The iPINIONS Journal

I made it through the worst winter in over a decade only to come down with the flu this first week of spring. Go figure…

It’s been diagnosed as swine flu. Remember that?  Of course, regular readers know how much I have pooh poohed the whole swine flu pandemic. 

As it happens, my condition only proves what I’ve been asserting all along:  that swine flu is more panic than pandemic.  Because my symptoms are no different or more severe than they were last year, or any other year when I had the garden-variety seasonal flu. 

Actually, I get the flu every year - vaccine or not.  Back to bed….

Related commentary:
swine flu national health emergency

A few years ago, revelations about the nature and scope of sexual abuse by priests gave the impression that the Catholic Church in America was being run by a syndicate of pedophile enablers. By contrast, the moral indignation European priests cast at their brethren in America back then gave the impression that the Catholic Church in Europe was wholly without sin in this respect. 

Indeed, here’s how the Pope himself expressed his pastoral concern:

It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen. It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission … to these children.

I am deeply ashamed, and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future. I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is another thing.

We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry. It is more important to have good priests than many priests. We will do everything possible to heal this wound.

(Pope Benedict XVI)

In commenting on this unfolding scandal, I noted that faithful Catholics might find the Pope’s expression of concern more troubling than comforting. Here, in part, is what I wrote back then:

Many Catholics suspect that a cabal of homosexuals in the Vatican continues to indulge and cover up the serial sexual exploits of gay priests, including pedophiles…

And I’m sure the Pope is acutely mindful that disabusing Americans of this suspicion is critical to getting them to replenish the billions the Church has lost in payoffs and tithing withheld as a result of the sex abuse scandal….

[The Pope comes to America, TIJ, April 16, 2008]

Well, there are dirty little secrets coming out of the closet in churches all over Europe today - most notably in the Pope’s home country of Germany.  And these revelations give the impression that the ecumenical council of the Catholic Church not only condoned but actually enabled a culture of pederasty that would make Sodom and Gomorrah seem chaste. Which gives a whole new meaning to Christ’s exhortation to “suffer the little children to come on to Me.”

Even worse, no less a person than the Pope has been implicated.  Specifically, reports are that the Pope, in his position as bishop of diocese of Munich, harbored a known pedophile priest, who continued his predatory sexual abuse of little boys under the Pope’ pastoral supervision.  This, of course, is exactly what the Pope condemned American bishops for doing a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, the Vatican is deflecting blame from the Pope by summoning his former deputy at the Munich diocese to claim complete responsibility for housing this notorious pedophile. Never mind that this deflection was foiled by the fact that his former diocese had already put out the patently specious claim that the Pope “unwittingly approved the housing;” or that the Pope’s own brother, The Rev. Georg Ratzinger,  has admitted flagellating little boys and blithely ignoring their complaints of abuse by other bishops.

In fact, the Pope himself has joined in this open conspiracy to deflect blame. For he announced earlier this week that he will be issuing a pastoral letter to facilitate “repentance, healing and renewal” among Irish Catholics in light of revelations of endemic sexual and physical abuse that are rocking the foundations of their church.

Somehow “the pot calling the kettle black” doesn’t quite convey the hypocrisy inherent in this papal tact.  But I must say that the Pope is giving new meaning to psychological defense mechanism of projection…

In any case, even if belatedly, I hope Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican official in charge of prosecuting priests alleged to have committed serious sexual crimes, is as zealous in prosecuting them today as the Vatican was in protecting them over the years.

I remain intrigued, however, by the Pope’s allusion (in the quote above) to a moral distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. For in this he seems to have “unwittingly” conveyed a papal indulgence of the former, while censuring of the latter.

But such a distinction would make a mockery of the Church’s purported practice of clerical celibacy; i.e., refraining from all sexual activity, including masturbation.  Moreover, it would suggest that Catholic priests - who pattern their celibate lives on that of Jesus Christ - must believe that Christ himself indulged, if not indulged in, homosexuality.  The 12 disciples with whom he consorted were all men, after all.

Whatever the moral relativism that governs sexual (mis)conduct of priests, the Church is clearly abiding a moral hazard when it comes to their sexual abuse of little boys. 

Much has been made of the moral hazard the US government created by bailing out big banks. Because this effectively gave investment bankers carte blanche to continue their high-risk financial transactions knowing full well that the government will be there to catch them if they fall; i.e., before their banks fail. 

By the same token, the fact that the Church has been covering up the perverted (and criminal) behavior of Catholic priests from time immemorial suggests that a similar moral hazard is inherent in the conduct of Vatican affairs….

Related commentaries:
The Pope comes to America

Last week, the Israeli government showed the kind of disrespect towards the United States, its indispensable patron, that one would’ve expected only of Iran.  Specifically, it waited until the day US Vice President Joe Biden was scheduled to land in Israel to announce that 1600 new homes will be added to the disputed settlements of east Jerusalem.

(One could even be forgiven for thinking that the Israelis settled on 1600 - as in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - to make sure their defiance registered at the White House; in other words, take that James Baker.)

Biden, who was arriving to mediate new peace talks after a 14-month lapse, was not pleased:

The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now. We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them … unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

Yet, even though the Israelis promptly apologized, nobody believes they’ll be affected in the least either by Biden’s rebuke or by his retaliatory snub; namely, keeping PM Benjamin Netanyahu waiting 90 minutes for dinner. Because it is self-evident that the only building the Israelis are interested in has to do with new homes in the disputed territories.

Most political pundits in America are convinced that this announcement was really intended to telegraph the racial (and religious) prejudice Israelis have towards President Barack Hussein Obama. And this seems undeniable.

It is also undeniable, however, that the Israelis showed similar contempt, in substance even if not in style, towards President George W. Bush; i.e., by continually building homes in disputed territories in contravention of Bush’s efforts to broker peace with the Palestinians.

Apropos my reference above to James Baker, it might be instructive to recall that such unbridled contempt for America’s efforts to broker Israeli-Palestinian negotiations provoked him way back in 1990 - as secretary of state under former President George H.W. Bush - to issue the following iconic reprimand during congressional testimony:

Everybody over there should know that the telephone number for the White House is (202) 456-1414.  When you’re serious about peace, call us!

And to back up his words, Baker threatened to withhold loan guarantees unless Israel promised not to use the funds to settle Russian Jews in the (Palestinian) West Bank. Not so widely reported, however, was the undiplomatic language he used in a less formal setting a couple of years later, when Baker reportedly said, “Fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.”

Nevertheless, Israel is as Israel does….

Related commentaries:
Netanyahu resents having to kowtow to Obama…

* This commentary was published originally on Sunday, March 14 at 7:26 A.M.

You’ve probably heard reporters all over TV today hyperventilating over “declassified” documents, which confirm that the police suspected Tiger’s wife Elin of domestic abuse: i.e., giving him a fat lip and then taking a nine iron to his SUV when he tried to escape.

But this is hardly news - as my original commentary on this saga, entitled, appropriately enough, Tiger’s wife serves him a Thanksgiving fat lip (November 29, 2009), will attest. For here, in part, is what I wrote:

With all due respect to CNN’s legal expert, the fact that the police found no evidence to support charges of domestic violence (against him or his wife) means that Tiger does not have to answer any further questions about what happened on that fateful Thanksgiving night that precipitated his fall from grace.

On the other hand, these reporters had just cause to hyperventilate over BREAKING NEWS  about Tiger’s return to golf.  Because the AP confirmed today that he’s preparing to play a tune-up tournament later this month before making his PGA return at The Masters in April.

In this case, reporters can also be forgiven their clueless excitement. After all, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single sports writer who declared, on the record, that Tiger would be returning so soon. 

To the contrary, after his press event a few weeks ago, the consensus among sports analysts was that he would be out for the year. Granted, they were led like sheep to this “analytical” conclusion by Tiger’s innocuous statement that he plans to return to golf, but just doesn’t know when….

By contrast, I predicted in the November 29 commentary referenced above that he would be returning “sooner rather than later…The Masters in 2010.” More to the point, here’s what I wrote - contradicting the sports writers - after that seminal press event, when Tiger finally addressed the sexual infidelity and promiscuity that caused his fall from grace:

Most importantly, he said that he will continue on his path to recovery, and will return to golf sooner rather than later.  Granted, he was not specific, but reading between the lines, I remain convinced that he’ll be back in time for The Masters in April…

Frankly, if the way he’s charting his path to recovery and redemption is okay with his family and sponsors, then everyone else, especially you weekend duffers, be damned.  Real fans can’t wait for him to move on from all of this mess.

[Tiger speaks...and says exactly what I told him to say! TIJ, February 20, 2010]

And here, in part, is the analytical reasoning that led me to this conclusion:

Winning tournaments in his inimitable fashion is the only way now to eradicate bacchanalian images of his private life from public consciousness - even if not from the tabloids.  And only this will give his understandably spooked corporate sponsors [like Accenture who dropped him like a hot potato] the cover they need to feature him as their spokesman once again…

[Tiger escapes to a "safe haven," TIJ, December 14, 2009]

Enough said?

Except that, having already indicated that the cheers of appreciative fans will drown out all jeers, let me share what I wrote in this same commentary (Tiger escapes…) about the greeting Tiger can expect from the folks who made him a billionaire:

Meanwhile, corporate sponsors and media executives alike must be salivating with anticipation over the boon this scandal will deliver in television ratings once he returns. And trust me, there’ll be no shortage of corporations, not only eager to replace any that dumps Tiger but also willing to pay even more for the privilege of having him as their spokesman.

Of course, I should have added that no group will be happier to see him back on the links than his fellow players. Because, even though he routinely kicks their butts, they all have Tiger to thank for the millions in their bank accounts.

So here’s to Tiger not only playing but actually winning The Masters … in expiating fashion.

Related commentaries:
Tiger speaks…
Tiger escapes…

There’s something egalitarian, and therefore perversely reassuring, about a little princess being bullied at school.  After all, this is a rite of passage almost every commoner must endure….

But, ironically, there is nothing common about the bullying Japan’s eight-year-old Princess Aiko has been subjected to (which reportedly became so severe that she begged her parents not to make her return to school). For what makes this case so unique is the fact that the mischievousness of the prepubescent thugs involved was probably incited, in part, by the jingoistic fulminations of their parents.

Specifically, given the national scorn and derision Aiko’s mother was subjected to for giving birth to her instead of a male heir, it’s hardly surprising that these kids would think Aiko should be “treated harshly” too.

Here’s how I lamented this grownup bullying, which caused Aiko’s mother, Crown Princess Masako, to suffer a very public nervous breakdown a couple of years after her birth:

Princess Masako has been effectively exiled to her maiden country home after failing to inject life into the moribund Japanese imperial family…

The Japanese expected her to do for Japan’s monarchy what Princess Diana had done for Britain’s; i.e., exhibit a more contemporary style and provide a male heir … and a spare… Unforgiving Japanese monarchists were indignant at Masako for failing so spectacularly in both respects. And they were not shy about expressing their indignation, propagating a battery of promiscuous reasons for her male-bearing infertility.

[To Japan a (male) heir is born, TIJ, September 8, 2006]

And again here:

I took a very keen interest in the fate that befell Princess Masako of Japan three years ago after it became clear that she would not emulate Princess Diana  by providing a male heir (and a spare) to ensure the unbroken longevity of Japan’s royal family. 

My interest stemmed from the fact that Japan’s agnatic succession law, which precludes women from inheriting the throne, was deemed so sacrosanct that Masoko’s daughter Aiko became more an object of national resentment than a symbol of national pride. 

[Japan's Crown Princess Masako resumes official duties, TIJ, March 4, 2009]

Given this, it’s no wonder that contempt for the mother has been visited upon the daughter.

All the same, Masako and her husband, Crown Prince Naruhito, should be commended for coaxing Aiko into returning to school yesterday-after being absent since March 1.  Never mind that, according to Japan’s Kyodo News, her return followed an “intervention” by the Imperial Palace. This suggests that these schoolyard bullies as well as their enabling parents (even if unwittingly) were given a royal tongue lashing in the principal’s office.

Unfortunately, reports are that Aiko was still so traumatized that her mother had to rescue her well before the end of the school day.  

And so, just as bullying by grownups forced her mother from public life, bullying by these kids might force Aiko to do the same. Talk about living in a gilded cage…

Related commentaries:
To Japan a (male) heir is born
Masako resumes official duties

No politician in US history has exploited his power for personal gain with more unbridled pride and joy than Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY).  And none has been more successful.  For not even investment guru Warren Buffet could have amassed the fortune Rangel has by doing it the Smith Barney way; i.e., by earning it.

His holdings include four apartments in a luxury building in New York City and a luxury home in the Dominican Republic.  Not to mention untold sums in bank accounts that are being discovered everyday like another Tiger Woods mistress.

But you’d think Rangel would’ve become a little more discreet and circumspect in his flouting of ethics rules after assuming chairmanship in 2007 of the high-profile House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for writing all tax laws and overseeing all revenue-raising measures.  Instead, he became the poster boy for the presumption that rules do not apply to the powerful men who write them. 

Accordingly, it wasn’t long before reports surfaced that Rangel was making a mockery of his chairmanship by failing to report or disclose income on his tax forms; using his congressional stationary to solicit funds for a school bearing his name; granting special tax breaks to his most-favored donors; and partaking of potpourri of boondoggles that are treated as ordinary congressional perks.

This finally compelled the House Ethics Committee to announce last October that it was expanding its probe of Rangel’s alleged misdeeds, which it began in December 2008, to include an investigation into “all Financial Disclosure Statements and all amendments filed in the calendar year 2009.”

This was when everyone in Washington knew he was a dead man walking - as far as his chairmanship was concerned.  Yet, for a time, Rangel scoffed at all calls for him to resign; which was not surprising considering that he lived a charmed life as a politician-virtually free of professional censure, let alone public ridicule.

Ironically, it was precisely because of his imperious ego that being dogged by reporters asking about his personal business became too insolent and untenable for him to tolerate. And it was this humiliation that finally compelled him to make the following concession speech a week ago today:

My chairmanship is bringing so much attention to the press, and in order to avoid my colleagues having to defend me during their elections, I have this morning sent a letter asking to be granted a leave of absence until such time as the ethics committee completes its work.

Still, his pride was such that he could not bring himself to announce the resignation this statement clearly represented.  The adage, pride goes before the fall, seems appropriate here. Because there seems little doubt that this political humiliation will be followed in due course by a criminal probe…. 

And what a spectacular fall from grace a criminal indictment will be for this man who was always so fond of bragging “And I haven’t had a bad day since” being elected to Congress 40 years ago.

Sorry Charlie…

Truth be told, there was always a disconnect between Winnie Mandela’s behavior and the Joan-of-Arc vestments she wore during the last throes of Apartheid rule in South Africa. In fact, her behavior always gave the impression that those vestments were covering up character traits that were more Idi Amin than Indira Gandhi.

But anti-Apartheid supporters in the West overlooked her intemperate, boorish, and even murderous ways because we considered her a rebel with a cause. This included, most notably, giving Winnie a pass when she allegedly incited members of her entourage (a.k.a. the Mandela United Football Club) - who served variously as her bodyguards, political enforcers, and … boy toys - to beat a young South African boy to death in 1988.  (She was convicted and sentenced to six years, but her sentence was suspended and she got off with a simple fine.)

In any event, I suspect most of us were finally disabused of all hope that she would ever reconcile her behavior with those vestments when it became clear that neither marriage to a freed Nelson Mandela nor the black rule for which she struggled so heroically was enough to satiate her promiscuous political ambition.

Therefore, it was clearly just a matter of time before spiteful bile came pouring out of this woman scorned - not only by Nelson (who divorced her in 1996) but also by the new black leadership (which has refused to honor her as the “mother of the nation” in ways she no doubt expected).

Well, here comes the bile. It flows from an interview conducted by Nadira Naipaul (wife of internationally acclaimed Trinidadian writer V.S. Naipaul), excerpts of which were published yesterday in the London newspaper The Evening Standard.  

Here are just some of the things Winnie is now saying about Mandela - a man who, by all accounts, wore the vestments of a political saint and savior as well as any mortal ever could:

This name Mandela is an albatross around the necks of my family. You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died.

Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a young revolutionary but look what came out.

Mandela let us down. He agreed to a bad deal for the blacks. Economically we are still on the outside. The economy is very much “white”.

I cannot forgive him for going to receive the Nobel with his jailer de Klerk. Hand in hand they went. Do you think de Klerk released him from the goodness of his heart? He had to. The times dictated it, the world had changed.

Mandela is now like a corporate foundation. He is wheeled out globally to collect the money.

Frankly, even though she has been effectively marginalized as a political voice in South Africa, and even though what she says about him probably couldn’t matter any less to Mandela, this must disappoint, if not outrage, anyone who cares about his legacy.   

Never mind that if it were up to Winnie, and not Nelson, the Mandela name today would be analogous to that of Mugabe. Which makes me wonder why this South African Beelzebub is still being fêted all over America - as she is this week. Enough said…?

I just pray Michelle won’t be saying similar things about “this name Obama” someday - given Barack’s pragmatic determination to emulate Mandela’s art of political compromise … with friends and foe alike.

NOTE: Not surprisingly, Winnie’s remarks spread like wildfire throughout South African on Tuesday.  The ANC claims that it sought immediate clarification. But party spokesman Ismael Mnisi told the BBC that “she has not gotten back to us”.  No kidding.

Related commentaries:
Happy Birthday Mandela 46664
Mandela joins Lincoln, Disraeli, and Churchill…

They really should give up trying to make the Oscars into a comedy/variety show. Neil Patrick Harris might’ve been persuasive playing a doctor on Doogie Howser, but he must have embarrassed gay men everywhere with that wooden song-and-dance opening, Broadwayesque number.

And Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin hosting together weren’t half as good as Billy Crystal hosting by himself….  

[A] three-hour show - only six minutes of which anyone really cares about (i.e., the time it takes to present Oscars for best supporting actor and actress, best actor and actress, best director and best picture).  And, remarkably enough, the host comedians do little to relieve the boredom of the interludes between these carefully spread-out moments.

[2008 Oscars, TIJ, February 25, 2008]

Enough said.

So, with due respect to all, here are the winners for the only Oscar categories anybody was interested in last night. (But damn the producers for awarding only two of them during the first three hours; and then jamming the last four in the last half hour of this insufferably long show - when most of us had to have been too bored to care, if we were still awake….)

Anyway, in each case here, the naming of the actual winner is followed by my pick and the accompanying notes I made in my original commentary, which was published on Saturday morning:

Actor in a Leading Role: Jeff Bridges

My pick: JEFF BRIDGES in Crazy Heart - Not necessarily because I think he was the best; for that distinction goes to Colin Firth in A Single Man - under the noteworthy direction of designer Tom Ford.  

Instead, I believe Bridges will get the nod for the same sentimental reasons Mickey Rourke almost won last year for The Wrestler:  he has been around a very long time, has a personal story that could rival any script, and the Academy loves welcoming prodigal actors back into the fold with Oscar’s seal of approval.

(Incidentally, the only reason Mickey didn’t win is that he was up against Sean Penn who, as we all know, is the poster boy for this kind antic sentimentality. Hang in there Mickey….)

Original Song: The Weary Kind

My pick: Ryan Bingham should win in the Original Song category for this movie’s theme song, The  Weary Kind.  

Actor in a Supporting Role (and Best Acceptance Speech): Christoph Waltz

My pick: CHRISTOPH WALTZ in Inglourious Basterds - As Ralph Fiennes demonstrated in Schindler’s List, it takes real talent to make a Nazi bastard seem endearing.  Waltz does the same in this movie.

Beyond this, though, there’s something very appealing about a brilliant actor like Waltz - who can explain the method of his acting with engaging clarity (as he did during a recent interview on Charlie Rose); as opposed to a peer like Daniel Day Lewis - whose annoying inscrutability in this respect is legend.

Actress in a Leading Role: Sandra Bullock

My pick: SANDRA BULLOCK in The Blind Side - With Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren in this category, it should be self-evident that I’m not picking Bullock because of her talent. 

Instead, I suspect the Academy will reward her for proving at long last that a leading woman can headline a bona fide Hollywood blockbuster.

And despite its atavistic, white-civilizing-black storyline, the fact that this movie is based on a true story gives her that Erin Brokovich (Julia Roberts), Norma Rae (Sally Field) winning appeal.

Never mind that to make Bullock’s character even more of a white heroine, the movie made it seem as though she had to teach the big black boy not only the ABCs of learning, but the ABCs of football as well.  In reality, the boy (Michael Oher) was already a pretty good player before his white family “saved” him.

That said, let me hasten to note that if more rich, white families want to adopt big black boys and  make professional sports stars out of them, great!  Better that than to have them grow up on the streets, with all that portends for them … and us.

Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo’Nique

My pick: MO’NIQUE in Precious - Ironically, just as racial stereotypes will help Bullock win, they will help Mo’nique win.

In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that the producers of this film, Oprah and Tyler Perry, figured that Mo’nique’s Mammy look would increase her chances of winning the Oscar - just as it did for the first black woman to win, Hattie McDaniel in Gone with the Wind.

And let’s face it, the black women who have won all played very similar, stereotypical black roles; namely, Whoopi in Ghost, Halle Berry in Monster’s Ball, and Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls (on an admittedly more sophisticated and redeeming level).     

Directing: Kathryn Bigelow

My pick: KATHRYN BIGELOW for The Hurt Locker - Not least because I love her name.  But just as Bullock will be rewarded for breaking the glass ceiling on blockbusters, Bigelow will be for integrating the all boys club of Oscar-winning directors.  And that she did it with a film of such griping suspense and insidious violence dispels all kinds of sexist stereotypes.

Of course, there’s also the undeniable intrigue of not only competing in this category against her ex-husband, James Cameron for that movie hegemon, Avatar, but also having him declare (in an unwittingly chauvinistic, she’s-still-my-woman way) that she should win for directing and he for best picture.

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

My pick: THE HURT LOCKER - Avatar seems to be a lock, and for very legitimate reasons. But, in most cases, I think the person who wins for best directing should see the film he/she directed win for best picture too. That should be the case this year. 

This result would also celebrate the redeeming value of having the least expensive as well as least profitable film of the year (with The Hurt Locker costing $14 million and grossing only $19 million) beat out the most expensive as well as most profitable one (with Avatar costing over $200 million and grossing over $2.5 billion).

NOTE: This means that I was 6 out of 6 in my picks … I know.

But who knew the two winners of the short documentary film for Prudence would provide the most exciting moment of the evening when one of them pulled a Kanye by cutting off the other in mid-sentence to go on a completely incomprehensible rave about her film.

Meanwhile, is it just me or did Zoe Saldana look like she was still wearing her Na’vi makeup from Avatar…? And I hope that, with all the praise people are heaping of Gabourey Sidebe for her performance in Precious, someone cares enough to warn her that parts are limited enough for black women in Hollywood who look like Halle Berry and Angela Bassett. But that for black women who look like her, they are once in a lifetime … and that she just had hers.  

Related commentaries:
2008 Oscars… 

Here are my picks for the only Oscar categories anybody will be interested in tomorrow evening; with due respect of course to all of the other very talented nominees:

Actor in a Leading Role

JEFF BRIDGES in Crazy Heart - Not necessarily because I think he was the best; for that distinction goes to Colin Firth in the Single Man - under the noteworthy direction of designer Tom Ford.  

Instead, I believe Bridges will get the nod for the same sentimental reasons Mickey Rourke almost won last year for The Wrestler:  he has been around a very long time, has a personal story that could rival any script, and the Academy loves welcoming prodigal actors back into the fold with Oscar’s seal of approval.

(Incidentally, the only reason Mickey didn’t win is that he was up against Sean Penn who, as we all know, is the poster boy for this kind antic sentimentality. Hang in there Mickey….)

NOTE: Ryan Bingham should win in the Original Song category for this movie’s theme song, The  Weary Kind.

Actor in a Supporting Role

CHRISTOPH WALTZ in Inglourious Basterds - As Ralph Fiennes demonstrated in Schindler’s List, it takes real talent to make a Nazi bastard seem endearing.  Waltz does the same in this movie.

Beyond this, though, there’s something very appealing about a brilliant actor like Waltz - who can explain the method of his acting with engaging clarity (as he did during a recent interview on Charlie Rose); as opposed to a peer like Daniel Day Lewis - whose annoying inscrutability in this respect is legend.

Actress in a Leading Role

SANDRA BULLOCK in The Blind Side - With Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren in this category, it should be self-evident that I’m not picking Bullock because of her talent. 

Instead, I suspect the Academy will reward her for proving at long last that a leading woman can headline a bona fide Hollywood blockbuster.

And despite its atavistic, white-civilizing-black storyline, the fact that this movie is based on a true story gives her that Erin Brokovich (Julia Roberts), Norma Rae (Sally Field) winning appeal.

Never mind that to make Bullock’s character even more of a white heroine, the movie made it seem as though she had to teach the big black boy not only the ABCs of learning, but the ABCs of football as well.  In reality, the boy (Michael Oher) was already a pretty good player before his white family “saved” him.

That said, let me hasten to note that if more rich, white families want to adopt big black boys and  make professional sports stars out of them, great!  Better that than to have them grow up on the streets, with all that portends for them … and us.

Actress in a Supporting Role

MO’NIQUE in Precious - Ironically, just as racial stereotypes will help Bullock win, they will help Mo’nique win.

In fact, one could be forgiven for thinking that the producers of this film, Oprah and Tyler Perry, figured that Mo’nique’s Mammy look would increase her chances of winning the Oscar - just as it did for the first black woman to win, Hattie McDaniel in Gone with the Wind.

And let’s face it, the black women who have won all played very similar, stereotypical black roles; namely, Whoopi in Ghost, Halle Berry in Monsters Ball, and Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls (on an admittedly more sophisticated and redeeming level)    

Directing

KATHRYN BIGELOW for Hurt Locker - Not least because I love her name.  But just as Bullock will be rewarded for breaking the glass ceiling on blockbusters, Bigelow will be for integrating the all boys club of directors of war movies.  And that she did it in such griping, suspenseful, and appropriately violent fashion dispels all kinds of sexist stereotypes.

Of course, there’s also the undeniable intrigue of not only competing in this category against her ex-husband, James Cameron for that movie hegemon, Avatar, but also having him declare (in an unwittingly chauvinistic, she’s-still-my-woman way) that she should win for directing and he for best picture.

Best Picture

HURT LOCKER - Avatar seems to be a lock, and for very legitimate reasons. But, in most cases, I think the person who wins for best directing should see the film he/she directed win for best picture too. That should be the case this year.

We shall see….

Yesterday, a congressional committee passed a resolution declaring the World War I killing of untold numbers of Armenians by Ottoman Turks a genocide.  And, given media reports on this resolution, you’d think it caused a Cold-War rift in the strategic relationship between the US and Turkey, its NATO (and Afghan-War) ally.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

Granted, Obama practically begged Congress not to pass it to avoid upsetting Turkey; and Turkey promptly reacted by recalling its ambassador in a hissy fit.

I think the Americans would feel that same if we were to pass a resolution in our parliament talking about the treatment of [native] Indians in this country…  We are seriously concerned that this bill… will harm Turkish-US relations and impede efforts aimed at normalising Turkish-Armenian tie…

We condemn this resolution which accuses the Turkish nation of a crime it has not committed.

(Statement by Turkish government)

Fair enough Turkey. But until it’s voted on by the entire House, this resolution has no binding effect. Moreover, the US and Turkey have played this kabuki diplomatic dance before; most recently in 2007 when the Democratically controlled Congress had a perceived interest in passing a similar resolution to frustrate the foreign policy of (Republican) President George W. Bush by passing a similar resolution.

Yet cooler heads prevailed, and the resolution never even made it to the floor of the House for a vote:

Even the diplomatically challenged George W. Bush has decried this pending resolution as an egregious insult to a desperately needed and remarkably loyal ally. And never mind that it arrogates to American politicians the presumptuous role of judge and jury on a contentious matter that Turkish politicians themselves are still trying to resolve.

Because, even if the genocide at issue is an historical fact (and I’ve read enough to believe that it is), the U.S. has no compelling interest in passing this political resolution. Especially when Congress could be debating far more constructive measures to help Bush stop the genocides now unfolding in Darfur and Zimbabwe… Not to mention the absurdity of its members making a proclamation about events that occurred during World War I, when the vast majority of the people they represent barely know what occurred during World War II.)

[US Congress set to condemn Turkey, TIJ, October 15, 2007]

So, just as it was in 2007, there’ll be lots of pulling and tugging but no rift between the US and Turkey over this resolution. It too will die in committee. Not least because even voting on it would undermine all of the goodwill President Obama has built up with this key Muslim country as well as convey the impression that, as their infighting over healthcare reform demonstrates, Democrats can’t get their act together on anything.

Our focus is on continuing to make progress on an issue that has, for almost 100 years, divided two countries [Turkey and Armenia]. Through some very tough diplomatic work by Secretary Clinton, we’ve made progress. We’re on the cusp of normalization [between them].

(White House spokesman Robert Gibbs)

Related commentaries:
Congressional committee condemns Turkey

What has transpired over the past five years in the Second-World country of Ukraine should disabuse anyone of the notion that terminally dysfunctional governments exist only in the Third World.

Here are a few excerpts from a September 24, 2008, commentary entitled Update on my favorite ex-communists: the Ukrainians that should explain why:

I officially declare the coalition of democratic forces … in Ukraine’s parliament dissolved. This has been long expected, but for me it is extremely sad.   I would not call this a political apocalypse, though it is true that it is another challenge of democracy. I hope we can overcome it.

(Arseny Yatsenyuk, Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament)

With that declaration last week, yet another Ukrainian government bit the dust; which is saying quite a lot given that I felt obliged to open my most recent update on the Ukrainians as follows:

…no American politician could have anticipated the obsession fractious Ukrainians evidently developed for elections after their split from the former Soviet Union. After all, Sunday’s national poll was the third in three years, which puts the Ukrainians on track to make the Italians’ promiscuous penchant for changing governments seem positively chaste.

[UPDATE on my favorite ex-communists: the Ukrainians, The iPINIONS Journal, October 2, 2007]

Nevertheless, there were great expectations last year that the gunshot re-marriage between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the two leaders of Ukraine’s democratic forces, would last.

But I was more cynical. In fact, despite writing that “perhaps this third time will prove a charm,” I ended last year’s update as follows:

Chances are even better, however, that I’ll be writing a similar update a year from now after another round of elections are called to end yet another period of political deadlock.

And, sure enough, here I am. 

It is noteworthy, however, that this third divorce was caused by far more than persistent irreconcilable differences between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko.   

Because it was triggered by Tymoshenko’s refusal to stand by Yushchenko when he went out on a limb in June to support another ex-communist, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in his failed attempt to oust Russian forces from his country. 

Yushchenko claims that Tymoshenko not only betrayed him (and Ukraine’s democratic forces) but was actually plotting “a political and constitutional coup d’etat” by joining Viktor Yanukovych (right), the leader of Ukraine’s pro-Russian party, in accusing Georgia’s democratic forces of provoking the Russian invasion.

That was the last straw, which evidently forced Yushchenko to walk out on his coalition government with Tymoshenko. Now there’s every indication that, despite talk of reconciliation, Yushchenko will be forced to call snap elections within weeks.

For her part, Tymoshenko insists that the marriage can still work:

I am sorry that the president behaves irresponsibly…. I am convinced that the work of the democratic coalition will be renewed.

Except that, with the Russians feeling so adventuresome these days, they might use this latest episode (which they could argue indicates that the Ukrainians have no ability to govern this former Soviet Republic) as an excuse to do in Ukraine what they did in Georgia … to protect ethnic Russians of course.

But even if the democratic forces come to their senses and renew their vows, chances are very good that I’ll be writing a similar update a year from now….

Well, it’s little more than a year, but this latest update brings much of the same. Because, after joining forces to utterly frustrate  Yushchenko’s presidency, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych began plotting against each other immediately to replace him. 

This led to new presidential elections last month, which resulted in Yanukovych defeating Tymoshenko.  Yet, true to form, this latest change has only ushered in a new term of political chaos and dysfunction. 

In this case, just as she defied Yushchenko, Tymoshenko defied Yanukovych’s demands for her to resign as prime minister so that he could appoint someone whose sole ambition was not to take his job. Her defiance led to an extraordinary vote of no-confidence in parliament yesterday, which will now compel Tymoshenko and her cabinet to resign.

Yanukovych now has 60 days to form a new governing coalition.  But with the old Orange revolutionaries, Yushchenko and Tymoshenko, still hell-bent on putting personal ambition above national governance, his chances of success are slim to none. 

This means that Ukraine is probably in for another round of snap parliamentary elections before summer.  And so it goes….

Related Articles:
UPDATE on my favorite ex-communists
Russia calls US (and EU) bluff [over] Georgian territories

It’s bad enough that grownups would expose themselves to the humiliating spectacle of competing on national TV to be a total stranger’s spouse. But that this contrived farce makes for entertaining television for millions of Americans speaks volumes about this country’s cultural maturity. 

(At least with Soap Operas there’s some redeeming social value in knowing that the people on the screen are just acting like lovelorn fools for our entertainment….) 

Clearly, I am not a fan of The Bachelor; nor of its equally degrading counterpart, The Bachelorette - a show which only proves that women are just like men, not only  in requiring no stimulation above the shoulders to “fall in love” but also in having no compunction about making asses of themselves.

That said, I was truly stupefied when an otherwise intelligent black woman began waxing indignant at a dinner party last night about why the latest bachelor chose the bad girl instead of the good one … duh!  To my surprise, if not dismay, this kick-started a pretty animated discussion among the others (3 women, one man, all white, and all rabid fans of the show) on the merits of which of the two finalists would prove a more suitable wife.

Well, since I had no clue who they were talking about, I could not contribute to this surreal and embarrassingly voyeuristic debate.  But I am familiar with the show, which has become almost as much a cultural phenomenon as American Idol. Therefore, after my dinner companions settled their debate by all agreeing that he chose the wrong member of ABC’s harem to be his bride, it occurred to me to ask this question:

Why do you suppose, of all of the bachelors [10] and bachelorettes [3] ABC has featured on this show, none of them have been black, Hispanic or a person of any color?

Talk about being the skunk at a garden party….  I soon gathered, though, that they were all just waiting for a non-elitist reason to stop watching anyway.

Still, given the prevailing presumptions about living in a post-racial world, you’d think that such a glaring exercise in social eugenics would be unthinkable.  Yet it thrives openly and notoriously. And by the way, littering the harem with token blacks is even more patently contrived than the premise of this show.

There’s no denying that the selection of whites only as the stars of this show reflects a Jim Crow mentality, which holds that watching black people making out on TV is anathema to white people. Fair enough. I just wonder why this “white reality” resonates with so many black people…?

Frankly, I thought we relegated this prejudice to the dustbin of history over three decades ago.   Remember Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Hell, that was over four decades ago. 

But I can just hear producers at ABC rationalizing it by saying that if folks want to see that they can switch to BET, or to some other cable channel - like MTV or VH1 - that even “condones” miscegenation (mixed-race relationships)….

Who will be the next Bachelor?  Well, chances are he won’t be black. But in this case, paradoxically, that’s a good thing, right?

Natural disasters - like earthquakes - should always remind us that there but for the grace of God….  But there’s no denying that living in a relatively rich country increases one’s chance of surviving such disasters tremendously. 

For what is most significant about the 8.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Chile on Saturday is the fact that, even though 500 times more powerful than the one that struck Haiti in January, the number of Chileans who died (est. 723) was less than one percent of the number of Haitians who died (est. 250,000).

It’s bad enough that accident of birth can consign one to a life of chronic poverty. It just seems unfair that even the wrath of Mother Nature affects the poor so disproportionately.

All the same, thank God much of Chile’s infrastructure remained intact. It is also encouraging that its government and law-enforcement authorities seem far more able than Haiti’s were to manage the distribution of emergency relief supplies while maintaining law and order - especially quelling the desperate as well as criminal lootings that always follow these disasters.

(By the way, if you think only poor people resort to looting, let an earthquake hit Beverly Hills, California, making it impossible for its rich residents to escape to second homes or five-star hotels.  I’m sure there would be looting there too; although, those rich folks would probably get their domestic servants to do the looting for them.)

Once again, the United States has taken the lead in responding to a country’s request for emergency relief supplies.  In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to land in Chile today bearing satellite phones and other small supplies.  Included among the items requested are temporary bridges, field hospitals, electric generators, damage assessment teams, water purification systems, field kitchens, and dialysis centers.  The American Red Cross has set up a response fund to accept donations for both Chile and Haiti.  I urge you to donate now, by clicking here.

My prayers and thoughts go out to the people of Chile, especially those in coastal communities whose homes were completely washed away by the tsunami this earthquake triggered.

NOTE: Right after this earthquake struck on Saturday, American media spent more time covering the forecast of a tsunami wiping out Hawaii than on the death and destruction already playing out in Haiti. 

Meanwhile the tsunami turned out to be no more than typical Hawaiian surf.  Which I fear means that the next time the authorities blare sirens all over the state warning of that big wave, chances are that very few people are going to heed calls to evacuate.  Of course, that’s when it will hit….

Closing Ceremony

Given the excitement generated by the USA vs. Canada in hockey this afternoon, it’s hardly surprising that tonight’s Closing Ceremony in Vancouver, Canada, was rather anticlimactic. The Britneyesque lip-synching performance did not get things off to a good start…. And I suspect most Olympians were wondering who the hell geriatric Neil Young was as they sat on their hands just dying to party.

I know a few rockers, including Avril Lavigne and Alanis Morissette, picked things up later on. But by then I suspect the earlier performances had already induced slumber for most of us on the east coast….

Overall performance of marquee athletes

Maria Riesch

Maria Riesch of Germany, who won two gold medals in Alpine skiing, was easily the standout performer of the Vancouver Olympics. Yet most references to her during NBC’s American-centric coverage had to do with her being American skier Lindsey Vonn’s best friend.

In fact, NBC’s coverage was focused on four athletes: Shaun White, Lindsey Vonn, Bode Miller and Apolo Anton Ohno. Never mind that the most decorated athlete was Norwegian Marit Bjoergen - who won 3 gold, one silver and one bronze in Cross Country skiing, but got virtually no coverage at all…..

Shaun White

You don’t need to know what a double mctwist 1260 is to appreciate how well White did in actually living up to all the hype in the Snowboard Halfpipe.  Never mind that watching him win the gold medal in this event was not nearly as interesting as watching the profile on his training, which featured a helicopter ride to the top of a snowcapped mountain in Colorado - where his sponsors had constructed a halfpipe for him to try out his new tricks in private.

Lindsey Vonn

After Vonn won gold in her first event, all of the hype about her performing a Phelpsian feat by winning gold in all five of her events seemed justified. Then she won silver … and proceeded to either crash or “ski out” of her next three events, and that was that.

Bode Miller

Miller did much the same; although, he secured three medals (gold, silver and bronze) before skiing out of his final two events in equally disappointing fashion. But, like Vonn, his earlier medal-winning performances (which I praised, on both accounts, in a related commentary) were probably satisfying enough….

Apolo Anton Ohno

Then there was Ohno - who didn’t even win gold, but had more air time than any other athlete at these Games.  In fact, nothing demonstrated how misguided all of the attention NBC heaped on him was quite like the sour grapes that spilled out of his mouth after he failed to defend his gold medal in the Men’s 500m in Speedskating. Because instead of accepting that he was properly disqualified for trying to manhandle his way to victory, he played the nationalism card (with a smirk and a shrug - as one sports reporter observed in disgust):

You know, it is the head Canadian referee out there. And there were two Canadians in the race.

For the record, but for Ohno pushing instead of skating his way across the finish line, he would not have been in contention to win even the bronze medal in this race.   He showed himself to be a classless jerk. This, notwithstanding that, with the one silver and two bronze medals he won at these Games, he became the most decorated Winter Olympian in US history with eight medals.

Pairs Ice dancing

I just don’t get it.  (Maybe they should add double dutch skipping to the Summer Olympic Games.) At least with pairs figure skating there are technical requirements - with jumps, throws, and spins - that make plain the athletic skill required. Ice dancing just seems like ballroom dancing on ice: entertaining but ultimately too subjective.

Actually, I’m only commenting on it because of the controversy the pair from Russia incited with their aboriginal costume and makeup during the original (folk) dance part of the competition.  To be perfectly honest, at first, I did not get what all the fuss was about. After all, their Indian costume seemed no more (culturally) offensive than the Cowboy costume a different pair wore.

Then I found out that this controversy stems from the fact that, when this Russian pair performed their routine at the European Championships just before the Olympics, they wore body paint - complete with brown face.  That I get. Indeed, just imagine the international outrage if this pair had decided to pay homage to black culture by showing up in black face and dancing to Mr Bojangles.

In the end though, they should be commended for arriving in Canada with peace offerings for aboriginal Indians leaders as well as for seeking guidance on how to modify their costume to make it a little more politically correct. 

That said, the only thing noteworthy about the actual competition is that the Canadian pair of Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir won; since I’m sure this provided a desperately needed shot of jingoism for their compatriots who all went into mourning after their hockey team lost to the US the night before.  (By the way, how can anyone have a prayer against a competitor with the name “Tessa Virtue”?) The US pair took silver, the Russia pair bronze.

Speedskating Men’s 10,000m

This event is considered the marathon of Speedskating. Yet skaters go at it the way runners go at the 800m: effectively, in a prolonged sprint.  Continuing the runners’ analogy, Sven Kramer of the Netherlands was being hailed at these Olympics for being as dominant in long-distance skating as Usain Bolt of Jamaica was in the sprint races at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics.  And after blowing away the field in the 5,000m last week, it seemed a foregone conclusion that Kramer would emulate Bolt by winning the 10,000m in similar fashion for two individual gold medals. 

And he did, finishing 7.57 seconds ahead of a skater from South Korea.  Except that he had actually beaten himself by making an illegal crossover into another lane during the latter stages of the race. He was disqualified; the South Korean was awarded his gold.

To understand what a blunder this was, just imagine if, after breezing across the finish line in world-record time in the 200m in Beijing, Bolt was disqualified for running out of his lane as he bolted around the corner.  But it only compounded Kramer’s heartbreak that his coach is the one who signaled to him to make that crossover: stunning, stupid, embarrassing, and costly….

Given that Speedskating is to the Dutch what soccer is to the Brazilians, that coach might want to consider defecting to … South Korea.

Women’s Figure Skating

Figure skating is usually the signature event of the Winter Olympics. No doubt this is due, in part, to the elegance of champions like Peggy Flemming, the sex appeal of champions like Katerina Vitt, and the athleticism of champions like Tara Lipinski.  It seems fitting therefore that the star of this year’s competition was a South Korean skater, Kim Yu Na, who displayed all of these qualities, and then some. 

Moreover, with all due respect to the hyped-up Americans cited above ( as well as Petter Northug, the Norwegian who won the most grueling event of the Games, the Men’s 50km Cross Country, but still failed to perform as expected, and as he bragged he would), Kim was the only athlete who actually lived up to all of the hype.

In fact, no one in recent Olympic history has inspired more national hope and engendered more national  pride than she has among her compatriots. Therefore, just imagine their unbridled joy when she won. And, since the bickering that followed the men’s figure skating event utterly destroyed the myth that there’s no politics in Olympic sports, just imagine the sense of vindication the Koreans must have derived from Kim defeating her nemesis, Mao Asada of Japan, so convincingly. Mao settled for silver. 

Ironically, both of them were upstaged by bronze medal winner Joannie Rochette of Canada, who performed a heartfelt routine in honor of her Mummy who died suddenly just days before she was scheduled to compete. To be honest though, after Olympic mourning for the Georgian Luger permeated so much television commentary during the first week of these Games, I found all of the contrived, if not exploitative, wallowing in this skater’s grief during the second week unseemly. 

Ice Hockey

As indicated above, figure skating is usually the signature event of the Winter Olympics. Whenever the Games are held in Canada, however, hockey becomes that event.  And so it was in Vancouver.

First, it should be noted that the Canadian women’s team won the gold medal in pretty impressive fashion. (Unfortunately, both IOC and Canadian officials chastised them for not only tarnishing their gold medals but also making a mockery of the Olympic spirit by swilling champagne, guzzling beers, and smoking cigars in celebration right there on the rink.)

Yet, with all due respect to the women, all of Canada’s pride was invested in the men winning gold.  And every member of its national team was surely mindful that failing to win in hockey at these Olympics would bring more humiliation and shame to Canada than the USA men’s team failing to win in basketball at the Los Angeles Olympics (1984) would have brought to the US.  After all, the Americans can take pride in being the best in the world in many other sports.  For Canadians, beyond ice and snow, there’s nowhere else to go.

No doubt this is why the entire country fell into an acute state of depression and anomie when the USA defeated Canada in a preliminary round a week ago. Conversely, the entire US reacted as if it were the gold medal game.  But here’s how I put this game into context, unwittingly expressing more confidence in team Canada than most Canadians:

This was only a preliminary-round match, which means that even though the Americans won this battle, the Canadians can still win this war. And I’m betting on it. But, “woe Canada….”

[2010 Winter Olympics Update II, TIJ, February 22, 2010]

Well, the Canadians won the war; and in dramatic fashion too by defeating team USA in overtime 3-2. Frankly, such was the significance of this game that if it had produced Canada’s only gold medal of these Olympics, most Canadians would still have been imbued with enough pride to last another generation. 

After not winning a single gold in two previous stints as host country, Canada ended up winning more gold medals at these Winter Olympics than any other country: Canada 14; Germany 10; and USA (tied with Norway) 9.

I’m sure my American friends would want me point out, however, that the USA won bragging rights in the overall medal count: USA 37; Germany 30; Canada 26; Norway 23; and Austria 16.

NOTE: The mighty Russians were expecting to win 40 medals and ended up winning only 15. Therefore, the pressure is on, and from no less a person that their neo-Czarist prime minister, Vladimir Putin, for national redemption when Russian hosts the next Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014.

Related commentaries:
Winter Olympics update II

Because somehow all of the judges ended up being Republicans. What’s up with that?!

The Falkland Islands are little more than a bleak and desolate cluster of rocks dotting the South Atlantic Ocean some 8,000 miles from Britain. Therefore, when British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dispatched the Royal Navy there in 1982 to oust Argentine forces, I thought she was acting pursuant to some quixotic, neocolonial notion of extraterritorial sovereignty.

It never occurred to me that she went to war in the Falklands for the same reason US President George W. Bush went to war in Iraq two decades later; namely, oil. Now - even though it took British prospectors decades - they finally found “black gold under them there rocks” and just this week began drilling for every drop.

To their credit, Argentines (who jingoistically refer to these islands by their Spanish name, Malvinas) have always charged that mining the islands’ hydrocarbon deposits was the prevailing casus belli.  Not surprisingly, the British striking oil has only added mounds of salt to the wounded pride that has been festering among Argentines ever since they were forced to surrender control of the Falklands Islands (and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands).

But even though wounded, their pride has never been, and will never be, so foolish as to cause them to attempt to avenge their defeat on the battlefield. This is why they have chosen to engage the British in war of words for control, or at least an equitable share, of the reported 60 billion barrels of oil that is due to be extracted.

In fact, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is even deploying Churchillian rhetoric by vowing that her country’s sovereignty over these islands “would never be surrendered.” Unfortunately, this smacks of the feckless machismo we’ve come to expect of blowhards like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez; especially since it’s demonstrably clear that Argentines do not have the balls to back up her words with “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” 

Instead, Argentina would be better served by her crying the following ironic, perhaps even hypocritical, symmetry in the court of public opinion:

Just as Iran seems determined to develop its nuclear program despite restraining UN resolutions and legitimate legal challenges (proffered by US and backed by most Western powers), Britain seems determined to drill for oil despite restraining UN resolutions and legitimate legal challenges (proffered by Argentina and backed by the 32 countries of Latin American and the Caribbean).

We are absolutely clear this is legitimate business in Falkland Islands waters and we will continue to reiterate our position that we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the surrounding maritime areas.

(Chris Bryant, minister British Foreign Office)

Except that serial admissions by other Foreign Office officials over the past 100 years make the legitimacy of this drilling business anything but clear. Here, for example, are two that were cited on the question of sovereignty in a 1987 report by Lieutenant Commander Richard D. Chenette, USN, for seminar on “War in the Modern Era”:

[I]t is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government’s attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed.

(Head of Foreign Office’s American Department 1927)

I must confess that … I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours.

(British Ambassador in Argentina 1929-1932)

Mind you, this is not to say that the legitimacy of the Argentines’ claims is crystal clear.  It’s just that they are not only the plainly aggrieved party, but now hold the moral high ground for having properly referred this international dispute to the United Nations for resolution.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to note how categorically inconsistent Bryant’s statement (quoted above) is with the right of Falkland Islanders to self-determination….  But given all the British have invested in these islands, not least the loss of over 250 soldiers during that 74-day war in 1982, who can blame them for declaring such a prideful, even if neocolonial, claim of sovereignty?

They will have to forgive some of us for inferring, however, that this high-risk, high-reward investment explains why they’ve been giving short shrift to undisputed UK territories in the Caribbean in recent years.

After all, the vestiges of their colonial involvement in these islands can fairly be characterized as low risk for even lower reward (i.e., no prospect of drilling off our pristine shores even if oil were found beneath our Caribbean Sea).

First, for a little context and perspective, please be advised that product recalls affect hundreds of millions of people in the United States every year.  And many have been prompted by defects in cars that “caused the deaths of innocent Americans.” 

Remember the rollover and tire problems that plagued Ford Explorers in 2000?  Industry experts say that those defects caused “as many as 250 deaths and more than 3,000 catastrophic injuries” before Ford issued a recall. 

I won’t even mention the recalls that have been related to defective Chinese products….

More to the point, in each case CEOs duly appeared before Congress for a humiliating tongue lashing. Notwithstanding that these hearings never produce any insights about or remedies to these defects. Those usually come from negotiation between company executives and government regulators - in this case the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

All the Toyota vehicles bear my name. For me, when the cars are damaged, it is as though I am as well. I, more than anyone, wish for Toyota’s cars to be safe, and for our customers to feel safe when they use our vehicles… I am deeply sorry.

(Akio Toyoda, CEO Toyota Motor Company)

In fact, the only thing novel about yesterday’s hearing was the CEO involved.  After all, the media has portrayed him variously as a member of the Japanese royal family and as a member of the Japanese Yakuza (mob). 

No doubt this is why these plebian congressmen could not resist reveling in the schadenfreude of Mr Toyoda himself, the grandson of the company’s founder. Especially since this was not the case when Mr Ford, the great-grandson of that company’s founder, appeared before Congress, hat in hand, begging for a bailout in 2008.

At any rate, they have now had their day.

That said, it would be naïve not to appreciate that this public flogging of Toyota over the safety of its cars was infused with an unbridled dose of commercial nationalism. For selling cars is a zero-sum business. And these congressmen know full well that the worse they make Japanese cars look, the better they make American cars look:  not only to Americans but also to the Chinese and other potential customers worldwide.  And fair enough, since but for its deadly brakes defect and the craven attempt by executives to cover it up, none of this would be happening.

Of course there’s also the fodder they’re providing for the trial lawyers who contribute so handsomely to their campaign coffers.  For taking shots from Congress is cheap compared to the shots Toyota will be taking from class action suits, which will cost it billions.

So, when all is said and done, this will hardly be a “win for Toyota” - as its executives were caught boasting in a compromising internal memo when they thought they were going to get away with a limited recall.  Far from being limited, they have now had to recall over 8.5 million cars and trucks … and counting - by far the largest in history.

NOTE: The fact that Toyoda agreed to appear before Congress reflects the importance not only of the US market to Toyota’s bottom line, but also of American goodwill to Japan’s foreign policy agenda.  After all, foreign CEOs are beyond the reach of Congressional subpoenas, and most have sensibly avoided these dog and pony shows like the plague.

Brown’s victory will change the Democratic majority in the US Senate from 60-40 to 59-41. But listening to political pundits you’d think that he alone now holds the power not only to defeat Obama’s policy agenda (most notably healthcare reform), but also to render him a failed one-term president.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Not least because I doubt this wannabe a full-term senator will risk the wrath of Massachusetts’ liberal voters by siding with rabid, hoping-Obama-fails conservative Republicans on very many issues.

[The election of Scott Brown: full of sound and fury..., TIJ, January 20, 2010]

Wingnuts in the Republican Party are already branding him a red (commie) traitor. Why…? Because, as the opening quote attests, Scott Brown did yesterday exactly what I predicted he would do: he demonstrated that he will not blindly support their conservative-traditional agenda just to undercut President Obama’s progressive-transformative agenda.

Mind you, it should tell you all you need to know about these wingnuts (a.k.a. Christian conservatives) that just weeks ago they were heralding Brown as the Moses of their Party, now they’re damning him as just another Judas. (If Brown were smart, he would leave the Republican Party and run for reelection in 2012 as an Independent….) 

Their instructive, Talibanic denunciation of him came over a jobs bill, which actually included - in the spirit of bipartisanship - job-creation measures that Democrats demanded as well as tax-cutting provisions that Republicans always touted as an article of their legislative faith. Yet only Brown and four other Republicans voted to support this bill. The other 36 members of their caucus in the Senate voted to kill it.

This clearly proves that Republicans are so determined to see Obama fail that they would even vote against their own avowed policies if he expresses any support for them. And this fanatical hypocrisy is bound to be on display on Thursday when Obama invites them to the White House for televised negotiations over healthcare reform.  

But much to the delight of Democrats, and chagrin of Republicans, Brown has already shown himself to be far more principled than members of either party anticipated:  

I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.

(Scott Brown)

This bodes well for Obama; never mind that he reportedly plans to fund this jobs bill “by a crackdown on offshore tax shelters” in the Caribbean.  Yet he too is now doing exactly what I predicted he would do:

I fear, however, that, racial pride aside, those in this region who heralded Obama’s election as the dawn of a new day in US-Caribbean relations are in for a rude awakening…  Even if he manages to turn his attention to us, it would probably only be to cripple our banking industry by closing “loopholes” in the US tax code, which allow American corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid taxation by using the offshore accounts that have become so integral to our regional economy.

[Obama elected...and world celebrates ‘change', Caribbean Net News, November 7, 2008]

Special Note on Republican Strategy

Far too many pundits are flattering Republicans by propagating the notion that their politics of obstruction and nullification represent a shrewd strategy for reclaiming power in Washington.  These pundits don’t even bother to qualify their ennobling flattery by noting the ominous fact that this strategy is institutionalizing legislative partisanship and gridlock.

What strikes me most about it, however, is the way Republicans are trying to marginalize, and even delegitimize, Obama as president of the United States.

This is why people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck keep referring to him as a socialist who “does not share the core values of the American people.” They also cultivate alienation among feral supporters toward him by giving credence to demonstrably false claims about Obama being a Muslim who was not even born in the USA.

It might be too politically incorrect for others to say, but here’s calling this spade a spade:  the only thing that explains why this patently irrational strategy has gained such currency among Republicans is bad old-fashioned racism.  And no doubt this racial antipathy is only made more indignant by the uppity Obama’s declared aspiration to be an even more transformational president than their beloved Godfather, Ronald Reagan.

In any event, having spent the first year of his presidency trying to reason with unreasonable Republicans, Obama now has just cause to use Executive Orders as well as congressional procedures like Reconciliation to enact his legislative agenda.  And he need not worry about too much backlash because these lunatic Republicans comprise no more than 25 percent of the electorate. 

So here’s to “Rahming” healthcare reform, immigration reform, deficit reduction, and other sensible legislation down their throats, Mr. President! 

Related commentaries:
Election of Scott Brown…
Obama elected…

* The commentary was originally published yesterday afternoon at 12:54

Men’s 1000  and 1500 (long track)

Shani Davis defended his 2006 title by winning the 1000 in very impressive fashion. Unfortunately, despite being the world record holder in the 1500, he was unable to win Olympic gold in this event. Shani won silver. 

 It’s too bad Shani Davis is not more of a household name in America.  He’s clearly a very disciplined and polite, even if somewhat guarded, athlete.

Of course, with football, baseball, basketball, and many other sports competing for popularity, it’s understandable why Speedskating is virtually unknown here. But to the extent it is, I wonder why Shani does not get even one-tenth of the media coverage or the commercial endorsements Apolo gets…

Short track, featuring Apolo Anton Ohno, is easily more exciting; not least because of the jostling and crashes involved. But there’s something very majestic about watching the strength and gliding form the men and women in long-track skating display

Snowboarding Men’s Halfpipe

Shaun White is to this sport today what Michael Jordan was to basketball in his prime.  What is most interesting about this is that White is almost as big outside of his sport as Jordan was. And it will only add to his stature that he won this event by performing superhuman tricks with such ease, including one he invented himself which nobody else dares even try.

Snowboarding Women’s Halfpipe

Alas, watching the women perform their tricks is about as exciting as watching female basketball players compete in a slam dunk competition. Having said that, it was great to watch Australian Torah Bright upset what was billed as a sure-fire sweep for team USA by winning gold.  Americans Hannah Teeter, the defending gold medalist, and Kelly Clark had settle for silver and bronze, respectively. 

But the airing of Teeter’s personal profile was easily the redeeming feature of this event. It showed how she and her entire family fund a charity, which provides education schools and other social services to a small village in Kenya, with proceeds from her endorsements and earnings on the tour as well as from the sale of Vermont maple syrup.  How delightfully American is that!

Women’s Downhill

Lindsey Vonn lived up to the hype!  She won in commanding fashion. 

She even dispelled rumors about her faking her injury by clearly favoring her injured shin all the way down and crossing the finish line virtually on one leg: a truly Jordanesque performance.  One down, four to go….

Men’s Figure Skating

Frankly, watching men compete in this sport is rather like watching women’s play football.  (On second thought, I actually enjoy watching play football, but for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their play….)

In fact, the most interesting part of this event had to do with the controversy that erupted after American Evan Lysacek defeated Russian defending champion Evegeni Plushenko.  Because the fact that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin thought this warranted an official protest shows how much national pride is vested in these games.

But I know enough about this sport from watching the likes of Debbie Thomas, Katarina Witt, and Kristi Yamagouchi to appreciate what a good technical and artistic performance should look like. Therefore, even though Plushenko looked more athletic (performing his signature quad with relative ease), I think Lysacek’s combination of athleticism and artistry earned him the gold fair and square. But Plushenko insisted he was robbed.

In any event, I’m not sure why NBC thinks it’s good TV to feature trash talking by a guy dressed in tights, embroidered with feathers.  To his credit, Lysacek returned Plushenko’s sour grapes dripping with so much honey I could feel tooth decay setting in just watching it.

Women’s Super Combined

Unlike the Halfpipe, I find the women who compete in alpine skiing every bit as exciting to watch as the men. There’s no discernible difference between the sexes in the skill and daring involved. It’s great, scary stuff. And Maria Riesch of Germany, who won this event, proved it in gold-medal fashion.

Of course, just as Shaun White is the only name really associated with Snowboarding, Lindsey Vonn (on the women’s side) and Bode Miller (on the men’s side) are the only names associated with alpine skiing - on American TV that is.  For example, one could be forgiven for thinking that Vonn, not her teammate American Julia Mancuso, was the defending champion in the Women’s Downhill.  Yet Mancuso demonstrated her bona fides by outperforming Vonn to win silver in the Super Combined (a downhill and slalom run) behind Riesch. Vonn crashed. So much for emulating Michael Phelps…

Men’s Super-G

It is hard to top the pathos surrounding Bode Miller - who continued quest for redemption by winning a silver medal to add to his bronze in the downhill. But Norwegian Aksel Lund Svindal comes close.

For here’s a guy who suffered what should have been a career-ending crash on the slopes in 2007.  So to see him outperform all competitors to rise to the top of the Olympic podium was truly heartwarming.  Yet the glib Bode can’t help himself. Because when asked to explain why the Americans are dominating so many events at these Games, he offered this pithy, and begrudgingly endearing, reply:

Aside from the fact that we’re just much better than everybody else . . .

Women’s Super-G

Well, with all due respect to Bode, the Americans are not as dominant as all that.  For skiers from Austria and Slovenia proved better in this event, winning gold and silver, respectively.  Vonn held on to win bronze.  But leave it to Vonn’s husband/coach to give us the first real manifestation of the ugly American at these games by accusing the Austrian course designer of making it “Vonn proof”:

I know for a fact that the Austrian course setter said that he was setting [the super-G course] against Lindsey, which is kind of silly, considering. I know he made a comment to some people that ‘we studied all the tapes, and we found out that the one from Val d’Isere is the one she did worst in,’ which happened to be third place.

Idiot!

Skating Men’s 1000 (short track)

Once again the talk was all about Apolo Anton Ohno’s quest to become the most decorated Winter Olympian in American history. But too often the commentators pushing this line neglected to mention the fact that Eric Heiden won five gold medals (in 1980 alone), and Bonnie Blair won five gold and one bronze (1988, 1992, 1994).

Whereas, with the bronze he won in this event (to surpass Bonnie in total medals won), Ohno’s seven medals are comprised of only two gold (2002, 2006), two silver (2002, 2010) and three bronze (two in 2006, one in 2010).  Not to mention that for the second race now he got smoked by the South Koreans - who won gold and silver in this event, and who would have shot him out of the silver he won a few days ago had they not suffered a freak accident just meters from the finish line.

Men’s Super-G Combined

Bode redeemed.  In what was a truly improbable outcome, he came from seventh place on the first downhill leg to first after the slalom.  And given the combined nature of this event, the gold medalist here can make a legitimate claim to being the best alpine skier at these Olympic Games.  Congratulations Bode!

Men’s Hockey …

Last night’s USA vs. Canada game had to have been the most hyped non-medal event of these Olympics.  And all it did was to seal the triumph of national pride over Olympic glory in every respect. 

Frankly, to see the Americans celebrating their upset 5 to 3 win, and the Canadians mourning their surprising loss, you’d think they had just played the gold-medal match. Or, given that it came on the eve of the 30-year anniversary of the Cold-War gold medal match between the USA and Russia, a more fitting analogy might be that all involved were acting as if this were a second miracle on ice.

In fact, this was only a preliminary-round match, which means that even though the Americans won this battle, the Canadians can still win this war. And I’m betting on it. But, “woe Canada….”

Apropos jingoistic rivalries, who knew the Scandinavians were such a chest-thumping, trash-talking bunch? But the way the Norwegians and Swedes are going at each other over cross-country events makes the back and forth between the US and Canada over hockey seem positively schoolyard.

For the record though, since medal count is the only way to determine bragging rights: 1) The USA is kicking ass so far with 24 (including 7 gold, 7 silver, and 10 bronze);  2) Germany with 18 (6, 7, and 5);  3) Norway - so shut up Sweden?! - with 12 (5, 3, and 4); 4) Canada with 9 (4,4, and 1); and 5) South Korea tied with 9, and of same mix (4,4, and 1). 

So much for Canada’s American-style boast about finishing number one in the medal count, eh!  And I’m sure the Norwegians would want me to point out that the Swedes are trailing way behind in 10^th place with only 6 (3,1, and 2).

Related commentaries:
Olympics Update 1