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.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Defunding of National Public Radio
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Polarization of the Media
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Party of No Show
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?
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?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Helen Thomas: An Encore Presentation
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.
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.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tiger's Spit
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Egypt ten days later
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
