Not Even Pretending

The Editors of the New York Times at the 2016 Blind Man's Zoo

Morton Hull: Do you realize that more people will be watching you tonight, than all those who have seen theater plays in the last forty years?
Chance the Gardener: Why?

In 1979, a film called "Being There" was released, which represented the final role of the brilliant, eccentric comic actor Peter Sellers.  Sellers played a gardener who had spent (it is implied) his entire life in the house of a rich man, tending to the garden and watching television. Upon the death of the old man, "Chance the Gardener" (he is never actually named in the movie) is forced out into the world. With no education and the apparent wit of a young child, Chance the Gardener encounters a series of increasingly powerful, important people. His cereal box sophistries ("if the roots are strong, the garden will grow") are mistaken for political and economic brilliance, as those around him imagine that they mean this or that in a humourous blind man's zoo of incompetence and misunderstanding.

Yesterday, the editors of the New York Times reviewed the previous day's visit of US presidential candidate Donald Trump to Mexico and subsequent speech on immigration.

I was reminded of all of the people who listened to Chance and saw what they wanted.

Only, rather than the blind man's zoo patrons of the movie, there is something disturbing, malign about the wilful ignorance of the Times in discussing Trump.

Here is the key passage of the discussion:

The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. [emphasis added]

I have read the transcript of the speech. Nowhere does Donald Trump say - or even imply, really - what the writers would have you believe. 

Quite literally, the editors of the newspaper of  record of this country are IMAGINING what Donald Trump is saying.

Read that again. And think about it.

Shocking.

The Editors of the New York Times,
Imagining Donald Trump's Speech

Now, I have no intention of voting for Donald Trump. There are many very good reasons to oppose his candidacy. His lack of a coherent economic plan. The suggestion that the country could simply 'negotiate' its debt for pennies on the dollar (i.e., default). His suggestions of using tactical nuclear weapons in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

In short, one does not need to make up reasons to oppose Trump.

Yet, the Times feels compelled to do so. Why?

I would suggest it's because the writers, like those at the Washington Post have abandoned even the pretense of journalistic ethics and objectivity.  And it's not even due to alleged liberal bias. After all, during the Democratic primaries, the reporting on Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders (the most progressive of the major candidates) was pretty biased against Sanders.

Here, I suspect that the Times, which is largely owned and under the control of Carlos Slim, has an agenda. Slim, at times the wealthiest man in the world, holds near monopolistic control of telecomunications in Mexico. His companies directly benefit from remittances and communications between Mexicans living in the US and back home. Does he really have an objective, honest take on the consequences of illegal immigration?  Is it in his interests to curtail the flow?

In the past, we've been warned about "dog whistles" and "Willie Horton" moments. I guess because the media want to ensure that implicit offences are not overlooked. Suggesting something about President Obama golfing is racist because, well.  I don't know.  The ball is white?

Here, even that is a bridge too far, so we are asked to go beyond listening for something we cannot hear into imagining offence into existence.

We are being lied to. The machine is, apparently, so desperate to grab power that they are not even pretending anymore. It's no longer what the candidates say, but what "we" are asked to imagine that they mean.

The NYT equivalent in Russia is called Pravda, which evokes laughter in the west.  Its name translates to mean "truth," which is almost the definition of irony in a George Orwell sense.

Imagine that.

Not Even Pretending

The Editors of the New York Times at the 2016 Blind Man's Zoo

Morton Hull: Do you realize that more people will be watching you tonight, than all those who have seen theater plays in the last forty years?
Chance the Gardener: Why?

In 1979, a film called "Being There" was released, which represented the final role of the brilliant, eccentric comic actor Peter Sellers.  Sellers played a gardener who had spent (it is implied) his entire life in the house of a rich man, tending to the garden and watching television. Upon the death of the old man, "Chance the Gardener" (he is never actually named in the movie) is forced out into the world. With no education and the apparent wit of a young child, Chance the Gardener encounters a series of increasingly powerful, important people. His cereal box sophistries ("if the roots are strong, the garden will grow") are mistaken for political and economic brilliance, as those around him imagine that they mean this or that in a humourous blind man's zoo of incompetence and misunderstanding.

Yesterday, the editors of the New York Times reviewed the previous day's visit of US presidential candidate Donald Trump to Mexico and subsequent speech on immigration.

I was reminded of all of the people who listened to Chance and saw what they wanted.

Only, rather than the blind man's zoo patrons of the movie, there is something disturbing, malign about the wilful ignorance of the Times in discussing Trump.

Here is the key passage of the discussion:

The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. [emphasis added]

I have read the transcript of the speech. Nowhere does Donald Trump say - or even imply, really - what the writers would have you believe. 

Quite literally, the editors of the newspaper of  record of this country are IMAGINING what Donald Trump is saying.

Read that again. And think about it.

Shocking.

The Editors of the New York Times,
Imagining Donald Trump's Speech

Now, I have no intention of voting for Donald Trump. There are many very good reasons to oppose his candidacy. His lack of a coherent economic plan. The suggestion that the country could simply 'negotiate' its debt for pennies on the dollar (i.e., default). His suggestions of using tactical nuclear weapons in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

In short, one does not need to make up reasons to oppose Trump.

Yet, the Times feels compelled to do so. Why?

I would suggest it's because the writers, like those at the Washington Post have abandoned even the pretense of journalistic ethics and objectivity.  And it's not even due to alleged liberal bias. After all, during the Democratic primaries, the reporting on Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders (the most progressive of the major candidates) was pretty biased against Sanders.

Here, I suspect that the Times, which is largely owned and under the control of Carlos Slim, has an agenda. Slim, at times the wealthiest man in the world, holds near monopolistic control of telecomunications in Mexico. His companies directly benefit from remittances and communications between Mexicans living in the US and back home. Does he really have an objective, honest take on the consequences of illegal immigration?  Is it in his interests to curtail the flow?

In the past, we've been warned about "dog whistles" and "Willie Horton" moments. I guess because the media want to ensure that implicit offences are not overlooked. Suggesting something about President Obama golfing is racist because, well.  I don't know.  The ball is white?

Here, even that is a bridge too far, so we are asked to go beyond listening for something we cannot hear into imagining offence into existence.

We are being lied to. The machine is, apparently, so desperate to grab power that they are not even pretending anymore. It's no longer what the candidates say, but what "we" are asked to imagine that they mean.

The NYT equivalent in Russia is called Pravda, which evokes laughter in the west.  Its name translates to mean "truth," which is almost the definition of irony in a George Orwell sense.

Imagine that.

Gladiators Don't Get Paid to Sing (or, That's Enterainment)

Here in the San Francisco Bay area, there is big news from the sports front.

No - not the end of Tim Lincecum's career, or the Giants' struggle to catch the Dodgers.  

Guess again.  Hint: it's about football.  

No. There is not much intrigue about the 49ers' preseason, either.  It's a foregone conclusion that the team is going to be terrible again.

No.  It's about the recent eructations of quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and it has nothing to do with the fact that his career is apparently over.  

Well, maybe it is about that, indirectly.

You see, recently, Kaepernick (benched last year so that a guy called Blaine Gabbert - yeah, I never heard of him, either - could play) made headlines when he sat during the playing of the national anthem at a preseason game, then announced his reasoning for that, and his future refusal to stand.  You see, a guy who is being paid $126 million dollars does not want to show "pride in a flag or country that oppresses black people and people of color (sic)."

Kaepernick is no stranger to controversey; in the past, he has been fined for using abusive language on the field, and for wearing the wrong brand of headphones ("Beats by Dre" rather than then NFL 'official' headphones provided by Bose) at a press conference.  

Who knew that there was an official NFL headset?  And I guess I am equally nonplussed about why you would wear headphones to a post-game interview.

While the NFL already has an official head set, Kaepernick, it seems, has worked to become the league's unofficial head case.

The events have raised a ruckus, with the usual suspects and usual arguments lining up for and against Colin Kaepernick. A question I hear often is "why does Kaepernick get so much hate in the US, when it's supposed to be a country based on freedom?"

It's an odd question, and one that I think misses the point.

Whether Kaepernick gets “a hot of hate” or not has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom in the US.

For what it’s worth, I really have no opinion about Colin Kapaernick's views of the flag, what it stands for, or whether he wants to sit or stand during the national anthem. As the question suggests, in this country any of us is entitled to his or her own views and opinions. 

Kaepernick is an entertainer. He's an entertainer of a particular sort - a modern day gladiator. He’s paid to throw a football (when he plays). He's paid very well to do this. His views on politics are as relevant to me as his views on the Academy Awards, the weather in Nebraska, or whether “We Built this City on Rock and Roll” really is, as Rolling Stone magazine claims, the worst song ever.

It won’t change my views on any of the topics.

To be clear, Colin Kaepernick has every right to his opinion about any of these topics. I respect his right to say what he pleases, and in a sense, the freedoms we have in this country to speech and belief are nothing if they do not protect unpopular opinions.  As I've said before, it's easy to defend speech we like; the acid test is whether we stand up (or sit down) for views that are unpopular, or indeed, are ones we personally do not like. I also am not particularly fond of bumper sticker patriotism, as if sticking an "I Support the Troops" emblem on your car absolves one of the responsibility to actually support the troops by not sending them to fight in senseless wars, or pay the taxes needed to pay for their care when they come home damaged.

But just as Kaepernick is entitled to his opinion, so too are those who are giving him “a lot of hate.”

Freedom is available to all, one would hope, equally. Kaepernick should not be afforded special protections for his opinions because he is an athlete. One presumes that he made his statement to provoke a reaction - otherwise, why do it? 

Maybe a big problem here is that Colin Kaepernick and his supporters do not like the reaction he is getting?

Whilst we are on the subject, I would ask people who are rushing to defend Kaepernick for his “courageous” stance - just how courageous was it, and if the shoe were on the other foot, would you feel the same?

It’s a rhetorical question, and I am sure many would defend someone taking a stance against one of their beliefs equally. But not everyone does, or would.

I live in San Francisco, and every year, the Giants participate in an “Until There’s a Cure” event drawing attention to the AIDS crisis and supporting people and their loved ones who suffer with HIV.

Imagine if one of the Giants’ players decided to make a very public display against participating in the ceremonies? I suspect his actions would be much less popular in the Bay Area than Kaepernick’s were.

One needn’t imagine.

20 years ago, a pitcher named Mark Dewey (I think an evangelical Christian) took the red ribbon his team was made to wear and turned it sideways (in the shape of a fish) and refused to be on the field for the ceremony. His actions received immediate, angry, responses. Local politicians officially complained to the Giants’ management.

I don’t know that any local politician has thus far written to the 49ers asking that the team discipline Kaepernick. Donald Trump of course could not resist the urge to open his YUUUGE mouth and weigh in.

Like Kaepernick, I do not really care what Dewey’s opinions on virtually anything are. But I find that both sides in these sorts of feet-stamping displays are pretty hypocritical.

We pay to see our gladiators compete on the field. Or, in the recent history of Colin Kaepernick, sit on the bench. That is their job. 

They should leave the singing to the vocalists.

Just What Do You Think You're Doing, Dave?

I've recently returned home after two weeks in Paris, the trip itself a quasi-homecoming of sorts. Our family spent the past couple of years living in la ville de lumière, and thus we decided to use summer holidays to visit our old haunts (and in the case of my wife and ten year old son, old friends).

Two days before I joined my family, who had gone to France in middle June, there was another terrible incident in the south of France - in Nice - where an individual, for reasons as yet not completely clear, drove a box truck into a crowd of people celebrating the Fête Nationale, killing scores and injuring a couple of hundred more.

(Aside - not sure that a real reason will ever be found. Turning to the wisdom of President Mufflin from Doctor Strangelove, - "there is nothing to figure out. This man is obviously psychotic.")

In the course of our time in Paris and then immediately thereafter, there has been a series of frightening events - the assassination of a handful of cartoonists, bombings in a theatre. Just a week or so ago, yet another incident, as a man with a knife savagely attacked and killed a priest saying mass in Normandy.

All of this has the French (understandably) at sixes and sevens trying to reckon out how to react. But one reaction in Europe (and I suppose, soon to debut in the US) is the omnipresence of closed circuit cameras. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that, in Paris, as soon as you step outside your door, you are being watched.  Well, maybe not you, and maybe not for long, but on buses, public streets, parks, there are signs warning:

"Souriez; vous êtes filmés!" (Smile, you are being filmed).

I'm not one given to paranoia; not casually anyways. But here on the cusp of Silicon Valley, we are reminded constantly of the power of "big data." Adverts call out of the marvels of the cloud and distributed computing. We are reminded of how much more number crunching and analysis (and storage) are available.

What is happening with all of the countless hours of faces and actions being "filmé" in Paris and elsewhere?

I read today that work progresses on facial recognition software. In Russia, allegedly, there is a new app called FindFace, which boasts the ability to identify, with 70 per cent accuracy, images of faces captured in a crowd. 

Think about that: use your iPhone. Snap a quick, surreptitious photo of anyone, anywhere. With better than a two in three chance, you can identify a complete stranger.

The number of places where we can hide are, indeed, shrinking.

I suspect that that 70% figure, with omnipresent mechanical eyes capturing faces round the clock, is going to grow. With additional data, additional resolution, additional, raw computing power, it has to.

Ironically, on one of the sunny afternoons, we decided to pass the time at Paris Plages, an event each summer run by the city, in which the beaches of the Côte d'Azur are trucked in to the banks of the Seine for those who cannot go to the sand. A friend who went with us was discussing how her computer had had a crash, wiping out several years of photographs. Hoping to recover what remained (no: she had not backed up her data, a mistake that we all have to make.  Once), she took her hard drive for an attempt to rescue what memories remained in the ashes of the meltdown.

To her astonishment, what had been 2,000 raw images captured with her iPhone, had, through what in my youth was described as "Wozniak Whimsy" - little, odd features that the real genius of the Apple dynamic duo created - magically become 6,000 files.

Odd, I asked.

The answer was that, apparently, amongst the "features" of your iPhone is a sort of facial isolation software. She explained that when the image software identifies what it thinks are faces in a picture, each is isolated and stored into a separate file. Now, I cannot corroborate this, but this individual has even less computer savvy than I do, so I find it unlikely that the story was made up whole cloth.

So, apparently, unbeknownst to many, these phantom images are being captured and stored.

I don't think that, necessarily, there is some malign plot - FaceBook, for example, can "identify" faces in images for you to help you "tag" friends. But the confluence of AI, facial recognition, and cameras almost literally everywhere?

It reminds me of the old maths problem. 

Q: What's the next item in this sequence?

A:  You don't want to know.

It's Just Another Day

The 14th of July is the Fête Nationale (National Day) in France. When we were living in Paris, it meant a day off from work, a magnificent parade two blocks away along the Avenue des Champs-Elysées, a fly-over of old and new aircraft.  Later, a picnic along the Seine and then after dark, the fireworks by the Eiffel Tower.  We would gather around 9 PM to wait for the darkness - in Paris, the sun does not set in Summer until nearly 10.

Well, tonight one did not have to wait for the sun to disappear for the darkness to come. 

Darkness in France today came in the shape of a white box truck. It came in the form of people - young, old, families, small children - who had gathered on a somewhat cool summer evening in Nice along the French Riviera - having their lives cruelly extinguished by an evil man.  It appeared in an image of innocent people running in fear. 

It was a still photo of a doll next to a tiny, lifeless child under a blanket.

As of now, the French government are not really saying anything about just who loaded a truck with weapons - including grenades - and set out with murderous, evil intent.

Families went out tonight to celebrate the values of the French republic - famously, liberty, equality, and brotherhood.  They left their homes seeking a fun, relaxing evening. Maybe a glace from a vendor, to walk along the world-famous Promenade des Anglais.

The driver plainly had other plans.

So much for the "brotherhood" part. 

The French government are somewhat tight-lipped about just what happened, but to understand what is actually going on, one needs to look beyond what is said and pay attention to actions - President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls have convened a terrorist crisis meeting at the Place Beauvau, seat of the French Minstry of the Interior, where domestic concerns are discussed.  Mr Valls had been the Minister of the Interior prior to his elevation to Prime Minister, and he has a history of tough talk and tough action against criminality.

This attack is the third horrific incident in France in the past 18 months. Social media - again - are trotting out bromides about 'praying for France' and how "love will conquer hate."

I am not so sure.

There is an old saw that it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and I suppose that there is some comfort in that.  But with each drip drip drip, it grows more and more difficult to pretend that the darkness gathering around us is not growing.  In frequency and profundity. 

A recent conversation I heard on the radio following the assassination of five police officers in Dallas by another "lone wolf madman" was that we might need to get used to this situation. That this is the "new normal."

Immediately after the Charlie Hebdo massacre (we were still living in Paris at that time), the French responded by flooding the streets with police, including the CRS - the Compagnies Republicaines de Securite (national police), a paramilitary force trained in special, riot control tactics. 

I do not want to 'get used to' fear everywhere. To the senseless killing. To the excuses, frankly, that justify the violence.

The US president has, through a spokesman, offered his support to France. The problem is much larger than France. Today it was Nice, but tomorrow?  Mr Obama spoke of how these attacks are attacks against our 'universal values.'

Well, Mr Obama, it seems that these values are not so universal. At least one man did not share our values of liberty. Of brotherhood.

And today, that man got in a truck and killed at least 75 people who did.

At this point, I am running out of ideas. Frankly, I don't know what to do, or what to think, and I am tired.

In the past, we said, "I am Charlie." "I am Bataclan."  "I am Orlando."

Today, I am just fed up.

If You Cannot Say it, You Cannot Do it

Reading many comments in the past couple of days about the slaughter in Orlando (and really, is there a more accurate word?) has brought to mind many issues. I agree that there needs to be a long, hard look at sensible gun regulation. It's WAY past time. The Republicans need to accep this and stop obstructing even reasonable proposals. But equally, the Democrats need to acknowledge that gun laws will not stop evil people, and that a big problem both in the US and elsewhere is the vile nature of radical Islamic terrorism. President Obama cannot even seem to say the words. Today, a terrible story has arrived from France, very close to where I used to work. about 50 km west of central Paris, a "French citizen" decided that he would add his little bit to jihad by killing two police officers. So, Larossi Abbala went to the Yvelines home of two married officers (Jean-Baptiste Salvaing, 42 and Jessiva Schneider, 35), waited outside, stabbed the husband, entered the home, killed the wife. All the while, the couple's three year old son sat, terrified, behind the killer as he broadcast his cartoonishly evil thoughts through YouTube and Twitter. The brave leaders of ISIS immediately praised this "soldier" for killing an unarmed man and woman in front of their terrified child. http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/06/14/01016-20160614ARTFIG00119-attaque-assaillant-enquete-les-faits-connus-sur-le-meurtre-de-deux-policiers.php?redirect_premium Like Orlando, news reports reveal that this killer was 'known to authorities.' Why, if these guys are "known to authorities," are they walking around? How do they obtain weapons? We can talk about 'free' college, or net neutrality, or any other government goodie. But a government that cannot fulfil its most basic responsibility - protecting people from predators - does not deserve to have even an ounce more responsibility given to it. Shockingly, idiots in Paris today (in addition to damaging Hopital Necker-Enfants malades, the leading children's hospitla in France) were marching chanting "tout le monde deteste la police" as these events unfolded. To add to the irony, among the worst of the violence occurred in front of the Hotel des Invalides - a historical hospital and retirement home for soldiers wounded defending France. The news are (again, like Orlando) quick to point out that the murderer was a citizen; I wonder - if asked, would this guy say he was French? Would Omar Mateen consider himself an American? A nation is more than a place to live and make money. What happened in Orlando Saturday and Paris today is not about "angry young men with easy access to guns." Not completely. There are lots of angry young men. Our leadership needs to find the courage to say out loud what is happening.

Pack Your Bags (eh!)

Just read that Lena Dunham, the "star" of the cable show "Girls" has joined the celebrity short bus that doubles as a political bandwagon by threatening to leave the US if Donald Trump is elected.

Quoting the very modestly talented, but very foul-mouthed actress:

I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will, I know a lovely place in Vancouver and I can get my work done from there.

I've written about Dunham before, but suffice it to say, I've seen her show; I've seen her forays into pop politics before.  

It's hard to say which underwhelms me more.

But when I read this latest eructation, I was genuinely conflicted.

On the one hand, as a native-born Canadian, I would not wish Lena Dunham on the land of my birth.  Additionally, I have relatives in Vancouver, and they do not deserve this sort of punishment.  

On the other hand, as a current American, I see the up-side here.  

1. Hillary Clinton not in power
2. One less middling, big-mouthed, self-indulgent millenial taking up space here in California
3. Four years of President Oompa Loompa
4. We owe them for Justin Beiber.

That looks like a win-win-win-win to me.  That's a DOUBLE win-win.

So with apologies to my former mates, the Canadian half of my family, and my uncle Bob specifically, I am all in to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Red, White, and Blue Monday

News feed today listing events of this day (25th April) in history headlined the 40th anniversary of the famous "American Flag" incident.  It was 40 years ago to the day that Chicago Cubs' CF Rick Monday intervened when two individuals jumped the outfield fence at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and tried to set the American flag on fire.

Monday, who had spent time in the US Marine Corps Reserves, saw a man and his (believe it or not, 11-year old) son trying to burn the flag for reasons that have never been made clear, raced in and saved the day.  The miscreants received a $60 trespassing fine and probation.  Monday kept (and still, apparently has) the flag following the legal proceedings.

Rick Monday is the answer to the trivia question "Who was the first player ever chosen in the baseball amateur draft (1965)."  Though not a great player, he had a decent career, highlighted by the "Blue Monday" home run off Montreal ace Steve Rodgers in 1981, ending the Expos' sole post-season appearance and propelling the Dodgers, ultimately to the World Series' title.

But the former Athletic, Cub, and Dodger outfielder is probably best remembered for the play he made in shallow left field in April 40 years ago.

The Left Glove Finally Comes Off

The US presidential election is coming into the home-stretch.  Much of the fun and games has been on the Republican side, as New York real estate mogul and pitchman Donald Trump has sucked up much of the oxygen with his quixotic bid for the nomination.  

On the Democratic side, it's been until recently a fairly staid affair - former New York senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the heavy favourite and presumptive nominee.  She had some token opposition from ex-Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, former senator Jim Webb, and current space cadet Lincoln Chaffee (hint: running on a platform that promises to bring the metric system to the US is generally not a good jumping-off point.)

O'Malley got burnt quickly, in part because of all of the violence ginned up by the so-called "Black Lives Matter" movement, who pointed to his time as the leader of Baltimore.  Webb flamed out because, well, frankly a somewhat conservative southerner belongs in the Democratic Party when a blended bass fish belong in a chocolate milkshake.  

It looked more a coronation than a contest, and the only speed bump for Herself was current Vermont senator Bernard Sanders.  And Sanders seemed too timid to actually hit Mrs Clinton on any of the various weak spots she presents.

Her fast and loose (and if we are being honest, stupid) use of an email server essentially located in her suburban NY closet to send high clearance documents was off the table.  Her mistakes in handling the emerging crisis in the middle east were not mentioned.  And even her possibly most vulnerable exposure - her cozy relationship with the big Wall Street banks was only talked about by Sanders in the hushest of tones.

I suspect that Sanders had no real fantasies about actually getting the nomination, and thus his real purpose to be in the primaries was to (a) try to make the Democrats actually talk about issues that the Democratic Party pretends to care about and (b) to provide a sparring partner for Hillary Clinton.

Well, fast forward to April 2016.  

Things are seldom what they seem.

There is an old aphorism about just what a dog would do if it actually caught the cars it chased.  Mr Sanders seems to be intent on forcing the issue.

Tuesday, the voters in New York go to the polls, and the race is far, far too close for comfort for the imperious senator for Goldman-Sachs.  She still leads Sanders by a comfortable margin in the delegate count, which is not to add the so-called "super delegates" - party apparatchiks who are not bound by such inconveniences as the voters - who are overwhelmingly siding with Hillary.

So recently, the gloves have, as they say, come off. At least the left glove.

And Mrs Clinton and, more to the point, her supporters, are crying foul.

As Senator Sanders has drawn closer, he and his backers are beginning to point out what has been obvious to most of us all along - that Hillary Clinton's putative fight "for the rest of us" against malign, powerful interests has more than a whiff of insincerity.

This past week, the Clinton Campaign held two fundraisers here in California - hosted by A-List actor George Clooney - in which donors, er, supporters, ponied up tens of thousands of dollars a plate to break bread with him and, of course, Hillary.  I suspect not one of those sitting down to nosh was a 'little guy.' 

Sanders backers gathered at the street and tossed dollar bills at Hillary's motorcade as it passed, ostensibly calling attention to just how coin-operated she is.  And that's being kind, since the money being thrown folded.

MSNBC to the rescue; a meme is making rounds on the web that this is some sort of misogynist act, and that those tossing dollars at her motorcade are insinuating that Hillary is in fact, some sort of pole dancer.

I had not thought of that, and I suspect, neither had the protesters, a fair number of whom were women.

And there is an equally shrill objection to calling Mrs Clinton a corporate "whore."

Now, the term "whore" is impolitic to be sure.  But calling a politician who takes big money donations a corporate whore is hardly novel.  Mitt Romney was accused famously of "whoring out Big Bird" in 2012.  

If calling someone a "whore" is beyond the pale (and if we are being honest, it's at the least nasty and unbecoming), that Hillary Clinton is a women should not innoculate her against an attack that probably could be traced to Pericles and his whoring Athens out to toga merchants.

I am surely not a liberal, and I am far, far from a Democrat, and thus I don't have a particular dog in this fight (note: a metaphor, not an attack on Mrs Clinton's appearance, so no need to comment.)  But I do take a certain schadenfrueude watching Mrs Clinton's flying monkeys squawk about how unfair it is for Sanders to talk about her cozy Wall Street relationship, or how hypocritical it is for Bernie Sanders to fly to the Vatican (with a massive carbon footprint) to talk about climate change.

I'll Get You, My Pretties!  And Your Little Dog, TOO!

All of the things that Hillary is complaining about are the sort of attacks she has dismissed as coming from a "vast right wing conspiracy" when used by Republicans.

I suspect that Hillary Clinton is still going to win the Democratic Party nomination.  I suspect that she is going to go on and defeat Donald Trump (or whomever Republicans, Inc. put in his place).

But these lame, whiny, entitled defences she offers are a bad omen.  

We've spent nearly eight years where virtually any complaint about President Obama is painted as a racist attack, no matter how valid.  Four (or God forbid, eight) years where it is impossible to criticise the president lest one be called a misogynist ain't good for the country. For a free society to function, it is necessary that the leadership be open to opposition and not react like an 8 year old screeching about "fairness."

Put simply, Mrs Clinton - if you want to be in the big chair, put on your big girl pantsuit.

Criticism goes with the job, I am afraid.  Even for a ruler with an army of flying monkeys.

Oh, (no) Canada!

The 2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs kicked off last night, which to a Toronto Maple Leafs' fan can only one thing.

It's time to start watching the Blue Jays next season of mediocrity.

The Leafs have not won the Cup since 1967 - the year my mother and father were married, and three years before I came to the world only a few blocks away Toronto General Hospital.  Even better, the team has not even made the finals in that span.

I live in San Jose, California these days, and cheer for the Sharks these days. Of course, the Sharks differ from the Leafs in that they get to round two of the playoffs before choking, rather than skipping the playoffs altogether.

This year, it's not just Maple Leaf fans who are shut out.

For the first time since 1970, no team from Canada has qualified for the playoffs.  Not once will a playoff puck be dropped in a Canadian city this year. 

Granted, more than two thirds of the teams now play in the US, and the population of Canada is roughly 10 per cent of its huge neighbour to the south. Canadian players still comprise the bulk of the guys who lace up each game, however. 

But even that is changing - the 2015-2016 season is the first time in the 98 years of the NHL, less than half of the players are Canadian.  According to TSN, 50.2% of the roster spots are made up of non-Canadian-born players.

Americans are the next-largest group (about 25%), but even their numbers have eroded slightly, with Swedes and Russians picking up the slack.

Oh well; here is a flashback to 1992, when the Blue Jays took the World Series.

"For we got your World Series trophy. And we might not be giving it back...."