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?

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.

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.

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).

Turmoil in Egypt

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

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

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.