Timing can be a sweet thing in politics. Despite the fact that Mitt Romney and British Prime Minister David Cameron are members of their respective country's conservative parties, they are not on the same side of the same-sex marriage issue. Cameron supports it and Romney, well, you know.
As an interesting scheduling quirk, Cameron met with members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community on Wednesday where he renewed his commitment to legal same-sex civil marriage.
On Thursday morning Cameron met with Romney to talk about stuff and so Mitt could look presidential, or come as close to it as possible given the raw material available.
My guess is same-sex marriage didn't come up, but times they are a-changin' and while I don't expect Mitt Romney or the Republican Party to change with them, this issue is most certainly not going away.
So you know how Romney has been grossly misrepresenting President Obama's recent remarks about how "[i]f you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own," including in business, suggesting that the government-loving president is anti-success, or rather anti-individual success? (Basically, it's Romney lying about what Obama said, intentionally taking it out of context and refusing to debate him on the merits, and expressing the extremist Ayn Rand ethos of the Republican Party.)
Yeah, well...
As ThinkProgress notes, Romney made pretty much the exact same point in his speech at the opening ceremony of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City:
You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities.
And of course he was right. Olympians may be amazing athletes, and they may deserve the bulk of the credit for their success, but they didn't do it alone. A lot of people helped them. And, yes, government helped them too, in some way, somewhere along the way.
So, yes, Romney is a hypocrite, and he's just trying to score cheap political points. And he agreed with the president on this before he didn't:
Romney agreed with Obama as recently as last week, saying in a campaign appearance, "I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the bank, the investors. There is no question your mom and dad, your school teachers. The people who provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help."
Now, Romney was crediting "a lot of people," but not government, at least not explicitly. (In this respect, he was coming up short of Ayn Rand extremism but still siding with the anti-government mainstream of the Republican Party.)
But who builds schools, pays teachers, and supports most of the primary and secondary education system? Who builds the roads? Who funds fire departments and the police? Who are firefighters and police officers and teachers? A lot of people on the public payroll, and rightly so. He may not have mentioned government, and he may not want to, preferring to spin the right-wing lie that the private sector is all that really matters and that business would be better off if government had nothing to do with it, but the truth is that government matters a great deal to all of us -- in the case of business, both to businesses themselves, directly through tax credits and other supports and indirectly by fostering a culture in which they can succeed, and to the people who created them and work for them.
Do Romney and the Ayn Rand devotees of the Republican Party actually believe that business is better off in the Hobbesian state of nature than in civil society? Apparently so, so much do they disregard the contributions of government.
Does Romney think Olympic athletes are losers? Based on his latest lie, apparently so. Just look at all the help they needed to get where they are.
Curling is a big thing in Canada. It gets a lot of television coverage. There are national tournaments that many people follow closely. Some are sponsored by coffee and donut store chains, which is a fact Canadians understand. There are even provincial teams that compete against each other, which engenders a great deal of regional pride.
I wouldn't want to suggest that better known players are necessarily rock stars, but they have a certain profile. Case in point is that I don't follow the sport really at all, but I can actually name a few skips (team captains) on some of the better known rinks (teams). And just for the record, I did not have to look up that bit of nomenclature. You just pick it up in Canada. I can even say that I know people who curl, a number of them, including members of my wife's family.
When I came to Canada many years ago, it took some time getting used to the fact that curling was always sort of there, especially in the winter.
The point of this introduction is that I was quite surprised to see an op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times over the weekend promoting Olympic curling as one of the few sports not overrun by professionals and therefore one we should embrace as a true example of the Olympic spirit.
I also thought the description of the game in the Times was charming:
You could call it frozen shuffleboard or bocce on ice, but that's not enough. There's a rink, two bull's-eye targets and smooth stones to slide. But there are also brooms and a lot of yelling, and strategy. It's Flintstones winter bowling. It's track-and-field plus ballroom dancing, done by crazy housekeepers.
You put your foot in a rubber starting block and launch yourself across the ice, clutching broom and stone, keeping low and going slow. Eventually you let the stone go, and the ice instantly becomes Lady Macbeth's kitchen floor, as your team viciously scrubs and scrubs at invisible dirt in front of the stone. This makes it go farther and keeps stray hair or lint from tilting it out of line, making it useless for knocking out targets.
That's adorable. But it's serious business in the Great White North. You would know that if you ever happened to catch a bonspiel.
Right now, there's a lot of media coverage on Chicago's failed 2016 Olympic bid and the unexpected political storm left in its wake. I'd like to draw attention to a more current sporting event - the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, which will begin in February of next year.
As a Canadian, a curler (I'm rooting for Kevin Martin to qualify for Team Canada, but that's an entirely different story), and as someone who's been working on and off for an official Olympic sponsor, I'm very excited. I even have my own little official mascot key chain (who doesn't love a fuzzy sasquatch wearing earmuffs?), and I'm eager to get my hands on some of the apparel (trapper hat, anyone?). Yes, I've caught Olympic fever and you can sense the enthusiasm growing in this country as we get closer to the games.
A few days ago, however, the Telegraph published this opinion piece by Rachel Marsden, who accuses Canada of not "fighting to ensure that the immigrants of European descent are adequately represented" and "ignoring them completely".
Marsden states that without European colonialism, "[Vancouver], and indeed..., Canada, was pretty third-worldish until... Europeans arrived and started planning and building infrastructure and government," and that without them North America "would look somewhat like Africa".
I don't think I have the time to even delve into her astoundingly condescending and outdated colonialist mindset. The idea that Europeans improved every country they entered is largely erroneous and colonialism's very function was meant to exploit the land and resources of the native citizens whom they oppressed and denied civil rights. In many cases, it took years for former colonies to recover from their "improvements," and in a few countries, they're still rebuilding themselves. In the article, Marsden takes issue with the Vancouver Olympic mascots, which are a sasquatch, a sea bear, and an animal guardian spirit, as well as the logo (an Inukshuk), all of which were inspired by traditional symbols of Canada's First Nations. She dismisses them as ridiculous on the basis that they're not European, or rather not Caucasian enough.
Racism? Dare I say white supremacy? Take your pick.
Can't we as Canadians be proud of and honour the First Nations aspect of our culture and heritage? Celebrating it doesn't necessarily mean the denigration or disrespect of our English and French background in the process. In fact they're as much a part of our traditions and history, just as Canadian as the "Europeans" are.
Europeans "forgotten" in Canada? Perhaps she's forgotten that our entire federal government is a British-based Parliamentary system. Or that our official languages are English and French. Or that we pride ourselves in our multiculturalism and cultural diversity here.
Anyhow, if Marsden is so concerned about the "European" influence being left out in the Olympics, she should worry no more. The official Team Canada uniforms were recently unveiled by the Hudson's Bay Company (incorporated by the British!) and are distinctly hoser chic. There are some complaints that the outfits are too stereotypically Canadian, but I like their vintage vibe. Throw in the ad, and I think it's representation enough:
Interestingly enough, there are no First Nations people in the clip, despite the fact that they played a key role in the fur trade. But, I digress.
Marsden, get over it and stop complaining. It's not very Canadian.
For saying this about Obama's efforts to bring the Olympics to Chicago on Meet the Press yesterday:
I have to say, I’m with Obama on this. He took a risk, he comes away somewhat humiliated, but he took a risk for his town, he took a risk for his country, he put his country ahead of his own personal prestige, and he lost one. I actually don't mind it. I think he was all right on this.
I object to Brooks's suggestion that Obama "comes away somewhat humiliated" -- he tried and the effort failed, but not necessarily because of him, and there is no humiliation in losing when the Olympics are concerned (more on this below) -- but, overall, I praise Brooks for coming out in opposition on this issue to so many of his fellow conservatives, including his former Weekly Standard colleagues Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes. (He even agreed, more or less, with fellow MTP panelist Rachel Maddow, who said this: "For them to be cheering America's loss here on the right, I think is sort of disgusting." Because, as she rightly pointed out, other world leaders, including Blair and Putin, have campaigned for the Olympics. This time, "all four finalists sent their head of government or head of state to make the argument.")
Kristol, on Fox News yesterday, accused Obama of bullying the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and he was "amused" by his failure, but of course Obama did no such thing. At The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, where he and Kristol are editors, Barnes pointed to "Obama's embarrassing failure in Copenhagen":
[W]hen an American president voluntarily takes up a fight and loses badly, it's a big deal. Obama could have stayed out. Having the summer Olympics in Chicago doesn't involve the national interest. But he thought the matter important enough to fly to Denmark and make the pitch for his hometown in person. He put his prestige on the line, only to be slapped down.
This is also ridiculous. Obama didn't lose badly. Chicago's bid lost out to Rio de Janeiro's. It would be one thing if Obama had gone to the U.N. and, say, been refused support on a key matter. In this case, he just did what so many other world leaders have done, and do, and only one city, only one big, can win at a time. Did the Chicago bid "involve the national interest"? Maybe not, strictly speaking, but what it against the national interest? No, not at all. There have been financial disasters in Olympic history, like Montreal '76 (my hometown, originally), but for the most part having the Olympics is a matter of national pride, an opportunity for the home city, and country, to showcase its best while the world is watching. (We Canadians are certainly excited about the upcoming Winter Games in Vancouver.) Besides, it's not always about financial gain -- though, in the long run, it may well be that having the Olympics is a fantastic investment in a city's, and country's, future.
Getting back to Barnes, it is simply not true that Obama was "slapped down." He supported Chicago's bid, but the vote in Copenhagen wasn't a referendum on Obama. Furthermore, given the IOC's reputation for, and long history of, corruption and insider politics, is there anything wrong with losing such a vote? As much as a city, as well as a country, may want the Olympics, the IOC has its own priorities, and winning has to do with trade-offs and quid pro quos among IOC members at least as much as it does with the actual merits of a bid. Toronto, for example, lost out on the 2008 Summer Games to Beijing. Was that an embarrassment for Toronto, a great loss for Canada. Were we "slapped down"? No. Beijing won because the IOC wanted the Games to be in China, a huge market. Forget that Toronto is an open, diverse, cosmopolitan city. Forget that China is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. The IOC got what it wanted, and China got its reward. So it's a bit rich and rather disingenuous for these conservatives to be suggesting that an IOC vote is somehow a significant indicator of world opinion -- and that Chicago's loss was Obama's great embarrassment.
Steve Benen (quoting Paul Krugman) is right: "[A]s a political matter, in light of [the] right-wing ecstasy over Chicago not getting the Olympics, Paul Krugman concluded, 'Middle-aged adolescents -- dumb middle-aged adolescents -- rule one of our nation's two great political parties.' Sad, but true."
If there's anything embarrassing, and utterly repellent, it's the right-wing "glee," as Benen put it, over America's failure to win the 2016 Summer Games. Clearly, among conservatives, with one or two exceptions, party and ideology come before country. And they dare call themselves patriots?
I've long thought that the Olympic games differ from other professional sports events mostly in that they exploit the athletes with a quasi-religious fervor rather than paying them. The idea of "amateur" competition, as I see it, was a pretense used to keep working class people out of games meant for Edwardian gentlemen of leisure and inclination toward neo-classical, cthonic re-enactments. Of course today's contestants are scarcely that and hardly amateur, and they're there mostly to demonstrate the athletic prowess and by some atavistic extension the political status of their countries.
Despite the puzzling, faux-pagan Hellenic torch-running ceremonies, it's about politics and not about re-enacting ancient religious ceremonies of body worship and warrior training. So it's no surprise that Jonathan Alter writing in the current Newsweek would presume to use the opening ceremonies as a platform for chastising China. It's too bad for him, however, that we're not sitting on Olympus but in the laughing stocks and pillories of the world.
Yes, China could do something about Darfur, but criticism should come from a source not so well associated with supporting monsters and tyrants for our own causes as we are, a source not preening over "shock and awe" terrorism, the slaughter and displacement of millions, the toppling of democracies and a source second only to China in number of incarcerated and executed citizens.
It's all too easy for someone like Alter to pretend that Tibet was a free and independent nation after the 13th century or that the quasi-Buddhist religion that stifled, enslaved and impoverished Tibet and kept it in a state of stupendous ignorance and isolation for centuries was benign, but a country with a history like ours can only succeed in looking arrogant and hypocritical in justifying torture of terrorists while condemning it abroad. Imagine our reaction to China's bellowing at us for occupying and suppressing Puerto Rico and Iraq; our interference in Central and South America, Asia and even Iran. Imagine the giggles at China's biggest client state preaching about its "Global Irresponsibility."
Maybe it's time we just shut up for once and let someone else use the pulpit. Maybe if we want to influence that country we should end the buying and outsourcing spree. Maybe if we want to continue blowing hard about morality we should try practicing it.
I haven't said that in a long time: Hillary is right.
Specifically, she's right that Bush should boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics (as Ben Smith reports here and on which The Raw Story has more here -- see also the AP here.)
I remarked earlier today, commenting on Mark Penn's semi-resignation/demotion, that the post-Penn Hillary would be softer and more amiable -- and certainly more positive -- than the Penn-driven Hillary. Well, going after China (or, rather, the brutal Chinese regime) is certainly more positive than smearing Obama, which has been the focus of the campaign for weeks and weeks now.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already announced that she will not be attending the opening ceremony, but, contrary to what most people seem to think, her non-attendance will not be a boycott. As Deutsche Welle has reported, Merkel had decided not to attend before the Chinese crackdown in Tibet -- this according to Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Some world leaders, such as Czech President Vaclav Klaus and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, won't be there either, and in their cases non-attendancewill be a boycott, but others, like French President Nicolas Sarkozy, remain non-committal. The E.U. has yet to set a unified policy on the matter.
Now, as for Hillary and Bush, let's not delude ourselves. She may be right -- and I agree that Bush should boycott the opening ceremony (indeed, I would make the case for a much stronger boycott than that) -- but consider the timing: the day after Penn's semi-resignation/demotion.
Yes, what a Monday it was -- what a fresh start, what a new beginning. Hillary went on Ellen and called on Bush to boycott the opening ceremony in Beijing. There's your double whammy: the softer, more amiable, more positive Hillary. And cynicism is the appropriate response. She needed to deflect media attention away from the Penn saga, and away from the inner workings of her campaign, and so she took the (hardly courageous) step of supporting Tibet from afar. Bush likely won't have anything to do with a formal boycott, but at least Hillary looks good and at least the media have something else to talk about.
Am I being too negative now? Sure, maybe. But the timing of her announcement wasn't an accident. She needed something else to talk about, and that something was this. Oh, and you want cynical? The announcement was exclusive to Drudge.
Softer, most amiable, more positive? The new Hillary is pretty much the same as the old one.
Another entry in our ongoing series -- some stories from around the world that might be of interest to you:
1) China: "China's Supreme Court has ordered judges to be more sparing in the imposition of the death penalty. An order on its website said execution should be reserved for 'an extremely small number of serious offenders'."
This is a very positive step in the right direction -- and I say that as an ardnet opponent of the death penalty and as a long-time critic of China on human and civil rights. One hopes that there is something to it, that it isn't some charade of justice to bolster the country's image as it develops into ever more of an economic superpower, seeking ever more international investment, and as it prepares to host next year's Olympic Games.
For more on China and the Olympics -- and on support for China from Bush and Spielberg, among other such complicit luminaries -- see Eric Reeves's important piece at TNR: "How... can the premier event in international sports be hosted by a nation complicit in the most heinous international crimes? The Chinese regime is guilty of perpetrating the ongoing destruction of Tibet, supporting the vicious Myanmar junta, engaging in gross domestic human rights abuses, and, perhaps worst of all, facilitating genocide in Darfur."
**********
2) Russia: Vladimir Putin, the country's autocratic president, is set to step down next year. But don't count him out just yet -- "Putin has said he expects to remain an influential figure in Russian politics after he steps down next March. Speaking to Western journalists and academics, he did not rule out standing for president again in 2012 or 2016."
Or... is he? Putin picked the relatively obscure Viktor Zubkov to be Russia's prime minister this week. Zubkov is, needless to say, Putin's man, and "Putin also gave a heavy hint that... Zubkov might emerge as a candidate to succeed him as president". Putin's caretaker president, perhaps, for '08 to '12, the puppet to Putin's puppeteer.
3) Zimbabwe: How bad are conditions in that tyrannized African country? "Pets are being slaughtered for meat in shortage-stricken Zimbabwe and record numbers of animals have been surrendered to shelters or abandoned by owners no longer able to feed them, animal welfare activists say. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said it could not feed surrendered animals or find them new homes and was being forced to kill them and destroy the corpses."
Horrible. (For our previous posts on Zimbabwe, see here.)
**********
4) Germany: Troubling news from the former GDR -- "The eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, which had the highest incidence of far-right attacks in Germany last year, has launched a parliamentary inquiry into the region's police force following accusations that it has failed to investigate racist assaults properly. The probe comes at a time of heightened public awareness of right-wing extremism in the east of Germany..."
Such right-wing extremism is never good, but German neo-Nazism, rightly or wrongly, seems particularly troubling, given that country's past. To its credit, though, it has a good record combatting neo-Nazism -- the West, that is, not so much the East, and now united Germany is contending with long-dormant extremism in the latter. At least the state government seems to be taking action.
**********
5) Japan: "After a 17-year hiatus between lunar missions, Japan launched an unmanned orbiter today that carries the hopes of a nation looking to claim its place as a serious space power."
We are only at the beginning of what will be a long and likely contentious battle to dominate space.
A blog on politics, philosophy, science, sports, and the arts -- featuring news, commentary, and analysis by Michael J.W. Stickings and the Reaction team.
