Jane Russell, 1921-2011. R.I.P.

Hollywood legend Jane Russell passed away yesterday at the age of 89 due to respiratory failure.

Russell quite literally burst upon the scene in Howard Hughes' 1943 classic The Outlaw and soon became a pin-up girl for WWII servicemen. The buxom brunette was perhaps best known for co-starring with Marilyn Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes a decade later.

I remember Russell as the spokeswoman for the Playtex "cross your heart" bras in the early 1980s.

Despite her image as a sex symbol, Russell was a devout Christian. She was also an unabashed conservative. In a 2002 interview, Russell said, "I want to save America. I do not want a one-world order, a one-world government, at all. I think that our Founding Fathers had exactly the right idea, and we've got a great country, and let's go back to God."

Amen to that.

Frank Buckles, 1901-2011. R.I.P.

Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of WWI, died on Sunday at the age of 110.

Buckles, who served as an ambulance driver and medic in France, also spent 3½ years as a civilian P.O.W. in the Phillipines during WWII.

With Buckles' passing this leaves only two surviving WWI veterans in the entire world both of whom are British. Florence Green, who served with the Women's Royal Air Force, turned 110 last month while Claude Choules, who saw combat in both WWI and WWII, turns 110 on March 3rd.

Soon there will be no one tell us what happened in the war to end all wars. Yes, we have movies, books, photographs and even their letters. While they give us some insight into what happened it is no substitute for a living, breathing human being who experienced it all firsthand to tell the story to someone who has never heard it before.

While we honor Buckles' service to this country we should also be mindful of the fact that a vital part of our country's history is forever gone. So as the veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq pass on we must not only keep their memories alive but we must remind ourselves and inform succeeding generations why they fought for the United States of America. It is a matter too important to cede to the agenda of others.

WFB: Three years ago today

Three years ago on February 27th we lost William F. Buckley Jr., a man so bright in the intellectual firmament that we had come to think of him as a permanent fixture in the heavens of American political thought. Three years gone by and the conservative movement remains an experiment in constant motion, all of its tethers to thoughts leaders of the past mostly undone. That does not mean it will fail to rise again; on the contrary, there are reasons to believe that the American public is trying to resuscitate ties to traditional values.

But this is a hard battle. Entrenched interests in government, unions and big corporations are powerful and hard to dislodge. The individual who still seeks to stand as an individual is a dying breed, and one who embraces his or her individuality does so at great personal and financial cost given the natural tendency of power to devour anyone who does not conform.

Still, we hope. We see the courage of those in the Middle East trying to throw off the shackles of tyranny and we pray they are not going to trade in one type of oppression for another. We see the frenetic energy of the tea party, and the counter strikes in Wisconsin, and we wait to see the outcome with a sense of concern for the ability to see it through.

We know this and Bill Buckley reminded us of it both in his life and in his writings – that to enslave future generations to massive debt is an immoral act. It is larceny on a massive, almost unimaginable, scale. To ask the young and the yet to be born to pay for our indulgences – social, financial, environmental – is an act of selfishness that belies any responsible understanding of stewardship or decent self government.

Bill spent a lifetime teaching us that being part of the responsible right also carried with it the burden of doing what is right. At the very least, we know that his wisdom and his example remain within our reach and smalls acts of thoughtful dialogue and debate might yet bring our nation back from the brink.

George Shadroui has been published in more than two dozen newspapers and magazines, including National Review and Frontpagemag.com.

Thoughts on the Oscars

I was sorely tempted not to tune into the Oscars this year but against my better judgment I succumbed to said temptations.

While I still would rather look at Anne Hathaway than Alec Baldwin she and James Franco were lacklustre as co-hosts. There were several presenters who I thought would be better suited in the role of master of ceremonies. Jude Law, Robert Downey, Jr and Kevin Spacey (who did a great Fred Astaire impersonation) would have made the proceedings far more interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing Hugh Jackman get another chance to host. But, of course, there's no Oscar host like Billy Crystal who made a surprise appearance with a tribute to Bob Hope.

Kirk Douglas was in no hurry to present the Best Supporting Actress award. Perhaps if he had taken more time Melissa Leo might not have dropped that f-bomb.

The King's Speech took away four Oscars including Best Picture, Best Actor for Colin Firth, Best Original Screenplay for David Siedler and Best Director for Tom Hooper. I liked Hooper's acceptance speech in which he thanked his mother for recommending he make the film after she saw The King's Speech mounted as a play in London a number of years ago. Hooper said, "The moral of the story is listen to your mother."

I have to admit the children at P.S. 122 in Staten Island did a nice job with their rendition of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow."

Duke Snider, 1926-2011. R.I.P.

I had just tuned into a spring training game between the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Los Angeles Dodgers when Dodgers broadcaster Charley Steiner announced that Dodgers legend Duke Snider had passed away at the age of 84. He apparently died of natural causes.

In the 1950s, Snider was part of the triumvirate of centerfielders who shared the stage in New York along with Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. Now we're talkin' baseball with Willie, Mickey and The Duke.

While Snider was overshadowed by Mays and Mantle, Snider had quite a run with the Brooklyn Dodgers. He hit more homeruns in the 1950s that any other player. Snider hit at least 40 homeruns every season between 1953 and 1957. Unlike Mays and Mantle, Snider never won an MVP but came very close to winning the NL MVP in 1955 when he was narrowly beaten out by teammate Roy Campanella. That was the same year the Dodgers won their only World Series in Brooklyn.

Snider's numbers began to decline once the Dodgers went out to Los Angeles. He would return to New York as a Met in 1963 before finishing his career back out west with the San Francisco Giants in 1964. Snider's career totals are as follows: a .295 lifetime batting average, 2,116 hits, 407 homeruns and 1,333 RBIs along with eight NL All-Star appearances. He would be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1980.

Yet when I think of Snider I think of the man who did color commentary alongside Dave Van Horne for Montreal Expos games on the CBC. Snider and Van Horne may have been the most underrated baseball broadcasting duo ever. I hope Van Horne will give a kind word for The Duke when he receives the Ford C. Frick Award at the Hall of Fame ceremonies in Cooperstown next July.

Here's The Duke making an appearance on What's My Line? in 1958 shortly after the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles.

Discord Over DOMA

It would appear there is not much I can say that will assuage Quin Hillyer over the Obama Administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court as evidenced by his most recent response to my previous rejoinder.

As such I will not dwell on our discord over DOMA except to make this observation. Given the vigor with which Hillyer has denounced my views on the subject (the original title of his previous post was "Is Goldstein Dishonest, or Obtuse?") I cannot help but wonder if he is more concerned about gay marriage being imposed by judicial fiat on all 50 states rather than President Obama's decision not to defend DOMA. I am not saying Hillyer isn't concerned about the constitutional implications of Obama's actions. Yet I am curious as to how he would react if Jeffrey Lord's scenario of President Sarah Palin instructing Attorney General Mark Levin not to defend Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in federal court came to pass.

With that let me turn to the more general subject of what happens when conservatives disagree with each other in public. Having read the feedback for both my posts and Hillyer's posts on DOMA there are some who think such discussion should be kept behind closed doors while others think we need to have it out in the open. It should come as no surprise that I am in agreement with the latter sentiment.

Disagreement over public matters is inevitable, unavoidable and not undesirable. Even amongst those who would under normal circumstances agree with one another on most public matters will sooner or later disagree on something. To not permit disagreement to come to the fore is fundamentally unnatural and is the first step towards totalitarianism. Conservatives engaging in debate and discussion is a good thing.

Of course, I am mindful of the fact that debate and discussion can (and often does) degenerate and deteriorate into an unhealthy game of one upmanship. Yet this should be used as a rationale to encourage rather than discourage debate and discussion. So when conservatives do feel the need to air their differences in public they should do so in the spirit of mutual respect and an openness to consider the other person's opinion. This doesn't mean minds will necessarily be changed but it can allow for an opportunity to view things in a different light.

As someone who has on more than one occasion found himself expressing a minority opinion amongst my fellow conservatives I do so with the understanding that they will find a way express their disagreement with me and I hope they will continue to do so. In that spirit I will endeavor to listen to their point of view. Hopefully, they will be prepared to hear me out as well. And if we can only agree to disagree then so be it.

Besides life would be pretty damn boring if all conservatives thought in exactly the same way.

Queen Qadaffi

Muammar Qadaffi is likening himself to Queen Elizabeth II.

The Libyan dictator said, "Queen Elizabeth has ruled longer than I have and nothing has happened to her, no one has bothered her."

Um, except that the Queen hasn't ordered the bombing of airplanes over Scotland or German discotheques let alone hired mercenaries to shoot her subjects in Trafalgar Square.

Nor would I exactly describe Libya as a constitutional monarchy. In fact, it was a monarchy that Qadaffi overthrew back in 1969.

Perhaps tomorrow Qadaffi will compare himself to the Dalai Lama.

The Not-So-Mighty Quin

To say that Quin Hillyer disliked my article on concurring with the Obama Administration's decision to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court would be an understatement.

In fact, Hillyer e-mailed me beforehand to demand that I "correct/withdraw/amend it so as not to cause any more embarrassment." The embarrassment is his alone. Needless to say, I declined to do so. Besides Ross Kaminsky, another regular American Spectator contributor, liked the article. One article. Two opinions. Isn't America great?

Clearly, my article hit a raw nerve with Hillyer. Yet if you strip away all the sound and fury there is little in the way of substance to his objections. For instance, Hillyer writes, "Obama's decision ONLY affects Section 3 of DOMA. That's it." Yet consider what I wrote at the beginning of the article:

To be precise, Attorney General Eric Holder advised Congress that the Department of Justice will not defend Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

So I'm not sure why Hillyer is slagging me over Section 3 of DOMA when I fact mentioned it. Perhaps he didn't get past reading the first sentence of my article. How else do you explain the following passage:

Secondly, as for the rest of DOMA, which is NOT at issue in the president's decision yesterday, it absolutely does leave the definition of marriage to the state and local level for purposes of state and local law, despite your ignorant claims to the contrary. What DOMA does is say that a state that does NOT wish to recognize a homosexual marriage of ANOTHER state, for purposes of its own state laws, is free not to do so. DOMA therefore PROTECTS state and local decision-making, rather than abuses it. This isn't a matter of opinion; it's fact. That's what the law does. You have utterly mis-described it. Your argument on grounds of federalism is therefore ass-backwards.

Well, I guess I can be grateful that Hillyer for his selective use of block letters. Yet I don't see how anything I've written warrants such vitriol. I simply asked why the federal government is in the business of defending marriage when it is a matter best settled at the state level whether through the legislative process (as is currently happening in Maryland) or through referenda (as was the case in Maine in November 2009). I simply don't see the need for federal involvement. Washington just gets in the way. So I reject Hillyer's assertion that "DOMA protects state and local decision-making" is a matter of fact rather than opinion and so does Bob Barr who calls DOMA a case of "one-way federalism":

It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws - including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits - has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Let us not forget that Barr authored DOMA and has now come to regret what his creation unleashed. It's not everyday that a politician publicly repudiates his own legislation.

As for President Obama, one can certainly fault him for his decision especially in view of the fact his Administration spent the first half of his term defending DOMA. Yet this is certainly not the first time the Executive Branch has declined to defend a law in federal court. Back in November 1992 the first Bush Administration announced it wouldn't defend lawsuits brought against the federal government by cable operators against the "must-carry" regulation requiring cable operators to carry local programming. It is worth noting that the 41st President opposed the regulation and had vetoed the law enacting it but the veto was overturned by a Democratic controlled Congress. The Clinton Administration reversed the decision and would prevail in the Supreme Court against the cable operators. I don't deny that President Obama's decision with regard to DOMA is both highly unusual and was made for dubious reasons but he has precedent on his side.

In the final analysis, it is worth reminding Hillyer this isn't the end of the world. The Obama Administration's decision doesn't guarantee DOMA will be either repealed or struck down. But if it is repealed or struck down then look for a movement in Congress to either reintroduce DOMA under a different name or for renewed efforts in support of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Of course, if DOMA does outlast the Obama Administration then there's a good chance a Republican Administration will undo this measure. Life will go on.

A Bloody Double Standard

At a rally in support of Wisconsin public sector unions in Boston Common yesterday, Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano told union supporters, "Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary."

Now Capuano has since walked back his remarks. O.K. Fine. Yet this is the same Capuano who recently said, "Nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you're doing it for human rights." Ah yes, the ends justifies the means.

Of course, could you imagine the holy hell that would have been unleashed if Capuano had been a Republican Congressman who had told a Tea Party rally they needed to get out on the streets and get a little bloody? Capuano would have got the Paul Krugman treatment a la Michele Bachmann. Such treatment would have consisted of not placing Bachmann's "armed and dangerous" remarks in their proper context. But therein lies the difference between a Minnesota Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat.

It should be noted Capuano, who was bested by Martha Coakley for the Democratic Senate nomination last year, is being touted as a possible opponent for Scott Brown in 2012. It could get bloody interesting.

Nicholas Kristof's Curious Questions to Bahrain's King

Yesterday, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times wrote a dispatch from Bahrain in which he posed these two questions to King Hamad:

Why is it any more appropriate for a minority Sunni population to rule over majority Shia than it was in South Africa for a minority white population to rule over a majority black population? What exactly is the difference?

Now I don't know what kind of fellow King Hamad is. But if I were wearing his robes I might reply to Kristof with a couple of questions of my own, "Why is it any more appropriate for a minority Sunni population to rule over majority Shia in Saddam Hussein's Iraq than it is in Bahrain? What exactly is the difference?"

Somehow I don't seem to recall Kristof ever likening minority Sunni rule in Saddam's Iraq to Apartheid-era South Africa. Frankly, the only difference I see between Bahrain and Iraq under Saddam Hussein was that the Bush Administration wasn't trying to oust the Khalifas. Yet I suspect if the Bush Administration had backed regime change in Bahrain, Kristof's support for Shiite majority rule would go out the window. Indeed, after U.S. and Coalition forces drove Saddam from power, Kristof was not so fond of Shiite majority rule in Iraq. In June 2003, Kristof warned, "An iron curtain of fundamentalism risks falling over Iraq."

Is Kristof unconcerned about an iron curtain of fundamentalism falling over Bahrain?

Lawyers: Don't get in trouble for using social media, take my CLE tomorrow

Read how lawyers have gotten into trouble using social media here. There are all kinds of ethical pitfalls for lawyers who delve into social media due to ethics rules.

Should you facebook friend a judge?

Can you blog about your clients if you disguise their names?

Can you add an opposing party or a potential juror as a friend on facebook in order to spy on them?

Can you solicit clients on Twitter?

Does your blog need advertising disclaimers?

If you answer a question on a social networking site that someone from another state asked, does that constitute the unauthorized practice of law if you are not licensed to practice law there?


Attend my seminar tomorrow to find out the answers to these and other ethical dilemmas.

Goldstein & Guardiano Unite Against Schlussel

Over the past several months, John Guardiano and I have had substantial disagreements over the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as well as the political upheaval in Egypt.

Under normal circumstances, Guardiano and I would probably disagree on the time of day or if the sun was shining.

Then without warning came a Debbie Schlussel who has united us into the temporary, if awkward position of agreement. Last Thursday, Schlussel lambasted The American Spectator specifically over John's blog posts on the Lara Logan attack. But she also took me to task for a position that doesn't represent my point of view. Schlussel asserted that I made the claim that the thugs who attacked Logan were somehow linked to Mubarak. I have made no such claim and, in fact, it is yet another thing over which Guardiano and I have been in disagreement. Yet Schlussel's ignorance did not stop her from describing me as "a Kapo token Spectator Jew."

The following day I responded to Schlussel and said she ought to have the courtesy to actually read my posts before likening me to the Jews who were given administrative positions in Nazi concentration camps. I also indicated that I trusted she would correct the record. (As of this writing she has not done so.)

Yesterday Guardiano put forth his reply. Guardiano aptly titles his post, "Who is Debbie Schlussel?"

I am sure Guardiano and I will soon spar over something else. But it's nice to agree on something for a change.

Egypt to Allow Iranian War Ships to Cross Suez

To read this blog post please check out the AmSpec Blog.

The Many Faces of Scott Walker

In the wake of his battle with public sector unions, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is now emerging as a national political figure.

So I guess the days of him being mistaken for the former NHL player who broke the hearts of Boston Bruins fans a couple of years ago or the man who sang lead on "The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore" are now over.

Schlussel Jumps the Gun

Yesterday, Debbie Schlussel took The American Spectator to task for jumping the shark.

The focus of most of Schlussel's criticism was John Guardiano particularly with regard to his claim that 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan was sexually assaulted by "pro-Mubarak thugs."

Schlussel might be of the opinion that The American Spectator has jumped the shark. But then Schlussel proceeds to jump the gun when she sets her sights on yours truly:

As his proof that the 200 Muslims who attacked Logan were operatives of Mubarak, Guardiano cites some Kapo token Spectator Jew, Aaron Goldstein. Goldstein's "proof" that the attackers were Mubarak "thugs masquerading as protesters"? Well, he links to the terse CBS statement announcing the assault-a statement which says no such thing, doesn't mention Mubarak, and says absolutely nothing he claims.

If Ms. Schlussel is going to refer to me as "some Kapo token Spectator Jew" then she should do me the courtesy of actually reading what I have written. Not only have I not asserted that the thugs who attacked Logan were pro-Mubarak but I criticized Guardiano when he claimed they were. I also criticized Guardiano when he suggested pro-Mubarak forces produced anti-Semitic signs seen during the protests.

If Schlussel read The American Spectator with a little more diligence she would know that Guardiano and I have had quite a disagreement over what has transpired in Egypt. Guardiano has also been at odds with the likes of Ben Stein, Jed Babbin and Jim Antle here at The American Spectator as well.

As for me, if Schlussel so chooses she can find all my blog posts on Egypt here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here plus my posts concerning Logan here, here, here and here. And while she's at it she can also read my last three weekly articles here, here and here. Schlussel should then come to the unmistakable conclusion that I am not one who lectures his readers "from the Koran and the writings of Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman."

And with that I trust Schlussel will correct the record.

Egypt, Islam, Barbarism & Democracy

What can I make of John Guardiano's latest salvo? Allow me to illustrate:

So it is simply inaccurate to try and indict Muslims and Islam for the attack on, and abuse of, Logan. Indeed, if Logan's assailants were "Muslims," then the Nazis were "Christians."

Nonetheless, Goldstein is determined, it seems, to find fault with the Egyptian people and with Islam. Thus he complains that I offer "no evidence" to show that the (sic) Egypt's pro-democracy protesters were, in fact, peaceful.

First, the idea that I am trying and indicting Muslims and Islam for the attack on Lara Logan is just daft. The religious background of Logan's assailants wasn't an issue until Guardiano made it one. My only response to his assertion was if Logan's assailants weren't Muslim one could also argue the people responsible for the September 11th attacks weren't Muslim either and indeed some people have.

Second, Guardiano asserts that I complain that he offered "no evidence to show that the (sic) Egypt pro-democracy protesters were, in fact, peaceful." I made no such argument. What I objected to was Guardiano not offering evidence to support his assertion that pro-Mubarak forces supplied anti-Semitic signs and were responsible for the attack on Logan. Guardiano can hide behind The New York Times to his heart's content. But neither Nick Kristoff nor Tom Friedman has claimed the anti-Semitic signs were produced and disseminated by pro-Mubarak forces as Guardiano has suggested. And at this point there's simply no evidence to support Guardiano's claim pro-Mubarak forces attacked Logan. I just wish Guardiano would refrain from making outrageous claims he either cannot or will not back up.

Third, at the risk of stating the obvious, Guardiano and I simply view the events in Egypt differently. Indeed, Guardiano has also taken Jim Antle, Jed Babbin and Ben Stein to task for their views on Egypt as well. Guardiano clearly views the events in Egypt as a watershed moment in Middle East history and no doubt they are. After all, if anyone had said on January 1, 2011 that Hosni Mubarak would be out of office in six weeks we would have looked at that person with a rather quizzical look. The difference is that Guardiano sees Egypt turning over a new leaf while I and others look at things more skeptically:

In short, liberal democracy gives people the opportunity to expose and discredit anti-Semitism and other bigotry. So although Egypt and the Middle East may be regressive in key respects now, they need not remain regressive forever and ever. Social progress, in fact, is a hallmark of liberal democracy.

Yet what does a secular liberal like Ayman Nour chose to talk about following his announcement that he will run for the Egyptian presidency? That the Camp David Accords with Israel are dead. If anti-Semitism isn't a strong force in Egyptian society then why would Nour bother raising Camp David in the first place? Because it will get him votes and in the grand scheme of things getting votes is more important to Nour than utilizing democracy to expose and discredit anti-Semitism and other bigotry. But if a secular liberal like Nour won't avail himself of the opportunity democracy gives to expose and discredit anti-Semitism and other bigotry then who will? Surely not the Muslim Brotherhood.

But let me put the possibility of Egypt rescinding the peace treaty with Israeland going to war with the Jewish State to the side for now. A few years ago, I criticized Dinesh D'Souza for calling Hamas and Hezbollah "champions of democracy." Well, it's easy to be in favor of democracy when you win an election or otherwise gain power. But it's not so easy to be in favor of democracy when you lose an election or otherwise lose power. One of the hallmarks of democracy is the peaceful transition of power from one party to another. Can anyone see the Muslim Brotherhood willingly relinquish power especially to a Coptic, secular or female head of state?

Clearly, Hosni Mubarak wore out his welcome with the Egyptian people. His time has come and gone. But it is far from a foregone conclusion things will get better for the Egyptian people. It would also be foolish for me and others to ignore the broader implications a post-Mubarak Egypt could have for the Middle East region and, of course, the national security of the United States. It will likely be years before we have a clear picture of life under a post-Mubarak Egypt. While future events in Egypt could persuade me to view things in a different light at the moment I am simply not encouraged by what has thus far transpired.

Who Attacked Lara Logan? Presbyterians?

In the headline of his most recent blog post at the AmSpec Blog, John Guardiano claims Lara Logan was attacked by "Pro-Mubarak Barbarians, Not Egyptian Muslims."

It should be noted that Guardiano previously asserted it was pro-Mubarak thugs who produced and carried anti-Semitic signs depicting Mubarak with a Star of David scrawled on his forehead without a shred of evidence to back it up.

As with his earlier accusation, Guardiano offers no evidence in support of his latest assertion. Sure, he offers us quotes from Nick Kristof and Tom Friedman from The New York Times as he has done previously but offers us nothing substantive arising from the actual incident in question.

Now if credible evidence does come to light that pro-Mubarak people were behind the attack on Lara Logan then so be it. I don't care if the people who attacked Logan are pro-Mubarak or anti-Mubarak. They're thugs all the same and they must pay for their crime.

Which brings me to the other half of Guardiano's headline. Now I did not comment on the religious background of Logan's attackers in either of my posts on the subject. In fact, I identify them as "Egyptian protesters". Nevertheless, Guardiano makes a point of stating Egyptian Muslims were not involved in the attack on Logan. When I read that my first thought was, "So who does Guardiano think attacked Lara Logan? Presbyterians?" But then I read this passage:

And these were not Muslims who did this (chapter 5, verse 2 of the Qur'an says: "do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression"). These were barbarians.

So by that logic one could argue that Muslims were not involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001. In fact, this sort of rubbish was advanced in the wake of 9/11. Consider the words of Egyptian born writer Nonie Darwish:

When I learned later that the leader of the 19 terrorists was Mohammed Atta, from a middle-class family from Cairo, I was devastated. I called my friends in Egypt. They all said: "Don't you know this is a Jewish conspiracy?" I could not believe the denial. For how long are we, the Arab people, going to accuse the Jewish people of everything we do wrong?

If Guardiano wants to stick up for Egyptian Muslims that is his business. But he sure isn't doing them any favors.

Egyptian Protesters Called Logan "Jew! Jew!"

When I wrote about the heinous sexual assault on Lara Logan yesterday I was not aware that her attackers were calling her "Jew! Jew!"

The fact that Logan is not Jewish only reinforces how deeply saturated anti-Semitism is in Egypt but demonstrates how little it takes for this ancient hatred to show its face even in the midst of jubilation. There are those who are content to downplay the manifestations of this behavior or dismiss its prevalence in Egyptian society. So be it. I cannot stop people from putting their heads in the sand.

As I have written here previously anti-Semitism was a part of Egyptian life under Mubarak and his regime most certainly tolerated it. But with Mubarak gone I think we will see anti-Semitism take a far more violent form as was the case with Logan. And with even Egyptian liberals like Ayman Nour calling for an end to the peace treaty with Israel he has effectively given the broadest possible legitimacy to these acts of barbarism. I'm afraid this is only the beginning.

Bieber Calls U.S. Health Care System "Evil"

Over at National Review Online, a couple of the bloggers on The Corner are going gaga over Justin Bieber.

First, it was Daniel Foster praising Bieber for his impersonation of President Obama on Conan last night. Truth be told it was pretty good.

Then a few hours later, Kathryn Jean Lopez got downright dreamy over Bieber because he told Rolling Stone, "I really don't believe in abortion."

However, in that same interview, the Canadian born teen idol who now resides in Atlanta was asked if he plans to become an American citizen. Bieber quipped, "You guys are evil," in reference to the health care system in the United States. He went to state:

We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if you're baby is premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home.

The Huffington Post praised the 16-year-old singer for making "a surprisingly astute observation." Quel surprise.

Now I know Bieber was using the term "evil" in a flippant, tongue-in-cheek manner. However, things aren't quite that simple. There is no free lunch. Now a patient might not directly pay a phyisician at the doctor's office but Canadian doctors are most certainly compensated for their services through the health care plans in the province in which they practice. For instance, a doctor who practices in Bieber's hometown of Stratford, Ontario is compensated by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) funded by the taxpayers in Ontario and by transfers from the Government of Canada. Of course, not all medical services are covered by OHIP. Thus health care in Canada is rationed.

Now as someone who lived in Canada for more than a quarter century, I can state unequivocally that the Canadian health care system has its virtues. But I can also unequivocally state the Canadian health care system has its shortcomings. One of the most significant problems are the waiting lists. They are a fact of life whether its in the emergency room, diagnostic procedures or for surgery.

So heaven forbid a premature infant should require paediatric heart surgery. And if that child lived in Stratford, he or she would have to wait 107 days for the procedure to be performed at the Stratford General Hospital. But what if that child can't wait 107 days? If the procedure could be performed in Detroit, Cleveland or Buffalo immediately you can bet that child's parents would move heaven and earth to get their child off Canadian soil. For all the U.S. health care system's faults, under those circumstances, I would hesitate to call it "evil."

But if Mr. Bieber considers the U.S. health care system so evil why doesn't he (or whoever handles his business affairs) provide his employees with health insurance?

Nour: Camp David is Dead

Ayman Nour, who has just declared his candidacy for the Egyptian presidency, went on Lebanese TV yesterday to declare the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel are over. (H/T to John McCormack of The Weekly Standard.)

Oh goody!!!

Consider what I wrote a couple of weeks ago in my article "Why Israel Worries About a Post-Mubarak Egypt?":

Of course, there are the likes of Stephen Walt, the noted anti-Israel academic, who naturally downplays the adverse consequences of a sudden change of government in Egypt for Israel:

For starters, a post-Mubarak government is unlikely to tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, because such a move would put it immediately at odds with the United States and Europe and bring Cairo few tangible benefits. Although ordinary Egyptians do feel strong sympathy for the Palestinians, the primary concern of those now marching in the streets is domestic affairs, not foreign policy.

I am not sure what makes Walt think a post-Mubarak Egypt, especially one where the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, will give a damn about what the Obama Administration or the EU might think of its actions any more than Iran does. Besides, what happens if a new regime in Egypt, whether led by ElBaradei or someone else, cannot redress the primary concerns of those now marching in the streets any better than Mubarak? By Walt's own admission, ordinary Egyptians do feel strong sympathy for the Palestinians. Should a new Egyptian government be unable to address the domestic concerns of it populace, what card is it likely to play? Well, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.K., says the people of Egypt "should be prepared for war against Israel."

Well, the post-Mubarak Egypt has begun and it doesn't even look like Nour is going to even try to solve its economic woes. Keep in mind that Nour is probably the closest thing Egypt has to a Western liberal. But if Nour thinks that talk about tearing up Camp David as the surest path to Egypt's presidency then heaven help us all.

Egyptian Constitutional Panel Excludes Copts & Women

Egypt's military has struck a committee to write a new constitution. The exercise is expected to complete in ten days and brought before the Egyptian people for a vote in two months.

While the panel includes a member of the Muslim Brotherhood there are scarcely any Coptic Christians on the committee while women have been left off the committee altogether.

The exclusion of Coptic Christians is particularly galling when one considers the New Year's Massacre of Copts in Alexandria which resulted in the deaths of 21 people. It seems the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood are determined to keep Coptic Christians even more marginalized in a post-Mubarak Egypt.

As to the exclusion of women, one must ask if the Muslim Brotherhood would have participated in the committee had a woman been named to it.

To paraphrase George Orwell it appears that some people are more equal than others in the post-Mubarak Egypt.

Logan Sexually Assaulted by Egyptian Protesters

This is just awful.

During the euphoria that followed the news of Hosni Mubarak's resignation last Friday, a bunch of thugs masquerading as protesters savagely beat and sexually assaulted 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan.

Logan was saved by a group of female protesters and Egyptian soldiers. Unfortunately, the damage was done. Logan has returned to the United States and as of this writing remains hospitalized. I wish her a speedy recovery.

Now I realize that most Egyptian protesters behaved in a peaceful manner but this simply cannot stand. The people who attacked Logan must be brought to justice and punished severely. If this fails to happen it will be a stain on the Egyptian protests.

Obama Needs to Shift Further on Iran

John Tabin at The American Spectator has praised President Obama for his newfound willingness to criticize the regime in Iran.

Like Tabin, I too wrote that President Obama could not "sit on the sidelines and let members of his Cabinet do the talking." Well, President Obama has talked about Iran and I will say that his remarks at today's White House Press Conference are an improvement over declaring he didn't want to be seen as "meddling" in Iran's affairs. But as I have also noted President Obama made three statements concerning Egypt in a period of fifteen days.

So will this be all President Obama has to say about Iran? Or will he continue to speak out if matters should escalate as they did in Egypt? And if matters do escalate will he call for free and fair elections which result in a government guided by democratic principles which responds to the aspirations of the Iranian people?

The bottom line is that while Obama questioned the legitimacy of Egypt's authoritarian regime he hasn't questioned the legitimacy of Iran's totalitarian regime. And until Obama does question the legitimacy of the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad's rule the jury will be out on Obama from where the Iranian people stand. Either Obama stands with Iran's people or he stands with Iran's regime. He cannot stand behind both. Obama must take sides and I am not completely confident he will take the right one.

Musial is Still "The Man"

I am glad Kristen Byrne over at The American Spectator reminded us that St. Louis Cardinals legend Stan "The Man" Musial is being bestowed with the Presidential Medal of Freedom this afternoon.

Every once in a great while, President Obama gets it right. Musial befits the term icon and is a true gentleman. He should have been so honored long ago. To give you an idea of the respect in which Musial is held, Cardinals superstar Albert Pujols agreed to extend his deadline for a contract extension by twenty-four hours. Pujols might be the best player in Major League Baseball but even in St. Louis King Albert takes a back seat to The Man.

Last November, Musial turned 90. In honor of Musial please check out what I wrote about my Dad's chance encounter with The Man at the Polo Grounds in 1955.

A Few Words for Justin Bieber

So Justin Bieber is "upset" and "disappointed" that he did not win a Grammy last night.

Well, from one Canadian to another, I've got a few words for young Mr. Bieber.

I think you sent the wrong message to your fans because a bunch of them hacked Esperanza Spalding's Wikipedia page after she shockingly won the Grammy for Best New Artist. OK, I had never heard of Esperanza Spalding either. But surely you can't be cool with your fans dissing her. The very least you could do is to tell your fans to lighten up, give her a chance and listen to her music. That would be the gentlemanly thing to do.

You should also bear in mind that you're only sixteen. Chances are good that you will one day win a Grammy. But if you don't it won't be the end of the world. The Who, Led Zeppelin and Lynyrd Skynyrd are amongst the legendary rock n' roll acts who were never bestowed with a Grammy. That means you're in some pretty fine company.

Look kid. You're sixteen, the most popular person in the entire world, possibly the entire galaxy and you have an eighteen year-old girlfriend. You would be hard pressed to find a sixteen-year old boy on the planet who wouldn't trade places. So the next time you perform in concert before your screaming fans you should give a shout out to Joe Walsh and tell everyone, "Life's Been Good."