fundamental ideals of transparency and accountability - of owning up to the sins of the past, by exposing them and doing something about them.

So why is Obama doing this? Any ideas?

PRO-CHOICE FOLKS GET TOSSED UNDER THE BUS

2009-11-09T20:41:00.000-08:00

I have been spending a few days down in Phoenix, getting my fill of all the analysis and punditry from FOX, CNN, NPR, Arizona Republic etc. etc. The talk is all about the Health Care Bill and the Fort Hood killer. The debate on the latter topic is predictable, with those on the right calling him a terrorist and denouncing the political correctness of the main stream media for refusing to do so. We can discuss that another day.

What struck me in particular about the House Bill on Health Care is the concession by Democrats and presumably the President to toss the pro-choice folks under the bus to get this 2000 page bill passed. I have no idea what is exactly in those 2000 pages and I doubt anyone does. But apparently there can be no Federal funding or subsidies for insurance plans (private or public) which cover abortions, except in limited cases. This seems like a pretty big concession for the President and the Democrats to have made.

It got me thinking. This is one of those issues ( like same sex marriage ) where you can see a major difference between Canadians and Americans. There is no way that most Canadians or any political leader would have let this one get away. But yet, aside from some minor commentary on this specific matter, there seems to be very little concern that pro- choice advocates in the US were so easily tossed under the bus to get this bill passed. It is another reminder to me that the President and the Democrats seems to have very few, if any, non-negotiable items with which they will stick, if it may result in negative political fall out. At one point, for example, Obama seemed ready to ditch the public insurance option to get his Bill through. (He may still have to.)

Whether in relation to foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or domestic policy issues, everything for this Administration seems to be negotiable and up for grabs. There are no sacred cows. Maybe this is good - a sign of flexibility. Or maybe it is not so good - shifting sands where no-one can really count on anything.

THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY

2009-11-04T19:46:00.000-08:00

As a rookie blogger who has devoted a considerable number of my postings to the topic of President Obama, I would be remiss if I let the one year anniversary of his election as President to go by without comment. So here it is.

A little while ago, one might have thought that the one year anniversary of the historic 2008 election would have provoked wild celebration in the streets, intense analysis by the cable chatterers, and a general party like atmosphere in the US and elsewhere. This has not been the case. The day has passed without much attention and little revelry. If anything, the mood seems unusually sombre.

Reality has finally set in. When even CNN focuses its attention on the unkept or broken promises, one realizes the extent of the let down. The fact that unemployment in the US remains high, and the deficit continues to grow, does not help buoy anyone's spirits. For Democrats in particular, stinging losses in governorship races in Virginia and New Jersey on the eve of the anniversary does not help matters.

Whether one is a great fan of the President or not, one has to admit that things are not going too well for his administration at this point in time, especially on the big issues. Health care reform which was supposed to be done by August, and then by Christmas, seems likely to be put off yet again. It is unclear whether the reform, when it does come, will be much ado about nothing, and in particular will contain a public health option. In terms of foreign policy, the delay (some might say the dithering) on Afghanistan is disturbing. The election is over, the consultations have taken place, so decide already. I have noticed that one of Obama's strategies on many things is to delay in doing anything in the hope that the problem will cure itself. The Afghanistan problem will not cure itself. In terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, things seem to be at an impasse. Secretary of State Clinton says one thing to the Israelis regarding settlement construction ( i.e the offer made was "unprecedented") and another to the Arabs ( i.e. all settlements are illegal). Carnage continues in Iraq and Pakistan with suicide bombings taking an unbearable toll of innocent civilians. The Iranian nuclear stand-off continues.

The same inaction or lack of will is evident elsewhere. Yet another referendum, this time in Maine, rejected same sex marriage. Despite his energetic and supportive speech to Gays and Lesbians just a short while ago, the President apparently did nothing to assist the same sex marriage advocates to defeat the referendum which overturned same sex marriage legislation in Maine. Guantanamo will not be closed by January as promised. Transparency in committee work on health care reform did not occur, and legislation is not posted on the web for Americans to view before votes are taken, as was promised. I do not know what is happening with the prosecution of those involved in torture, promised by Eric Holder, but this seems to be another issue which has fallen off the radar. The war against FOX seems to have been temporarily abandoned, especially since it has been questioned by even the friendlier "non-biased" media outlets, who now seem to be unwilling to be co-opted into battle.

The bloom is off the rose. This is good. The only way to get politicians and other administrators moving is to put their feet to the fire. A free pass does no-one any good. Let us see where we will be on November 4, 2010.

Sweden's Prime Minister Condemns Racist Article

2009-10-26T20:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Good job, old boy!

2009-10-21T16:24:00.000-07:00

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.

News From The Battlefront

2009-10-18T09:23:00.000-07:00

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.

The "War" Between FOX and the WHITE HOUSE heats up

2009-10-12T11:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Interesting Hillary Comment

2009-10-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

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.

OBAMA AND THE PRIZE

2009-10-09T10:15:00.000-07:00

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.

White House At War With "Fox" News

2009-10-08T16:04:00.000-07:00

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.

Commander In Chief Decides

2009-10-06T13:44:00.000-07:00

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.

MISCELLANEOUS MUSINGS

2009-10-03T09:34:00.000-07:00

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.

IT'S THREE A.M., AND THE PHONE IS RINGING.

2009-09-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

We all remember Hillary Clinton's campaign advertisement in her primary contest with Barack Obama. It is 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing in the White House. There is an emergency brewing. "Who do you want to answer that phone?", asks Hillary. Someone who knows the world leaders and has been there (i.e. Hillary Clinton), or someone who does not (i.e. Barack Obama)?

Events are moving quickly in the West's nuclear stand off with Iran, and it is becoming more likely that the White House phone will soon be ringing. Iran's recently revealed second nuclear site facility and its weekend missile tests bring an Israeli military response much closer in time. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's tough and uncompromising speech at the United Nations with reference to Iran and the threat Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world, leaves no doubt where Israel stands. Should the up-coming October 1 talks between Iran and six global powers not produce real results, i.e. meaningful Iranian concessions or sanctions "that bite" (to use President Obama's own words), the timing of a military response, although there will never be a "good" time for such an action, could not be better from the Israeli perspective. The recent revelation of the new site, Iran's deception, and its missile launch tests, will likely bring Israel some global support in its desire to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.

So how will the phone call go? The caller will be Prime Minister Netanyahu, who will be informing President Obama that Israel is planning to launch military action against the Iranian nuclear sites in a few hours. American political support and possibly financial or military assistance will be sought. What will President Obama say?

It is my prediction that President Obama will support Israeli action. Why do I say this?

First, the President has been clear in his support for the State of Israel. He has never wavered in this, although there of course have been disagreements, for example over the continued settlement expansion.

Second, he has been firm in his resolve to prevent an Iran which has nuclear weapons. Once he determines that this cannot be accomplished through diplomatic routes, or through sanctions, which is his and everyone's preference, the military option is the only one left.

Third, I think President Obama is very tough minded. Although granted he has never been tested to the extent that he will be if the 3 a.m. telephone call comes, his resolve in dealing with other issues has been very strong. The bold economic moves which he pushed through including the bail outs and huge stimulus spending illustrates to me that when he thinks he is right, it is full steam ahead. He does not like to be embarrassed or undermined by others. When those, whether friends or not, become a political liability, they are gone. This has been true down from Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, and most recently Governor David Patterson of New York. I recall the President's tone of voice when he was once questioned about Israeli self-defense actions against those firing rockets into Israel. He said something to the effect that if his two daughters were being threatened, he would take all necessary steps to protect them. There was a determination in his voice, one which told me that you do not fool with this guy. He is an iron fist in a velvet glove.

No-one wants the phone to ring at 3:00 am in the White House ever. But that is not the world in which we live. Let us see if I am right in predicting how President Obama will handle it.

With Friends Like These

2009-09-24T16:14:00.001-07:00

So, President Hugo Chavez thinks that the podium at the United Nations "doesn't smell like sulphur" now that the devil George Bush is not President of the United States. It "smells of hope".

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi also has high praise for President Obama wishing that he could stay as President of the United States "forever".

Now I cannot lay blame on President Obama if foreign tyrants admire him. After all, the President is widely liked and respected by all sorts of people. I do not know if the President feels some discomfort over the fact that sworn enemies of the United States are attracted to him, almost as if he personally stands apart from the county and the citizenry who elected him and who he represents. I will not question the motives of Chavez, Gaddafi, Ahmadenijad and others who effusively praise Obama, knowing perhaps that this praise cannot much help the President's standing with his own fellow countrymen. Perhaps the President himself has somewhat encouraged their devotion by so frequently publicly acknowledging how much has to be done to repair the United State's image abroad and to restore its credibility and honour. But I will not speculate as to that.

I would hope, however, then when world "leaders" of the calibre of Chavez and Gaddafi insult a past President and by implication the country that twice voted him into office, Obama will stand up and shout:

"Enough. I do not want your support and praise. I resent your condemnation of my country and those leaders who have led it before me. How dare you malign my country and my predecessor, as you do. In wishing that I become President for life, you better be careful for what you wish, because I am no friend of yours".

I would like to hear that speech, and in case I have missed it, I am glad that it was made.

Polarization In Washington

2009-09-19T12:13:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been following the health care reform debate in the U.S. will be aware of how deeply divided and polarized the United States currently is. The debate has gone from discussing the issues of health care reform to analyzing the motives of those who are opposed to parts of the reform. There are some, like former President Carter, who attribute racism to some, if not much, of the opposition. The media of course loves this. Discussing racism is much more interesting to viewers than going through the provisions of a 200 plus health care reform bill. So the same panelists are dragged out every night on CNN ( David Gergen, James Carville, Mark Williams, Roland Martin etc.) to engage in a "knock em out, sock it out" argument about racist Americans. It's like a school yard fight. Students are much more interested in watching the fight and cheering on the combatants, then paying attention to reading, writing and arithmetic.

I find the racism charge somewhat overblown. Of course there are some persons in the United States who are racist and who do not like the President for this reason alone. This is similar to the argument that there are some people who are anti-Semites and who do not like Israel for this reason alone. But the argument that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is akin to the argument that all of those who oppose the President are racist. The fact that the President was elected by millions of white Americans and had a personal approval rating of close to 70% at one point seems to belie the racist theory. Did their approval of the President drop about 20 points because these people suddenly became racists or are they simply not happy with the President's performance?

There might be several reasons for the current polarization in the United States and it is undoubtedly not a new phenomenon. I would suggest one possible reason, and it is something I have commented upon before. It is President Obama's own rhetorical style or message. If you have been a follower of President Obama both during the primaries, the campaign and now his Presidency, you will realize that a major talking point of his is "change". Well change from what? To paraphrase the President from a variety of his speeches (and I do this from memory) it is change from the "failed policies and phoney arguments of the past". It is about cleaning house, getting rid of the " corrupt culture of Washington", getting rid of "corruption", "special interest group influence", lobbyists, tired old politics as usual, old distractions, political games, and so on. It is about "repairing" America's image abroad, and undoing the mistakes of the past. It's about fixing the disasters "inherited" from those who have gone before.

Now if you happen to be one of those people responsible for the bad old America, you are unlikely to take these comments well. If you were part of the previous Administration, or even part of the earlier Congress, which got America into its mess, you are unlikely to be pleased. If the President was looking for your support in fixing all the things that you had broken, he can forget it. As a previous administrator, I can tell you that the last thing you want to hear from your successor is how terrible a job you did and how the institution you led is now corrupt, bankrupt, and in need of major repair.

There is another way of course. You can be a bit more humble, gracious and if nothing else politically savy. The successor can talk about building on the strengths of the institution he inherited, on its past successes, on the important reforms which had been brought in, on the institution's excellent reputation and so on. You can congratulate and commend your predecessors for their hard work, rather than demean them either overtly or implicitly by pointing out how bad things had become under them and how hard they made it for you to get things back on track.

Unlike what some of you may think, I do not "hate" Obama. I think he is intelligent, a gifted orator, has some good policies, and is well-intentioned in terms of doing what he thinks needs to be done. However, I find his style of debate, in terms of the types of messages he sends, annoying, self-indulgent, arrogant, and, worst of all, counter-productive. America finds itself deeply divided and I do not think the President's message is likely to bring people together.

"YOU MISSPEAK!"

2009-09-15T13:27:00.001-07:00

Apparently the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to pass a Resolution expressing its "disapproval" of Representative Joe Wilson's behaviour during President Obama's speech to Congress last week. (UPDATE: IT HAS BEEN PASSED). As you will recall, Joe Wilson called the President of the United States, dare I write this word, "a liar".

Washington has been in quite a tizzy over this shocking breach of decorum. At times, the media seems far more concerned about it then the contents of the President's speech itself and the whole Health Care Reform, yet unseen, bill. And for good reason. After all, Representative Wilson called the President, if you can believe it, a "liar".

I was wondering whether there would have been such an outpouring of shock and dismay if Representative Wilson had used another word - you know, not the "l" word, but something else. A fashionable term these days is for people to say that they "misspoke", when something that they said is simply not true. For example, the President's Press Secretary, when confronted with the President's false statement that the AARP endorsed his Health Care bill, simply conceded that the President "misspoke". You hear the word a lot these days, when people are confronted with not having told the truth. So what if Joe Wilson simply yelled out "YOU MISSPEAK"?

Somehow "misspeaking" does not have the same pazzazz as "lying". If one were an academic studying this, one may say that lying is an "intentional" act of dishonesty, whereas "misspeaking" is only negligently or maybe even accidentally not telling the truth. The problem with this approach, however, is that the difference between an intentional untruth, a negligent untruth, or an accidental untruth, can be somewhat fuzzy. Moreover, how can one know for sure whether the untruth was intentional or not? Do we just take the liar/misspeaker's word for it? Way too complicated for me.

No, saying that someone "misspoke" rather than "lied" just doesn't do it. How does this sound, for example -

"You dirty, filthy misspeaker!"
"Don't you misspeak to me!".
"Misspeaker, misspeaker, pants on fire".

Doesn't work at all.

The incident drew contrasts with the Canadian Parliamentary system, where M.P.'s are hooting, shouting, laughing, and mocking each other all the time during debate. Congress, on the other hand, was a morgue during the President's speech, other than Joe Wilson's little outburst. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats were hooting it up, for sure, but the poor Republicans had to just sit there and take it. Never mind that the President was doing a pretty good job demeaning and insulting them for much of his address.

But even in Parliament, despite the general circus like environment, there are certain things Parliamentarians simply cannot say about each other. They certainly cannot call someone a "liar". But other forbidden insults have been "a trained seal", "a bag of wind", a "pig", a "sleaze bag", a "scuzzball", or a "pompous ass". It's not that these things can't be true characterizations - they just cannot be said.

So there you have it. While the United States is agonizing over health care reform, an incredibly gigantic debt, the war in Afghanistan, and is becoming an increasingly and disturbingly polarized country, Congress is worried about the President being called a "liar" and passing resolutions about it. Go figure.

Remembering The FLQ Crisis

2009-09-10T14:07:00.000-07:00

Reading the news that portions of the "manifesto" of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (the "FLQ") will be read out during the commemoration of the Battle on The Plains of Abraham brings back vivid memories of living and working in Montreal during the FLQ crisis.

As I noted in my posting of February 16, 2009, the Battle on the Plains of Abraham between the French and British occurred 250 years ago. The British won and gained France's possessions in eastern North America. This year's event which was to commemorate this historic event included a dramatic re-enactment of the Battle. This outraged a group of separatists in Quebec, and the re-enactment was cancelled. The separatists did not want to be reminded of this "profoundly tragic" happening.

So someone came up with a better idea. Why not read some writings, some texts that have "shaped this corner of the world"? Included among these words are apparently excerpts from the "FLQ Manifesto". This document is the cornerstone of the FLQ crisis that gripped Canada, and particularly Quebec, in 1970. The FLQ claimed that although "not an aggressive movement", its goal was to purge Quebec society "for good of its gang of rapacious sharks, the big bosses who dish out patronage and their henchmen, who have turned Quebec into a private preserve of cheap labour and unscrupulous exploitation". It was time for Premier Bourassa to "get what's coming to him: 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized!". The FLQ asserted that it had "had enough of promises of work and of prosperity, when in fact we will always by the diligent servants and bootlickers of the big shots...; we will be slaves until Quebeckers, all of us, have used every means, including dynamite and guns, to drive out these big bosses of the economy and of politics, who will stoop to any action however base, the better to screw us". It promised that "the day is coming when all the Westmounts of Quebec will disappear from the map". They were "prepared to go all the way" to achieve victory.

During the FLQ crisis, a British trade official (James Cross) was kidnapped, and a Quebec Cabinet Minister, Pierre Laporte, was murdered. The War Measures Act went into effect, army tanks were in the streets, hundreds were arrested. The crisis ended in a few months with the release of Cross and the deportation of the FLQ criminals to Cuba.

This was an interesting chapter in Canadian history. Having been born and raised in Montreal, I was a law student in McGill from 1967 - 1970 and was articling in a small law firm during the FLQ crisis. The air of crisis and terror was palpable. Pierre Laporte was a friend and client of the senior partner of the firm and his death was particularly shocking for us. I was a student during the March 1969 "Operation McGill Francais" when thousands of people marched to the gates of the university demanding that McGill become a Francophone university. I recall that the windows of the university buildings were boarded up, and everyone was evacuated from campus, in anticipation of potential destruction and violence. I recall soldiers with guns on roof tops, and searches before we could enter the court house. There was no love loss for Anglos, even from otherwise moderate persons, and the expression "maudit Anglais" (damned English) was an expression heard by me much too frequently.

The Province of Quebec, City of Montreal and Nation of Canada have come a long way since the FLQ Crisis. Montreal is a vibrant, fun, and international city. McGill is a great university which continues as an English university attracting students from all over Canada and the world. Both of our children, born and raised in Alberta, chose to go there for one of their degrees.

I haven't thought too much about the FLQ Crisis since I moved away from Quebec in 1972. The current "FLQ Manifesto reading" controversy has brought back some of the memories. Ironic, isn't it, that re-enacting the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was too painful for the separatists to bear, but reminding us all of the FLQ crisis and what the FLQ stood for and did, is just fine.

Burn After Signing

2009-09-06T20:26:00.000-07:00

The latest in a number of dubious Obama high level appointees is Mr. Van Jones. Obama's so-called "green-jobs czar" resigned his position with Obama's Administration due to controversy surrounding his signature on a 2004 "911 Truth Statement" petition, as well as some choice words directed at Republicans.

I find the petition controversy the most interesting. In 2004 a so-called "alliance of 100 prominent Americans", as well as 40 family members of 9/11 victims, called "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur". The Statement demanded "real answers about 9/11". The 12 questions suggested a "Bush administration cover up", and generally implied that the 9/11 tragedy may have been deliberately allowed to happen by "people within the current administration", "perhaps as a pretext for war".

Van Jones, who was executive director of the "Ella Baker Center for Human Rights", signed the "Truth Statement". Other well known signatories (at least well known to me) included actor Ed Asner, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Richie Havens, and Ralph Nader.

Now there is nothing inherently wrong about individuals questioning whether people in the US Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. The idea that US Administration officials wanted thousands of Americans to die in a terrorist attack is abhorrent to me, but hey, in America people can believe whatever they want. Go for it. So if Mr. Van Jones wanted to put forth a 9/11 "conspiracy theory" along with others, that was his right.

But what is Van Jones' reaction to the news that he signed the petition? Did he stand by it, and explain why he felt that way at the time?

Oh no. He now states that he does not agree with the 9/11 truth statement and in fact he never did, even when he signed it. He evidently "did not carefully review the language in the petition before signing", according to an Obama source.

Give me a break! The Statement is as clear as day. Did he never read it? Does a person sign a short and concise highly provocative statement limited to 100 prominent signatories and posted on a web site without bothering to read it?

It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing.

Obama's Approval Ratings Tumble

2009-09-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

I have pointed out in earlier postings how President Obama's personal approval ratings were much higher than approval of his policies, and wondered when this gap would be narrowed. Would Americans continue to strongly approve of the President's performance even though they did not like his policies as much? It appears that the answer to that question is "no".

Polls indicate a steep drop in the President's job approval by Americans. The Rasmussen poll shows for example that only 45% of those polled approve of the President's job performance while 53% disapprove. Gallup Daily tracking shows the President's job approval at 50%. This is a drop of 19% from his high of 69%. The Zogby Interactive Poll shows that 48% disapprove of the President's performance with only 42% approving. Zogby also points out that the sharp drop came from Democrats and from young voters.

The drop in Obama's job approval rating is particularly serious for him because he has yet to deal decisively with two huge problems - health care reform and the war in Afghanistan. One might have thought that with the economy apparently improving and the country backing away from the brink of depression, Obama's popularity would still be high. Not so. The health care reform proposals floating around, especially the public insurance option, are not popular with voters. So if Obama proceeds to push them through, assuming he even can, this should add to his negative numbers. The war in Afghanistan is "Obama's War". He has been campaigning for an aggressive US involvement there even before he became President. Yet it seems that popular support for this military engagement is not strong. So what is Obama to do? Back away from his war, or go full steam ahead?

Here is some trivia. Answer the following questions before you check out the figures.

One:

How long did it take George W Bush to fall below 50% after getting elected?

(a) 6 months
(b) two years
(c) three years

Two:

If Obama falls below 50% before November (and some polls already show him to be well below that), how would this compare to previous Presidents since World War II?

(a) it would place him in the average range
(b) it would be the fastest drop to below 50% ever
(c) it would be the third fastest drop to below 50% ever

Three:

What is the average time it takes to drop below 50%?

(a) 12 months
(b) 18 months
(c) 23 months

For answers, see the Gallup Poll.

Now It's "Heath Slocum's" Turn

2009-08-31T07:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-30T18:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-28T12:42:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-25T20:02:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-20T20:27:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-08-16T16:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-15T17:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-14T18:19:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-03T08:51:00.000-07:00

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.

Sotomayor's Confirmation

2009-07-31T21:46:00.000-07:00

Now a certainty - as I long ago predicted.

Interesting process. Canadians who seem wedded to our judicial appointment process always denigrate the US system as being a "circus" etc. This was no circus - it was dignified, useful and interesting.

I recently was in US and at a dinner with friends. I asked them to name the members of the Court. My doctor pal was able to name 8 of the 9.

Challenge - next time try this out with your friends re the Canadian Supremes. I would be very surprised if they could name very many. Why? Because our system has no transparency. Canadians do not know who is in the running, what their views are, and how they got there. Pity - since the Charter has made them very important players in the lives of all Canadians.

Rewarding Obnoxious Behaviour

2009-07-29T22:54:00.000-07:00

Question:

How can one get invited to the White House, presumably at taxpayer's expense, and have a beer with the President?

Answer:

Be obnoxious.

So, let's see. A Harvard Prof gets incensed because a police officer has the audacity to question his identity. He raises a raucus. He gets arrested.

A police officer, who presumably realizes that the obnoxious "suspect" is who he says he is, decides to teach him a lesson and arrest him anyway for "disorderly conduct". Charges are dropped.

The President of the USA, who in the midst of a economic recession, decides he wants to act like the school Principal, and wades in. He calls the police stupid. He then discovers that perhaps the blame was not entirely on the police, and ( as he is wont to do), backs down .

Now to reward them both (or to "incentivize" their bad behaviour) he invites them both to the White House for a beer.

This is truly a "teachable moment".

Obama And Gates

2009-07-26T00:22:00.000-07:00

Question:

Why would a lawyer, law professor and President of the USA publicly condemn a police officer over an incident about which the former knows nothing?

Question:

How does one "calibrate" one's words???

Just thought I would ask.