Monday, February 14, 2011
Learn how to make your article the #1 Google News result for that topic
Within a few minutes after I posted an article I wrote about the Patriot Act on my website, it showed up as the #1 result in a Google News search for "Patriot Act." How did I do this? Part of my social media secret is including a photo next to the article; Google News likes photos. Learn inside secrets like these you won't get anywhere else by registering for my social media seminar on Feb. 24th (or watch the video online later).
Sunday, February 13, 2011
An Afternoon with Bernie Sanders
This afternoon I attended a talk given by Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont. Sanders was in the Boston area promoting his new book The Speech. The book mostly consists of the remarks Sanders made on the Senate floor last December during his filibuster against the tax cut compromise made by President Obama and the incoming Republican Congressional leadership. Sanders' address was essentially a condensed version of the filibuster.
Sanders' remarks took me back to my days with the New Democratic Party (NDP) in my native Canada. His words weren't substantially different from the speeches given over the years by various NDP politicians at which I was present.
Chief amongst Sanders concerns was "the collapse of the middle-class." So what were the signs of this apocalypse in progress? Sanders said the signs were the necessity of two income households, inadequate child care, the highest child poverty rate (it wasn't clear if he was talking about industrialized democracies or the entire world), incarcerating more people in America than in China (I think people in America and China are imprisoned for very different reasons), the decline of the manufacturing sector, outsourcing and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Well, Heavens to Betsy!!! What are we to do? Rest assured Sanders had a solution. He said that we had "to demand corporate America reinvest in this country." And by reinvestment, Sanders means infrastructure. While I don't dispute that there is room for improvement of our physical infrastructure do we really want to saddle taxpayers with a thousand Big Digs?
Sanders also delivered his share of red meat. Of course, it wasn't exactly red meat. This was a latte crowd after all who drank it up when Sanders said the War in Iraq was fought for oil. Sanders also claimed that Republicans have moved to the extreme right. (Of course, the Left has been saying this in earnest since 1964.) Now no left-wing gathering is complete without a strong whif of condescension. Sanders stated that "working-people who are hurting and are told the enemy of everything is government are being brainwashed." In other words, working-people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are too stupid to figure things out on their own because of the "concentration of corporate media." So what's the remedy? Sanders thinks there should be "a dozen Rachel Maddows." I would suggest that one is plenty.
Yet Sanders did catch my attention when he described our current state of affairs as a "fairly dismal political situation." There wasn't exactly a lot of talk about hope and change in Sanders' speech. Although Sanders took the Senate floor because President Obama made a compromise with GOP leaders, he otherwise scarcely mentioned the President. This was question begging.
While I was unable to pose a question to Sanders during the Q&A, I did speak with him briefly after the conclusion of his remarks. Given Sanders' bleak assessment I asked him if he thought President Obama would face either a Democratic primary challenger or an independent challenger on the Left. Sanders replied, "I wouldn't be surprised." But then he quickly added, "But I don't have the answer to that."
I did see a couple of people wearing a "Draft Bernie" sticker. For his part, Sanders has said he doesn't plan to make a bid for the White House but will seek re-election to the Senate in 2012. But the fact that it would come as no surprise to Sanders that President Obama could face a challenger from the Left (possibly within the Democratic Party) indicates to me that Obama hasn't made peace with the Left. While Obama has time to rectify the situation if he doesn't it could prove fatal to his re-election campaign. Thus over the coming months, I think it is worth our while to keep our eye on how the Left behaves towards Obama.
Sanders' remarks took me back to my days with the New Democratic Party (NDP) in my native Canada. His words weren't substantially different from the speeches given over the years by various NDP politicians at which I was present.
Chief amongst Sanders concerns was "the collapse of the middle-class." So what were the signs of this apocalypse in progress? Sanders said the signs were the necessity of two income households, inadequate child care, the highest child poverty rate (it wasn't clear if he was talking about industrialized democracies or the entire world), incarcerating more people in America than in China (I think people in America and China are imprisoned for very different reasons), the decline of the manufacturing sector, outsourcing and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Well, Heavens to Betsy!!! What are we to do? Rest assured Sanders had a solution. He said that we had "to demand corporate America reinvest in this country." And by reinvestment, Sanders means infrastructure. While I don't dispute that there is room for improvement of our physical infrastructure do we really want to saddle taxpayers with a thousand Big Digs?
Sanders also delivered his share of red meat. Of course, it wasn't exactly red meat. This was a latte crowd after all who drank it up when Sanders said the War in Iraq was fought for oil. Sanders also claimed that Republicans have moved to the extreme right. (Of course, the Left has been saying this in earnest since 1964.) Now no left-wing gathering is complete without a strong whif of condescension. Sanders stated that "working-people who are hurting and are told the enemy of everything is government are being brainwashed." In other words, working-people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are too stupid to figure things out on their own because of the "concentration of corporate media." So what's the remedy? Sanders thinks there should be "a dozen Rachel Maddows." I would suggest that one is plenty.
Yet Sanders did catch my attention when he described our current state of affairs as a "fairly dismal political situation." There wasn't exactly a lot of talk about hope and change in Sanders' speech. Although Sanders took the Senate floor because President Obama made a compromise with GOP leaders, he otherwise scarcely mentioned the President. This was question begging.
While I was unable to pose a question to Sanders during the Q&A, I did speak with him briefly after the conclusion of his remarks. Given Sanders' bleak assessment I asked him if he thought President Obama would face either a Democratic primary challenger or an independent challenger on the Left. Sanders replied, "I wouldn't be surprised." But then he quickly added, "But I don't have the answer to that."
I did see a couple of people wearing a "Draft Bernie" sticker. For his part, Sanders has said he doesn't plan to make a bid for the White House but will seek re-election to the Senate in 2012. But the fact that it would come as no surprise to Sanders that President Obama could face a challenger from the Left (possibly within the Democratic Party) indicates to me that Obama hasn't made peace with the Left. While Obama has time to rectify the situation if he doesn't it could prove fatal to his re-election campaign. Thus over the coming months, I think it is worth our while to keep our eye on how the Left behaves towards Obama.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
New gold standard monetary policy site
The Intellectual Conservative welcomes to the World Wide Web the best gold standard monetary policy site we've ever seen, http://thegoldstandardnow.org, sponsored by the Lehrman Institute, chaired by a Commissioner of the Reagan Gold Commission and iconic Reaganite and conservative philanthropist Lewis E. Lehrman.
It's just a great place to learn everything you always wanted to know about the gold standard but were afraid to ask.
And while you are there feel free to sign up for its free breaking news about the gold standard. The gold standard is an issue -- constitutional money -- becoming a hot topic among conservatives in Washington and Tea Partiers around the whole country.
Musharraf Wanted for Bhutto Assassination
A court in Pakistan has issued an arrest warrant for former President Pervez Musharraf in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf has been ordered to appear in a Pakistani court on February 19th. He is currently living in exile in London.
Now one can make the argument that this warrant is motivated solely by politics. After all, Musharraf kept Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's current President and Bhutto's widower in jail for years. To say there is bad blood between the Bhuttos and Musharraf would be an understatement.
One can also make the argument that this warrant is also a response to Musharraf's recent formation of a new political party last October. Musharraf clearly wants to be President of Pakistan again and this could threaten Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and the Pakistan People's Party's hold on power.
Nevertheless something has always bothered me about Musharraf's behavior following Bhutto's assassination in December 2007. Shortly after Bhutto was killed, Musharraf was interviewed by Lara Logan on 60 Minutes and said, "I think it was she to blame alone - nobody else. Responsibility is hers." So does Musharraf mean to tell us the 24 other people who were killed by the suicide bomb was detonated during Bhutto's assassination are solely responsible for their deaths as well?
The fact that Musharraf would absolve the people who intended to kill Bhutto is very disturbing indeed. How does one explain such callousness? There are several possibilities. It is possible that Musharraf simply did not care about Bhutto's fate. If she died then so be it. It is also possible that Musharraf wanted Bhutto killed. If that is the case then it is possible that Musharraf had planned to kill Bhutto, had knowledge of what was going to happen or had otherwise played an indirect role in facilitating her death (i.e. providing inadequate security for Bhutto or instructing security to not be at its most diligent in carrying out its duties.) Naturally, I am curious as to what evidence (if any) Pakistani authorities have with regard to Musharraf's involvement in Bhutto's assassination.
Now I don't think anything is going to happen anytime soon. Musharraf has indicated he plans to return to Pakistan for its next elections in 2013. We'll see if Musharraf is arrested when his plane lands on Pakistani soil.
Now one can make the argument that this warrant is motivated solely by politics. After all, Musharraf kept Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's current President and Bhutto's widower in jail for years. To say there is bad blood between the Bhuttos and Musharraf would be an understatement.
One can also make the argument that this warrant is also a response to Musharraf's recent formation of a new political party last October. Musharraf clearly wants to be President of Pakistan again and this could threaten Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and the Pakistan People's Party's hold on power.
Nevertheless something has always bothered me about Musharraf's behavior following Bhutto's assassination in December 2007. Shortly after Bhutto was killed, Musharraf was interviewed by Lara Logan on 60 Minutes and said, "I think it was she to blame alone - nobody else. Responsibility is hers." So does Musharraf mean to tell us the 24 other people who were killed by the suicide bomb was detonated during Bhutto's assassination are solely responsible for their deaths as well?
The fact that Musharraf would absolve the people who intended to kill Bhutto is very disturbing indeed. How does one explain such callousness? There are several possibilities. It is possible that Musharraf simply did not care about Bhutto's fate. If she died then so be it. It is also possible that Musharraf wanted Bhutto killed. If that is the case then it is possible that Musharraf had planned to kill Bhutto, had knowledge of what was going to happen or had otherwise played an indirect role in facilitating her death (i.e. providing inadequate security for Bhutto or instructing security to not be at its most diligent in carrying out its duties.) Naturally, I am curious as to what evidence (if any) Pakistani authorities have with regard to Musharraf's involvement in Bhutto's assassination.
Now I don't think anything is going to happen anytime soon. Musharraf has indicated he plans to return to Pakistan for its next elections in 2013. We'll see if Musharraf is arrested when his plane lands on Pakistani soil.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Chuck Tanner, 1929-2011. R.I.P.
Longtime former major league manager Chuck Tanner has passed away at the age of 81.
Tanner is best known for guiding the Pittsburgh Pirates to their last World Series title in 1979. This was the "We Are Family" Pirates which included the likes of the late Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Omar Moreno, Kent Tekulve and the Cooperstown bound Bert Blyleven.
The Pirates hired Tanner in a most unusual way. Prior to the 1977 season, Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley offered Tanner's services along with $100,000 to the Pirates in exchange for catcher Manny Sanguillen. Ironically, the A's would trade Sanguillen back to Pittsburgh the following season and would earn a World Series ring with the rest of the family in 1979.
Tanner would remain with the Bucs through the 1985 season although they never replicated their triumph of '79. He then managed the Atlanta Braves for three forgettable seasons. Prior to managing in Pittsburgh, Tanner had also managed the Chicago White Sox from 1970-1975 and the A's during the '76 season. In all, Tanner managed in the big leagues for nearly two decades. Tanner also played in the big leagues for eight seasons as an outfielder with the Milwaukee Braves, Chicago Cubs, Cleveland Indians and the Los Angeles Angels.
In more recent years, Tanner had worked in the front office of the Indians before returning to Pittsburgh in 2007 as a special advisor to Pirates GM Neal Huntington.
Tanner was held in high regard by his players. Former big league infielder Mike Andrews said of Tanner in a 2002 interview, "If you couldn't play for Chuck Tanner you couldn't play for anybody." Andrews, who now serves as the Chairman of the Jimmy Fund, also described Tanner as "the most positive person I have ever met."
As Ronald Reagan said, "Not bad. Not bad at all."
Tanner is best known for guiding the Pittsburgh Pirates to their last World Series title in 1979. This was the "We Are Family" Pirates which included the likes of the late Willie Stargell, Dave Parker, Omar Moreno, Kent Tekulve and the Cooperstown bound Bert Blyleven.
The Pirates hired Tanner in a most unusual way. Prior to the 1977 season, Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley offered Tanner's services along with $100,000 to the Pirates in exchange for catcher Manny Sanguillen. Ironically, the A's would trade Sanguillen back to Pittsburgh the following season and would earn a World Series ring with the rest of the family in 1979.
Tanner would remain with the Bucs through the 1985 season although they never replicated their triumph of '79. He then managed the Atlanta Braves for three forgettable seasons. Prior to managing in Pittsburgh, Tanner had also managed the Chicago White Sox from 1970-1975 and the A's during the '76 season. In all, Tanner managed in the big leagues for nearly two decades. Tanner also played in the big leagues for eight seasons as an outfielder with the Milwaukee Braves, Chicago Cubs, Cleveland Indians and the Los Angeles Angels.
In more recent years, Tanner had worked in the front office of the Indians before returning to Pittsburgh in 2007 as a special advisor to Pirates GM Neal Huntington.
Tanner was held in high regard by his players. Former big league infielder Mike Andrews said of Tanner in a 2002 interview, "If you couldn't play for Chuck Tanner you couldn't play for anybody." Andrews, who now serves as the Chairman of the Jimmy Fund, also described Tanner as "the most positive person I have ever met."
As Ronald Reagan said, "Not bad. Not bad at all."
Mubarak Resigns; Leaves Cairo
It appears that Hosni Mubarak has resigned as President of Egypt as he has left Cairo.
When Mubarak announced on February 1st that he would not seek another term in office in September I asked, "Do you think Egyptians are prepared to put up with Mubarak for six more days much less six more months?"
O.K., it was ten days. But you get my point.
So now comes the $64.37 question. Will it be enough to mollify the people of Egypt until elections are held?
Does anyone think it's a bad omen Mubarak leaves office 32 years to the day the Shah of Iran left office?
When Mubarak announced on February 1st that he would not seek another term in office in September I asked, "Do you think Egyptians are prepared to put up with Mubarak for six more days much less six more months?"
O.K., it was ten days. But you get my point.
So now comes the $64.37 question. Will it be enough to mollify the people of Egypt until elections are held?
Does anyone think it's a bad omen Mubarak leaves office 32 years to the day the Shah of Iran left office?
Ahmadinejad Praises Egyptian Uprisings While Cracking Down on Iran's Opposition
Today, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked the 32nd anniversary of the Iranian Revolution by praising the uprisings in Egypt.
Of course, Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have no such tolerance for demonstrations in their streets. Opposition leaders had requested permission to demonstrate on February 14th (ostensibly in support of Egyptian demonstrators). Not only has the opposition been denied their application but their leaders and key supporters have been placed under arrest as well as blocking their websites.
It should be noted that State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley did take Iran to task for their "hypocrisy" on this matter. Yet it must also be noted there is a hypocrisy within the Obama Administration on this matter. Why do they support regime change in Egypt but not in Iran?
Of course, Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have no such tolerance for demonstrations in their streets. Opposition leaders had requested permission to demonstrate on February 14th (ostensibly in support of Egyptian demonstrators). Not only has the opposition been denied their application but their leaders and key supporters have been placed under arrest as well as blocking their websites.
It should be noted that State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley did take Iran to task for their "hypocrisy" on this matter. Yet it must also be noted there is a hypocrisy within the Obama Administration on this matter. Why do they support regime change in Egypt but not in Iran?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Trump Card
Despite his appearance before CPAC today, I don't know if Donald Trump will throw his hat into the GOP Presidential race. No one will until June.
Of course, if he does it will make things very interesting. A Trump candidacy offers both advantages and disadvantages.
Advantage #1: Trump is already a household name and has been for at least a quarter century. He isn't someone like Tim Pawlenty who is still trying to build name recognition outside of Minnesota.
Advantage #2: When people think of Trump they think of a successful businessman. If the economy is still in the doldrums in 2012 his candidacy could prove to be an attractive one. Should Trump seek the GOP nomination he could potentially cancel out Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney, Trump didn't initiate mini-Obamacare and never said "mandates are good."
Advantage #3: Trump isn't a shrinking violet. He'll go toe to toe with Obama. The presidential debates could be a lot of fun. Trump plays for keeps. I'm not sure if someone like Mike Huckabee is willing to get down and dirty with Obama.
Advantage #4: Money!!! Even if Trump doesn't win the GOP nomination he has the resources to launch an independent run for President.
Disadvantage #1: One thing Trump has in common with Obama is they are both very thin skinned. When Trump gets challenged he can be quite unpleasant as he was with Bill O'Reilly during his feud with Rosie O'Donnell. That might not work so well in an interview with someone like Diane Sawyer or Katie Couric.
Disadvantage #2: The Donald isn't exactly likable. While President Obama's policies aren't popular the President still is. If in 18 months time, people are more at ease with Obama then Trump then Obama calls the White House home for another four years.
However, this isn't necessarily insurmountable. If Trump can convince people there is difference between being liked and being respected and that he wants the respect of the American people (and by extension greater respect for America from abroad) then he could overcome Obama's appeal.
Disadvantage #3: Can you see Trump trudging through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire, eating in diners and sleeping in the homes of his supporters? I can't.
Disadvantage #4: Trump is more left-wing than Obama on foreign policy and defense. Let's not forget he was more pessimistic about the War in Iraq than Harry Reid and accused President Bush about lying about WMDs and "everything." This is also the same man who said, "Saddam Hussein will be a nice person compared to the person who takes over." Anyone who uses Saddam Hussein and nice person in the same sentence should give one pause.
If it's Trump vs. Obama (and that's a very big if) it will be a case of me casting a ballot against Obama rather than for Trump. I hope it's not a choice we have to face in November 2012.
Of course, if he does it will make things very interesting. A Trump candidacy offers both advantages and disadvantages.
Advantage #1: Trump is already a household name and has been for at least a quarter century. He isn't someone like Tim Pawlenty who is still trying to build name recognition outside of Minnesota.
Advantage #2: When people think of Trump they think of a successful businessman. If the economy is still in the doldrums in 2012 his candidacy could prove to be an attractive one. Should Trump seek the GOP nomination he could potentially cancel out Mitt Romney. Unlike Romney, Trump didn't initiate mini-Obamacare and never said "mandates are good."
Advantage #3: Trump isn't a shrinking violet. He'll go toe to toe with Obama. The presidential debates could be a lot of fun. Trump plays for keeps. I'm not sure if someone like Mike Huckabee is willing to get down and dirty with Obama.
Advantage #4: Money!!! Even if Trump doesn't win the GOP nomination he has the resources to launch an independent run for President.
Disadvantage #1: One thing Trump has in common with Obama is they are both very thin skinned. When Trump gets challenged he can be quite unpleasant as he was with Bill O'Reilly during his feud with Rosie O'Donnell. That might not work so well in an interview with someone like Diane Sawyer or Katie Couric.
Disadvantage #2: The Donald isn't exactly likable. While President Obama's policies aren't popular the President still is. If in 18 months time, people are more at ease with Obama then Trump then Obama calls the White House home for another four years.
However, this isn't necessarily insurmountable. If Trump can convince people there is difference between being liked and being respected and that he wants the respect of the American people (and by extension greater respect for America from abroad) then he could overcome Obama's appeal.
Disadvantage #3: Can you see Trump trudging through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire, eating in diners and sleeping in the homes of his supporters? I can't.
Disadvantage #4: Trump is more left-wing than Obama on foreign policy and defense. Let's not forget he was more pessimistic about the War in Iraq than Harry Reid and accused President Bush about lying about WMDs and "everything." This is also the same man who said, "Saddam Hussein will be a nice person compared to the person who takes over." Anyone who uses Saddam Hussein and nice person in the same sentence should give one pause.
If it's Trump vs. Obama (and that's a very big if) it will be a case of me casting a ballot against Obama rather than for Trump. I hope it's not a choice we have to face in November 2012.
A Clapper Caper
I am in agreement with Jeffrey Lord when he says James Clapper should resign as Director of National Intelligence.
The Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular"?
Perhaps Clapper will soon declare that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't anti-Semitic.
I can only imagine what Sgt. Joe Friday would have thought of the absurdity of it all.
The Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular"?
Perhaps Clapper will soon declare that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't anti-Semitic.
I can only imagine what Sgt. Joe Friday would have thought of the absurdity of it all.
Egyptian Tea & Kool-Aid
Yesterday, John Guardiano told us criticizing the Egyptian protesters for anti-Semitism was akin to accusing Tea Party activists of racism.
Today, Guardiano claims the origins of the anti-Semitic signs are in doubt:
Indeed, for all we know, these relatively few anti-Semitic signs were produced by pro-Mubarak thugs determined to discredit the protesters in the eyes of the Western media.
Evidence please.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for Guardiano to answer Jim Antle's question to how the United States should support liberal democratic principles and modernizing institutions in Egypt.
Today, Guardiano claims the origins of the anti-Semitic signs are in doubt:
Indeed, for all we know, these relatively few anti-Semitic signs were produced by pro-Mubarak thugs determined to discredit the protesters in the eyes of the Western media.
Evidence please.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for Guardiano to answer Jim Antle's question to how the United States should support liberal democratic principles and modernizing institutions in Egypt.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Egyptian Tea?
Instead of answering Jim Antle's eminently reasonable question as to how the United States should support liberal democratic principles and modernizing institutions in Egypt, John Guardiano takes the easy way out.
Now it seems that criticizing anti-Semitic behavior of Egyptian protesters is akin to accusing Tea Party activists of racism. Guardiano writes:
Indeed, the Left discovers within the Tea Party movement a few wholly unrepresentative instances of questionable racial rhetoric and racially-tinged signs; and it declares that the Tea Party is racist and animated by a hatred of black people. This is not true, of course, as anyone familiar with the Tea Party movement knows.
Yet Guardiano seems to step back from his assertion scarcely three paragraphs later:
Now, the analogy is inexact because anti-Semitism is, in fact, widespread in Egypt and the Middle East. By contrast, in America -- and certainly within the Tea Party movement -- racism has been marginalized.
Not only is Guardiano's analogy inexact, it's downright specious. He's comparing apples with zucchini. As I have noted here previously, 95% of Egyptians questioned in a 2009 Pew Research Survey have a negative attitude towards Jews and Israel. Anti-Semitism is such a powerful force in Egyptian life (and indeed throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world) that it cannot be swept under the rug. Guardiano is more than welcome to check out its prevalence.
Let's put it this way. If one were to display an anti-Semitic sign in public in Egypt it would not be cause for ostracism. Rather it would be an expression of mainstream opinion. Yet if one were to display a racist sign in public in the United States that person is sure to be shunned and deservedly so. Outside of rape and murder, racism is the worst thing one can be accused of in the United States.
I don't deny for a moment that the Mubarak regime is authoritarian and does not have a great history of tolerating non-violent dissent. I don't deny for a moment that there are activists in Egypt who would like a Western style representative, secular democracy. But we also must not deny the Muslim Brotherhood is better organized than the secular forces in Egypt. And we also cannot deny that anti-Semitism is a significant force in Egypt and that force could be manifested into a regime prepared to find common cause with America's enemies (i.e. al Qaeda and Iran), end peace with Israel and go to war with the Jewish State. If the Obama Administration is hell bent on regime change in Egypt they had better damn well know what they will be getting after Mubarak is gone. Otherwise, America could pay a very heavy price.
It's all the more reason for John Guardiano to tell us how the United States can help Egyptian democracy activists not aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood to articulate liberal democratic principles and build modern institutions in their country. I am eager to hear his suggestions.
Now it seems that criticizing anti-Semitic behavior of Egyptian protesters is akin to accusing Tea Party activists of racism. Guardiano writes:
Indeed, the Left discovers within the Tea Party movement a few wholly unrepresentative instances of questionable racial rhetoric and racially-tinged signs; and it declares that the Tea Party is racist and animated by a hatred of black people. This is not true, of course, as anyone familiar with the Tea Party movement knows.
Yet Guardiano seems to step back from his assertion scarcely three paragraphs later:
Now, the analogy is inexact because anti-Semitism is, in fact, widespread in Egypt and the Middle East. By contrast, in America -- and certainly within the Tea Party movement -- racism has been marginalized.
Not only is Guardiano's analogy inexact, it's downright specious. He's comparing apples with zucchini. As I have noted here previously, 95% of Egyptians questioned in a 2009 Pew Research Survey have a negative attitude towards Jews and Israel. Anti-Semitism is such a powerful force in Egyptian life (and indeed throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world) that it cannot be swept under the rug. Guardiano is more than welcome to check out its prevalence.
Let's put it this way. If one were to display an anti-Semitic sign in public in Egypt it would not be cause for ostracism. Rather it would be an expression of mainstream opinion. Yet if one were to display a racist sign in public in the United States that person is sure to be shunned and deservedly so. Outside of rape and murder, racism is the worst thing one can be accused of in the United States.
I don't deny for a moment that the Mubarak regime is authoritarian and does not have a great history of tolerating non-violent dissent. I don't deny for a moment that there are activists in Egypt who would like a Western style representative, secular democracy. But we also must not deny the Muslim Brotherhood is better organized than the secular forces in Egypt. And we also cannot deny that anti-Semitism is a significant force in Egypt and that force could be manifested into a regime prepared to find common cause with America's enemies (i.e. al Qaeda and Iran), end peace with Israel and go to war with the Jewish State. If the Obama Administration is hell bent on regime change in Egypt they had better damn well know what they will be getting after Mubarak is gone. Otherwise, America could pay a very heavy price.
It's all the more reason for John Guardiano to tell us how the United States can help Egyptian democracy activists not aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood to articulate liberal democratic principles and build modern institutions in their country. I am eager to hear his suggestions.
Jeff Jacoby Gets It Right on The Muslim Brotherhood
I would strongly recommend reading Jeff Jacoby's magnificent column in The Boston Globe today on The Muslim Brotherhood.
When you consider the effort being made to minimize the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by the likes of Stephen Walt, Tariq Ramadan and, perhaps most notably, Mohammed ElBaradei; Jacoby's words shatter any illusion of moderation or prudence or efficacy for liberal democracy as we understand it on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood:
If Egypt is to have any hope of a transition to a genuine constitutional democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood must not be treated as a legitimate democratic partner. For more than 80 years, it has been a fervent exponent of Islamic, not secular, rule; of clerical, not democratic, sovereignty. Its credo could hardly be more explicit, or more antidemocratic: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.''
The Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader has publicly called for raising young "mujaheddin'' - holy warriors - "who love to die as much as others love to live and who can perform their duty towards their God, themselves and homeland.'' This week, senior Brotherhood figure Kamal al-Halbavi said his wish for Egypt is "a good government like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.''
Democracy is flexible, but even in the best of circumstances it is incompatible with religious totalitarianism. What the Muslim Brotherhood seeks is the very antithesis of democratic pluralism and a free civil society. Egypt's friends must say so, clearly and emphatically.
For those of you who are eager to see Mubarak leave office immediately please be careful for what you wish because you just might get it.
When you consider the effort being made to minimize the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by the likes of Stephen Walt, Tariq Ramadan and, perhaps most notably, Mohammed ElBaradei; Jacoby's words shatter any illusion of moderation or prudence or efficacy for liberal democracy as we understand it on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood:
If Egypt is to have any hope of a transition to a genuine constitutional democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood must not be treated as a legitimate democratic partner. For more than 80 years, it has been a fervent exponent of Islamic, not secular, rule; of clerical, not democratic, sovereignty. Its credo could hardly be more explicit, or more antidemocratic: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.''
The Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader has publicly called for raising young "mujaheddin'' - holy warriors - "who love to die as much as others love to live and who can perform their duty towards their God, themselves and homeland.'' This week, senior Brotherhood figure Kamal al-Halbavi said his wish for Egypt is "a good government like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.''
Democracy is flexible, but even in the best of circumstances it is incompatible with religious totalitarianism. What the Muslim Brotherhood seeks is the very antithesis of democratic pluralism and a free civil society. Egypt's friends must say so, clearly and emphatically.
For those of you who are eager to see Mubarak leave office immediately please be careful for what you wish because you just might get it.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Please See Iranium
Tonight I had the opportunity to see Iranium, a documentary about the Iranian regime and its apocalyptic intentions towards the United States, Israel and the entire world.
Should this documentary come to your community please take an hour out of your life to see it. If it doesn't come to your community then you can watch it online here for a limited time. You can also order the film on DVD. Iranium features amongst others former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Cliff May and Professor Bernard Lewis.
Make no mistake. This isn't light entertainment. It is very sobering. Yet it is a story that must be told. I get the sense that while many people understand the Iranian regime is brutal to its own people. However, I also get the sense a lot of people don't think Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are actually prepared to use nuclear weapons against Israel, the United States or anyone else. If Iranium doesn't convince you of the evil the Iranian regime then nothing will.
For their part, the Iranian regime is spooked about this film. Last month, I wrote about how the Iranian regime tried to prevent Iranium from being shown in Canada. What the Iranians didn't count on was the intervention of James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who ordered the National Library and Archives of Canada to show the film. While at tonight's screening I learned that Iranium was shown in Ottawa this past Sunday to a capacity crowd.
Following the screening, we heard from two Iranian exiles - Siavash Sartipi and Parya Ahangari. Both are involved with the Confederation of Iranian Students. During the Q&A, I asked Sartipi if he was perplexed and puzzled that the Obama Administration seems to want regime change in Egypt but not in Iran. Sartipi replied that he was perplexed and puzzled as to why Obama is not prepared to "meddle" in Iran but prepared to do so in Egypt. He certainly isn't the only one.
I'll say it once more. Please see Iranium.
Should this documentary come to your community please take an hour out of your life to see it. If it doesn't come to your community then you can watch it online here for a limited time. You can also order the film on DVD. Iranium features amongst others former UN Ambassador John Bolton, Cliff May and Professor Bernard Lewis.
Make no mistake. This isn't light entertainment. It is very sobering. Yet it is a story that must be told. I get the sense that while many people understand the Iranian regime is brutal to its own people. However, I also get the sense a lot of people don't think Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are actually prepared to use nuclear weapons against Israel, the United States or anyone else. If Iranium doesn't convince you of the evil the Iranian regime then nothing will.
For their part, the Iranian regime is spooked about this film. Last month, I wrote about how the Iranian regime tried to prevent Iranium from being shown in Canada. What the Iranians didn't count on was the intervention of James Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who ordered the National Library and Archives of Canada to show the film. While at tonight's screening I learned that Iranium was shown in Ottawa this past Sunday to a capacity crowd.
Following the screening, we heard from two Iranian exiles - Siavash Sartipi and Parya Ahangari. Both are involved with the Confederation of Iranian Students. During the Q&A, I asked Sartipi if he was perplexed and puzzled that the Obama Administration seems to want regime change in Egypt but not in Iran. Sartipi replied that he was perplexed and puzzled as to why Obama is not prepared to "meddle" in Iran but prepared to do so in Egypt. He certainly isn't the only one.
I'll say it once more. Please see Iranium.
Egyptian Anti-Semitism
It seems that John Guardiano doesn't take kindly to me drawing attention to the anti-Semitic imagery being put to use by some of the protesters in Egypt:
Aaron Goldstein discovers some examples of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment amid the hundreds of thousands of Egyptian protesters and declares that, voilà ! -- the protesters "hold Israel responsible for their lot in life under Mubarak."
Well, here's what I actually wrote, "If Egyptian protesters consider Mubarak a tool of Israel is it really a stretch that to think these protesters hold Israel responsible for their lot in life under Mubarak?"
I am simply asking a question. As someone who is vocally supporting this movement in Egypt, Guardiano should be all for asking questions. If some of the Egyptian protesters have no qualms about the use of anti-Semitic imagery then why is it so unreasonable to ask about the public manifestation of these attitudes? I don't know why Guardiano is so troubled by this question.
Alas, Guardiano is content to dismiss the anti-Semitism of some of the protesters. Why? Because The New York Times says so. OK, maybe Nicholas Kristof saw only one anti-Semitic sign. Well, he can take a look at these others. Somehow I find it hard to believe there aren't more where those came from.
Aaron Goldstein discovers some examples of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment amid the hundreds of thousands of Egyptian protesters and declares that, voilà ! -- the protesters "hold Israel responsible for their lot in life under Mubarak."
Well, here's what I actually wrote, "If Egyptian protesters consider Mubarak a tool of Israel is it really a stretch that to think these protesters hold Israel responsible for their lot in life under Mubarak?"
I am simply asking a question. As someone who is vocally supporting this movement in Egypt, Guardiano should be all for asking questions. If some of the Egyptian protesters have no qualms about the use of anti-Semitic imagery then why is it so unreasonable to ask about the public manifestation of these attitudes? I don't know why Guardiano is so troubled by this question.
Alas, Guardiano is content to dismiss the anti-Semitism of some of the protesters. Why? Because The New York Times says so. OK, maybe Nicholas Kristof saw only one anti-Semitic sign. Well, he can take a look at these others. Somehow I find it hard to believe there aren't more where those came from.
There's More Than One Way to Sing Our National Anthem
I am glad Quin Hillyer drew our attention to Mark Corallo's column on Christina Aguilera and The Star Spangled Banner.
However, unlike Quin I did not find Corallo's words to be Ruthian in their proportion. While Babe Ruth may have hit 714 homeruns he also struck out 1,330 times in his career. In this instance, I think Corallo swung and missed:
So, with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from the costumes, the makeup and the entourages.
But such an argument assumes that all Americans are taught the "Star Spangled Banner" in exactly the same way. As I pointed out here yesterday, Aguilera has been singing our national anthem at sporting events for two decades. Given that Aguilera essentially sings our anthem the same way at 30 as she did at 10 there is every reason to believe this is exactly how she was taught to sing it in kindergarten. Until Aguilera made her unfortunate gaffe at Super Bowl XLV I doubt any WWII veteran went to the trouble of complaining about how she interpreted the song.
Which brings me to this point. Corallo's argument also implies there is only one way to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" and that any deviation from said way is akin to defaming our men and women in uniform. Yet our veterans aren't a monolithic bloc. While our soldiers fight for a common cause it doesn't mean they always march to the same tune. Any true lover of music knows there is no one exact way to interpret a piece of music. Of course, the general public might accept one version of the same song over another. But to suggest that other interpretations of our national anthem are out of bounds is contrary to the nature of making music.
My favorite versions of "The Star Spangled Banner" are the ones done by artists who experimented with the arrangements. First and foremost, there was Jose Feliciano's performance prior to Game 5 of the 1968 World Series at Tiger Stadium. Feliciano recalled nearly forty years later how the anger at his performance damaged his music career. But it must have made an impression on Marvin Gaye. He had sung the anthem prior to the Game 3 of the '68 Series and had done it the "proper way." A year before his untimely death, Gaye sung a memorable version of "The Star Spangled Banner" prior to the 1983 NBA All-Star Game at The Forum in Inglewood, California. While Feliciano received a decidedly mixed reaction in Detroit, the audience in Southern California was clapping along with Gaye.
But perhaps my favorite of all was Smokey Robinson's rendition prior to Game 5 of the 1986 World Series at Boston's Fenway Park. Robinson beautifully and seamlessly incorporated "America The Beautiful" into the anthem. The idea that Jose Feliciano, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson or for that matter, Christina Aguilera set out to offend members of the U.S. military with their interpretation of "The Star Spangled Banner" is just plain silly.
However, unlike Quin I did not find Corallo's words to be Ruthian in their proportion. While Babe Ruth may have hit 714 homeruns he also struck out 1,330 times in his career. In this instance, I think Corallo swung and missed:
So, with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten - straight up, no styling. Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don't make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love - not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from the costumes, the makeup and the entourages.
But such an argument assumes that all Americans are taught the "Star Spangled Banner" in exactly the same way. As I pointed out here yesterday, Aguilera has been singing our national anthem at sporting events for two decades. Given that Aguilera essentially sings our anthem the same way at 30 as she did at 10 there is every reason to believe this is exactly how she was taught to sing it in kindergarten. Until Aguilera made her unfortunate gaffe at Super Bowl XLV I doubt any WWII veteran went to the trouble of complaining about how she interpreted the song.
Which brings me to this point. Corallo's argument also implies there is only one way to sing "The Star Spangled Banner" and that any deviation from said way is akin to defaming our men and women in uniform. Yet our veterans aren't a monolithic bloc. While our soldiers fight for a common cause it doesn't mean they always march to the same tune. Any true lover of music knows there is no one exact way to interpret a piece of music. Of course, the general public might accept one version of the same song over another. But to suggest that other interpretations of our national anthem are out of bounds is contrary to the nature of making music.
My favorite versions of "The Star Spangled Banner" are the ones done by artists who experimented with the arrangements. First and foremost, there was Jose Feliciano's performance prior to Game 5 of the 1968 World Series at Tiger Stadium. Feliciano recalled nearly forty years later how the anger at his performance damaged his music career. But it must have made an impression on Marvin Gaye. He had sung the anthem prior to the Game 3 of the '68 Series and had done it the "proper way." A year before his untimely death, Gaye sung a memorable version of "The Star Spangled Banner" prior to the 1983 NBA All-Star Game at The Forum in Inglewood, California. While Feliciano received a decidedly mixed reaction in Detroit, the audience in Southern California was clapping along with Gaye.
But perhaps my favorite of all was Smokey Robinson's rendition prior to Game 5 of the 1986 World Series at Boston's Fenway Park. Robinson beautifully and seamlessly incorporated "America The Beautiful" into the anthem. The idea that Jose Feliciano, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson or for that matter, Christina Aguilera set out to offend members of the U.S. military with their interpretation of "The Star Spangled Banner" is just plain silly.
Olbermann's Future at Current TV
Now that Keith Olbermann will become the face of Current TV what will become of his future?
Matthew Harrigan of Wunderlich Securities predicts a bright one for Olbermann stating his presence on the network (which was co-founded by former Vice-President Al Gore) could increase its ratings tenfold. But is that really saying very much? By Harrigan's own numbers, Current TV currently draws 20,000 to 30,000 viewers in primetime. So let's say Harrigan is correct and Olbermann boosts the network's ratings to 300,000 viewers. Well, Bill O'Reilly typically draws ten times as many viewers.
Olbermann will probably end up being to Current TV what Dan Rather is to HDNet. Both will toil in relative obscurity.
Well, at least, I can take solace that the onetime pre-game host for Fox Saturday Baseball won't be on the MLB Network.
Matthew Harrigan of Wunderlich Securities predicts a bright one for Olbermann stating his presence on the network (which was co-founded by former Vice-President Al Gore) could increase its ratings tenfold. But is that really saying very much? By Harrigan's own numbers, Current TV currently draws 20,000 to 30,000 viewers in primetime. So let's say Harrigan is correct and Olbermann boosts the network's ratings to 300,000 viewers. Well, Bill O'Reilly typically draws ten times as many viewers.
Olbermann will probably end up being to Current TV what Dan Rather is to HDNet. Both will toil in relative obscurity.
Well, at least, I can take solace that the onetime pre-game host for Fox Saturday Baseball won't be on the MLB Network.
I Hate to be Cavalier But....
Things aren't going so well for the Cleveland Cavaliers since King LeBron James left his court.
Less than two years removed from the NBA Final, the Cavaliers have amassed an NBA record 25 consecutive losses after falling 99-96 to the Dallas Mavericks last night.
The previous mark for consecutive losses was set during the 1981-82/1982-83 seasons by, you guessed it, the Cleveland Cavaliers who lost 24 consecutive games. The late Chuck Daly, who went to far greater success with the Detroit Pistons and the 1992 U.S. Olympic Dream Team, was the head coach for part of that losing streak.
You know things are bad in Cleveland when people starting looking forward to the Indians breaking camp for spring training. Well, sort of.
Less than two years removed from the NBA Final, the Cavaliers have amassed an NBA record 25 consecutive losses after falling 99-96 to the Dallas Mavericks last night.
The previous mark for consecutive losses was set during the 1981-82/1982-83 seasons by, you guessed it, the Cleveland Cavaliers who lost 24 consecutive games. The late Chuck Daly, who went to far greater success with the Detroit Pistons and the 1992 U.S. Olympic Dream Team, was the head coach for part of that losing streak.
You know things are bad in Cleveland when people starting looking forward to the Indians breaking camp for spring training. Well, sort of.
Monday, February 7, 2011
In Defense of Christina Aguilera
There's no denying that when one mangles up "The Star Spangled Banner" and does so in front of a worldwide audience you are going to draw attention to yourself for all the wrong reasons.
Yet I think it's grossly unfair to mention Christina Aguilera's flawed rendition of our national anthem in the same breath with Roseanne Barr who intentionally dissed Francis Scott Key in San Diego more than twenty years ago.
It is worth noting that Aguilera has sung "The Star Spangled Banner" on other occasions including Game 7 of the NBA Final without incident. In fact, she's been singing the national anthem at sporting events since she was 11-years old. So when Aguilera says she "lost her place" I believe her.
It's not unheard of for singers to forget the lyrics to their own songs. Paul McCartney admits as much. Indeed, when I saw McCartney perform in Boston in 2005 he forgot the lyrics to "I Will". He just stopped cold right in the middle of the song. But the former Beatle addressed the matter with good humor stating, "Well, at least you know it's live."
Granted, you can't do that with "The Star Spangled Banner." Aguilera had little other choice but to finish the song and apologize for it later. The best remedy would be if Aguilera gets a chance to sing the "Star Spangled Banner" at a big event as soon as possible (i.e. Opening Day at Fenway Park). Or perhaps she could redeem herself at Super Bowl XLVI.
In the meantime, let's cut Christina Aguilera some slack. Besides how many singers can hold their own with Tony Bennett?
Yet I think it's grossly unfair to mention Christina Aguilera's flawed rendition of our national anthem in the same breath with Roseanne Barr who intentionally dissed Francis Scott Key in San Diego more than twenty years ago.
It is worth noting that Aguilera has sung "The Star Spangled Banner" on other occasions including Game 7 of the NBA Final without incident. In fact, she's been singing the national anthem at sporting events since she was 11-years old. So when Aguilera says she "lost her place" I believe her.
It's not unheard of for singers to forget the lyrics to their own songs. Paul McCartney admits as much. Indeed, when I saw McCartney perform in Boston in 2005 he forgot the lyrics to "I Will". He just stopped cold right in the middle of the song. But the former Beatle addressed the matter with good humor stating, "Well, at least you know it's live."
Granted, you can't do that with "The Star Spangled Banner." Aguilera had little other choice but to finish the song and apologize for it later. The best remedy would be if Aguilera gets a chance to sing the "Star Spangled Banner" at a big event as soon as possible (i.e. Opening Day at Fenway Park). Or perhaps she could redeem herself at Super Bowl XLVI.
In the meantime, let's cut Christina Aguilera some slack. Besides how many singers can hold their own with Tony Bennett?
Lupica Spouts Nonsense About Palin & Egypt
I have just read Mike Lupica's snarky column in the New York Daily News with regard to Sarah Palin's statements on the political situation in Egypt.
Lupica, who is best known as a baseball writer, lambasted Palin's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network which is set to air on the 700 Club today. He writes, "So Palin showed up on CBN to weigh in on Egypt, maybe because she thought all the real news outlets were taken." Well, I guess this will earn Lupica a few more invitations from the limosuine liberal and champagne socialist set on the Upper West Side. But let's consider this sentence:
She also questions the motives of the people in the street, the ones whose courage will make Egypt a better place when this is all over, whoever is in charge next month, or next fall.
Suffice it to say, I think Lupica swings and misses on this point. How can Lupica say with absolute certainty that Egypt will be a better place when this is all over? How can Lupica say with absolute certainty that this will be over in a month or in nine months? And how can he assume with absolute certainty that Mubarak's successor will be an improvement? If anything Lupica reminds me of Andrew Young. When Young was our Ambassador to the United Nations he referred to the Ayatollah Khomeini as "some kind of saint." And then his regime took U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran hostage.
So under the circumstances I think Sarah Palin is being absolutely prudent when she states, "We want to be able to trust those who are screaming for democracy there in Egypt, that it is a true sincere desire for freedoms." Palin would like to hope that Egypt will be a better place than it is now but she cannot be certain it will turn out that way. Now there are certainly demonstrators who want a liberal, secular democracy in Egypt. But when you consider that the demonstrators are more apt to hold signs of Mubarak with a Star of David drawn on his forehead than build a replica of the Statue of Liberty it ought to make the Mike Lupicas of the world pause for thought.
Lupica, who is best known as a baseball writer, lambasted Palin's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network which is set to air on the 700 Club today. He writes, "So Palin showed up on CBN to weigh in on Egypt, maybe because she thought all the real news outlets were taken." Well, I guess this will earn Lupica a few more invitations from the limosuine liberal and champagne socialist set on the Upper West Side. But let's consider this sentence:
She also questions the motives of the people in the street, the ones whose courage will make Egypt a better place when this is all over, whoever is in charge next month, or next fall.
Suffice it to say, I think Lupica swings and misses on this point. How can Lupica say with absolute certainty that Egypt will be a better place when this is all over? How can Lupica say with absolute certainty that this will be over in a month or in nine months? And how can he assume with absolute certainty that Mubarak's successor will be an improvement? If anything Lupica reminds me of Andrew Young. When Young was our Ambassador to the United Nations he referred to the Ayatollah Khomeini as "some kind of saint." And then his regime took U.S. embassy personnel in Tehran hostage.
So under the circumstances I think Sarah Palin is being absolutely prudent when she states, "We want to be able to trust those who are screaming for democracy there in Egypt, that it is a true sincere desire for freedoms." Palin would like to hope that Egypt will be a better place than it is now but she cannot be certain it will turn out that way. Now there are certainly demonstrators who want a liberal, secular democracy in Egypt. But when you consider that the demonstrators are more apt to hold signs of Mubarak with a Star of David drawn on his forehead than build a replica of the Statue of Liberty it ought to make the Mike Lupicas of the world pause for thought.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood
And the Cheeseheads are ecstatic.
Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers for winning their first Super Bowl in fourteen years with a 31-25 victory over the Pitttsburgh Steelers.
Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was named Super Bowl XLV MVP as he threw three touchdowns and passed for over 300 yards. Lambeau Field is now Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood. I'm sure the Packers faithful are also asking, "Brett Who?"
Yet I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the performance of the Steelers. Despite being down 21-3 with 2:24 in the 2nd quarter, the Steelers fought back and were in the game until its final minute. They have nothing for which to be ashamed.
Of course, a lot of people watch the game for the commercials. My favorite? The Stella Artois commercial with Adrien Brody as a crooner. It had a European film noir art house quality to it.
Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers for winning their first Super Bowl in fourteen years with a 31-25 victory over the Pitttsburgh Steelers.
Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was named Super Bowl XLV MVP as he threw three touchdowns and passed for over 300 yards. Lambeau Field is now Mr. Rodgers' Neighborhood. I'm sure the Packers faithful are also asking, "Brett Who?"
Yet I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the performance of the Steelers. Despite being down 21-3 with 2:24 in the 2nd quarter, the Steelers fought back and were in the game until its final minute. They have nothing for which to be ashamed.
Of course, a lot of people watch the game for the commercials. My favorite? The Stella Artois commercial with Adrien Brody as a crooner. It had a European film noir art house quality to it.
Thoughts on Obama-O'Reilly Interview
I just watched Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama on the Superbowl pre-game show.
The only time O'Reilly really pressed Obama was on who he thought would win the Super Bowl. While O'Reilly did question Obama about Egypt and Obamacare, the President spun O'Reilly's questions like Ben Roethlisberger spirals a football. Obama stayed on message and O'Reilly did not challenge Obama's assertions such as when the President reiterated that "if you like your health care, you keep it." Tell that to employees of McDonald's.
While the interview was part of the Super Bowl pre-game show a more apt setting would have been before a softball game because O'Reilly most asked softball questions (i.e. What's the worst part of your job? What has surprised you most about the job? How have you changed as a person?). Katie Couric or Matt Lauer could have just as easily asked those questions. Now I'm not looking for O'Reilly to yell in Obama's face. I just wish he would have challenged Obama's talking points more assertively.
I should note that O'Reilly mentioned at the end of the interview that he would be asking the President more questions which will air tomorrow night on The O'Reilly Factor. Perhaps he'll be tougher in that segment but he certainly won't have the audience that he did this afternoon. I think President Obama got what he wanted out of this interview.
The only time O'Reilly really pressed Obama was on who he thought would win the Super Bowl. While O'Reilly did question Obama about Egypt and Obamacare, the President spun O'Reilly's questions like Ben Roethlisberger spirals a football. Obama stayed on message and O'Reilly did not challenge Obama's assertions such as when the President reiterated that "if you like your health care, you keep it." Tell that to employees of McDonald's.
While the interview was part of the Super Bowl pre-game show a more apt setting would have been before a softball game because O'Reilly most asked softball questions (i.e. What's the worst part of your job? What has surprised you most about the job? How have you changed as a person?). Katie Couric or Matt Lauer could have just as easily asked those questions. Now I'm not looking for O'Reilly to yell in Obama's face. I just wish he would have challenged Obama's talking points more assertively.
I should note that O'Reilly mentioned at the end of the interview that he would be asking the President more questions which will air tomorrow night on The O'Reilly Factor. Perhaps he'll be tougher in that segment but he certainly won't have the audience that he did this afternoon. I think President Obama got what he wanted out of this interview.
Google Honors JFK, Snubs Reagan
On January 20th, Google marked the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inauguration.
Today, on the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, I looked at the Google front page and....nothing.
In the grand scheme of things you could say it's no big deal. But given Google's overarching presence on the web it does make one wonder about its selectivity in comemorating significant events in American history. Let's consider Google's criteria for its doodles:
Who chooses what doodles will be created and how do you decide which events will receive doodles?
A group of Googlers regularly get together to decide the events and holidays that will receive doodles. The ideas for the doodles themselves are gathered from numerous sources including Googlers and the general public. The doodle selection process aims to celebrate interesting events and anniversaries that reflect Google's personality and love for innovation. We are aware that the list of doodles is not exhaustive, but we try to select doodles that show creativity and innovation.
So the 50th anniversary of JFK's inauguration is an interesting event and anniversary that reflects Google's personality and love for innovation but the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth isn't?
Of course, Google would argue that they can't comemorate everything but it is quite curious that they would choose to pay homage to a beloved Democratic President but choose not to pay homage to a beloved Republican President a little over two weeks later.
Today, on the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, I looked at the Google front page and....nothing.
In the grand scheme of things you could say it's no big deal. But given Google's overarching presence on the web it does make one wonder about its selectivity in comemorating significant events in American history. Let's consider Google's criteria for its doodles:
Who chooses what doodles will be created and how do you decide which events will receive doodles?
A group of Googlers regularly get together to decide the events and holidays that will receive doodles. The ideas for the doodles themselves are gathered from numerous sources including Googlers and the general public. The doodle selection process aims to celebrate interesting events and anniversaries that reflect Google's personality and love for innovation. We are aware that the list of doodles is not exhaustive, but we try to select doodles that show creativity and innovation.
So the 50th anniversary of JFK's inauguration is an interesting event and anniversary that reflects Google's personality and love for innovation but the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth isn't?
Of course, Google would argue that they can't comemorate everything but it is quite curious that they would choose to pay homage to a beloved Democratic President but choose not to pay homage to a beloved Republican President a little over two weeks later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
