Friedman would miss the point in a point factory

I have really been making an effort not to get too riled by Tom Friedman, to try to listen to him, to see why he has a job at the New York Times when reporters all over the world cannot find gainful employment. I can no longer see any reason.

His most recent piece (which does not allow comments on the nytimes website) is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29friedman.html. Here Friedman claims there is a "Narrative" at work against America. Worse it has worked to convince even American born and raised Muslims like Nidal Malik Hasan to join jihad.

This is crazy. This piece is criminal. Friedman completely discounts legitimate grievances the Muslim world has with America then spreads fear about Muslims abroad and at home. The same type of racism Daniel Pipes has tried to forward in America and groups like the Stop Islamification of Europe have pushed on the other side of the Atlantic.

Friedman says that for the last 20 years America has been dedicated to the plight of Muslims. Really? Really! Really? His examples, the Iraq war um okay, you have really got me on that one, how exactly have any of America's policies helped muslims in Iraq. Another example Darfur. What exactly did America do in Darfur? Another example Lebanon. I guess when America supplied weapons for Israel to blow up apartment buildings in 2006 that helped Muslims. Next example, Kurdistan. Oh so when America sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to kill Kurds in Northern Iraq that was helpful. Next example, Kuwait. I presume his means Desert Storm when he says Kuwait. I think he is being a little naive if he thinks America liberated the Kuwaiti people first and the oilfields second.

Friedman challenges Muslims in the end of his article to prove that Islam is more than suicide bombers and jihadists. Unbelievable. How does he get away with writing this stuff. I challenge Friedman to prove that Judaism is more than land grabs and repression of refugees. I feel guilty just writing that last sentence. Where's Friedman's conscience? Has he never truly met any Muslims. Don't tell me he is just trying to show a firm hand or tough love.

To be honest, it's not that he is racist that bugs me. That's understandable. What is the most irritating is he just doesn't get it, but, he still writes for the Times.

Hand of Henry

Okay so as usual I am a little late to the comment party.

Item 1. Hand of Henry. Yes, Thierry Henry intentionally handled the ball. Yes, it was a monumental piece of cheating not just bad officiating. I think everyone (even Raymond Domenech) agrees with those points. But what should be done about it? Defintely there should be a replay. The fact that FIFA is refusing a replay proves they are an arrogant and out-of-touch organization. Discussion about the other form of replay, namely video replay, is unecessary. What is needed instead is more officials. The fact that one referee and two linesman are required to officiate a 90 minute game played on a soccer pitch is ridiculous. Michel Platini is right. There should be officials at either goal line. I would also add two more linesman.

Four more officials are the minimum number to adequately monitor a soccer game. The call that is consistently wrong in soccer is the offside call. This is not the linesman's fault. It is nearly impossible to get close offsides right more than half the time. One linesman, who is usually behind the play (how are they supposed to keep up with world class athletes) cannot simultaneously view both the moment a pass is struck and the position of one or more forward players. The calls that are most consistently controversial are those resulting in penalty kicks. An official on the goal line would lend huge amounts of assistance to the referees who are often hopeless wrong about decisions in the 18 yard box.

One of the great advantages of soccer is the clock is always running. Other than half-time, soccer is like life, it never stops. The constant flow of the ball and of time is one reason soccer is considered the beautiful game. Instituting video replay would kill this aspect.

Item 2. Richard Colvin's testimony. I haven't got a lot to say about Colvin's testimony other than the Tories ended up looking very guilty by launching personal attacks on Colvin and then coming up with ludicrous questions for him like "So you saw bruises and evidence of torture but you did actually see the torture occuring?" If the Government was so innocent they would have released the documents in question long ago.

More importantly, this may finally be an issue on which the Liberals can gain some traction. The other gold ticket issue for the Liberals was the whole Tory cheque scandal. The Liberals should have turned that into a huge deal especially in a country that prides itself on modesty.

The problem with the Liberals is one of leadership. Michael Ignatieff is not accessible. The liberals need to win votes in Hamilton and Orrilia, and London, and Huntsville, and Sault Ste. Marie. Nobody is reading the Rights of the Stranger there. Justin Trudeau has tried and failed to replicate Obama. He is Hope and Change on overdrive. He never comes across as an everyman. If only Ralph Goodale was better looking and from Ontario.

Item 3. El Clasico. Well I'm excited. I think Barca's going to win big but it should be a great game and a great atmosphere. I hope Arsenal sticks it to Chelsea.

Kanye West Conspiracy

I finally watched the Kanye West Taylor Swift thing on Youtube. The weird thing is that nobody seems that upset. THe other weird thing is that Universal music is the record company for both West and Swift. The further weird thing is that West apologizes on Leno which is on NBC which is part of NBC Universal. Seems like a big conspiracy. West and Swift get lots of publicity. Then West goes on Leno and helps him out with ratings on his new show. I thought of this on my own but realized other people must have too. Here's a link to someone who thought of it a month and a half ago. http://weirdlectures.com/?cat=17

Didn't see any soccer this weekend. I will try to write about something bigger next week.

Sad Day.

October 5th was a sad day. Barbara Stewart, a good friend of our family passed away. I have been thinking about her a lot and I wanted to use this blog (especially given the blog name) to remember her. I knew her best as my friend Malcolm's Mom. She also was very active in the Alberta and Canadian Autism Society. Two years ago, we were lucky enough to see her at our wedding. She is missed by us her in Ottawa. Our thoughts are with Neil, Bryce, Malcolm, and Matthew.

Elaboration

One point I failed to mention on my post on the Obama Nobel is that what I call Obama's greatest achievement, being the first Black President, is now largely unrecognized by Americans.  I think this is why most Americans feel Obama has done nothing to deserve the Peace Prize.  They believe that he should have achieved more abroad.  The Iraq and Afghan wars persist how can he win a Nobel.  Americans are less willing to recognize change within their own borders.  Perhaps they have not yet realized that racial divides remain in their society and inequality is still very real.

What many will probably counter to my point that Obama deserves the Nobel for being the first Black President is that Americans voted him in, they should win the prize, or that he stood on the shoulders of other social leaders to win the prize.  That is sort of true, but prizes are best awarded to leaders not entire movements.  Martin Luther Kings was not alone. Mandela did not act alone. They lead others who followed them and help achieve transformation.

I know whole organizations like MSF and the UN have been awarded in the past but these types of awards lack direction and come off unspecific and anemic. 

Later

 

Lots of things to catch up on.

I have a lot to say because I have been away for a while.

First off,  the big issue while I was gone was Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  Like most people I went through various stages on this announcement.  At first I was horrified because I knew this could not be good for the domestic agenda that Obama is trying to push.  The Republicans will likely be able to rip him apart for the rest of his term as President for accepting the award.  I though the Norwegians who awarded Obama were being selfish and stupid.  Then I hanged my opinion. 

I still think it's excellent ammunition for the Republicans but I also think the Norwegians were quite just and very reasonable in awarding Obama.  The first justification for Obama's award is I think the weakest.  This is that he created a groundswell of hope throughout the world.  The second stronger argument is that achieved what was largely thought to be impossible.  He is a Black President.  Maybe people have forgotten the images of Americans crying on election day, the scores of people who said that they never thought they would live to see this day, or Obama's election day message: "Change has come to America."

It might be crass and unsophisticated but this is the best reason for Obama to win the Nobel Peace Prize.  For a good article on the Obama Peace Prize read Doug Saunders article in the Globe and Mail.  Saunders is smart and always has something interesting to say.  For a crap article on the Obama Peace Prize read Margaret Wente's tautology in the Globe and Mail. 

Despite the fact that Obama deserved the Peace Prize I believe that he missed a great opportunity by accepting the Prize.  This is not my opinion I stole it from Ross Douthat. I think Douthat is right.  Politically, the genius move would have been to turn down the prize.  The White House's argument that one doesn't turn down the Nobel Peace Prize is weird.  Why not turn down the Prize?  Declining the award would have handcuffed the Republicans.  Maybe the White House feared Republicans  would be able to use Obama's rejection of the award as a sign of weakness and self-doubt.  I think the Republicans would have trouble selling that.  Most AMericans would be impressed by a gracious rejection of the Prize. 

Okay Issue Number Two: Man City Vs Man U Game.  I didn't see it so I have no idea. All I can say is that Craig Bellamy is still underrated. 

Okay Issue Number Three: The Oilers. So far, the Oilers look like an eighth placed team.  Though in fairness the only game I have seen so far saw them without Souray or Staios.  Nevertheless, the Oilers desperately need a first line. Neither Hemsky nor Horcoff are superstars.  Ilya Kovalchuk's contract is up soon maybe they can get him for Hemsky and something else.  Horcoff's never leaving thanks to his fat contract.  Until the Oilers have a top line they are not going anywhere.

Okay Issue Number Four: The beach ball. What a joke! (adapted from the White Tiger).  Where was the ref on that.  There is no way in the world that goal should have counted.  That ref should be permanently relieved.  Nevertheless, Liverpool is awful without Torres or Stevie G.  I thought Benayoun might be able to take over the game but he was really crowded out by a tougher, stronger Sunderland side.  Too bad Sportsnet wasn't showing the Arsenal game.  My man RVP scored another barn burner of a goal.  I love the way he plays.  With the way LIverpool is playing,  the question of who Man City is going to replace in the top four has been solved.

Yet, Man City is not the only team knocking on the Champions League door.  Sunderland has put together a nice record and gave Man U a run for their money. Maybe there will be a greater number of top teams deposed than initially thought.      

Ade gets three game ban

I guess the FA must read this blog (along with my parents), because Emmanuel Adebayor got a three match ban.  Probably won't affect Man City that much especially if Tevez is able to step-up.  To0 bad Ade will miss the derby.

Why Obama should just force through health care

Senator Baucus released his proposal on extending health coverage today.  From what I read of it, it seems to be a very even-handed and really contains a ton of concession to Republicans. Yet, not a single Republican endorsed the proposal.  The proposal is cost-neutral according to the Congressional Budget Office and may end up saving money over the long run.  Baucus' plan contains no public option and I think will be unlikely to exert the kind of downward pressure on insurance plans that is required. 

The public option is going to be very destructive to the health insurance business in the US. The public option is likely to be cheaper and more comprehensive than private plans.  Many private insurers are not going to lower their prices, they are going to go out of business. 

For a Government option to truly work, it must be run like a business.  The public option should be constantly reviewed to ensure the the management is efficient and that waste is limited.  Then what a public option will do is add capacity to the system.  It will fill the cracks that many Americans are falling through.

Vouchers or other services to help low income Americans pay for health care are a bad idea.  They are not really subsidies for the American people but rather subsidies for insurance companies.

Truly fixing health care in the US requires a public option for health insurance.  Anything else is a band-aid.  If the Republicans won't accept the Baucus plan they are not going to accept anything.  It is crucial for them politically to kill the bill.  The Republican chance on getting the White House back in four years rides on Obama's failures to get things done. Then they can contend that Obama was all talk and no substance. 

Obama needs to stop trying to create a bipartisan bill.  He has done enough now that he can say he tried.  He needs to show some legislative muscle and push the bill through. 

No Comments on Friedman please

So weirdly, most of Tom Friedman pieces on the nytimes.com don't allow comments anymore.  I believe there has been an evolution in how nytimes.com has been treating comments, the majority of which are usually very negative, to Friedman's pieces.  For a while the editors did nothing.  Then I noticed the editors selections (a selection of online comments chosen by some unnamed editor) strangely were overwhelming positive in sharp contrast to the reader selections.  Now it seems there is no option whatsoever for comments.  Are the negative comments starting to hurt Friedman's feelings?

There might be another reason. Seems fishy to me. 

Emmanual Adebayor's Day

There was no question that yesterday was Emmanuel Adebayor's day.  For a while though, it looked like Robin van Persie would be the hero of the day. His tying goal was a masterstroke of attacking football.  He beat England international Joleon Lescott to a ball at the top of the box then shot the ball into the far corner of the goal with his weaker right foot.  The ball eluded Shay Given who is probably the most underrated goalkeeper in the world.  

Everything changed when van Persie tackled Adebayor in the midfield.  Adebayor repaid the tackle by stomping on van Persie's face narrowly missing his eye.  With van Persie being treated off the pitch Adebayor put together a string a reckless kicks until Craig Bellamy (who knew Bellamy could run like that) scored a go ahead goal. 

After the Bellamy goal, Adebayor began to take over the game.  He beat three Arsenal players to set up a sitter for Sean Wright-Phillips (which SWP failed to convert).  He cleared a ball off the line and won at least two headers on Arsenal cornerkicks.   All this activity culminated in his goal,  a driving header to the lower post.  His celebration is going to be the stuff of legend.  He ran the entire field to celebrate in front of the Arsenal fans.  The Arsenal fans responded by rioting. 

After this Arsenal was done.  Bellamy set up City's fourth goal, closing the door on an Arsenal comeback.  

City seems set for their upcoming Derby.  Arsenal seems to be in a little more trouble.  van Persie did not do himself a favour by issuing a statement against Adebayor.  He and the rest of Arsenal should use their anger as motivation for the rest of the season.  Whining to the FA doesn't give Arsenal points in the standings.  What Arsenal needs is the play with an edge.  They have lacked that edge since Patrick Viera left.  

The FA should give Adebayor a three match suspension for the stomp.   His incediary celebration should also be punished, but Arsenal fans should be so easily baited.   

Next Post:  Why Obama should ram through the health care plan.

Why is David Frum talking?

I know I am a little late on criticizing the Iraq war. But I want the first post on this blog to focus on the Iraq war because I think America's response to the Iraq war says a lot about how one gets a voice in America. 

I believe it's fair to say that the Iraq war was an unadulterated disaster. I also think it's fairly objective to say that there was no good reason for the USA to invade Iraq.

Why then, are people who espoused the policy of Iraqi invasion with such zeal relatively free from criticism?  This was one of the most important policy decisions of the last 20 years, and many people were found to be incredibly out to lunch.  To put it in a medical context, to which I can relate, invading Iraq was tantamount to removing a liver for tongue cancer. Why haven't commentators like Thomas Friedman and David Frum haven't been ostracized for their support of the Iraqi war?  Who is giving these people any soapbox to stand on?

Everytime Mr. Frum opens his mouth to talk about foreign policy the first thing any interviewer or mediator should say is, "wow, really interesting point of view David. now why should we trust or believe anything you say when your past judgement has been so incredibly poor."

Everytime, Mr. Friedman writes another supposedly insightful article shouldn't he start with the following disclaimer "Dear Reader, despite the fact that I have proved myself to be out to lunch on the biggest issues of the day, please trust me as I try to tell you the following." After that disclaimer he can proceed to tell us how smart he is because he discovered that the global economy is interdependent.

In complete fairness, Frum and Friedman aren't the only ones who continue to chime on despite being completely incompetent, but for whatever reason they are the ones that irritate me the most.  Maybe I chose Frum because he is Canadian. Who knows.