Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals Are Preparing to Reduce Canada’s Support for Israel

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party have not decided to throw Israel under the bus, yet. For now, the Trudeau Liberals would prefer Israel move from a front seat on the bus. And take a seat more in the middle of the bus.

For the last several weeks I have had extensive discussions with Jewish and non Jewish Liberal supporters of Justin Trudeau.

I have also been directed to several articles, interviews and speeches written and given by several Middle East writers, experts and prominent Federal Liberals which apparently have influenced prominent Federal Liberals including Justin Trudeau, the “about to be crowned” new leader of the Federal Liberal Party.

As a result of these discussions, and these materials, I believe that Trudeau and the Federal Liberals have developed the following approach as to how the Federal Liberals under Trudeau would treat the ongoing Israel/Palestinian impasse.

This approach is a return to the balanced approach of Canada to Middle East politics. In other words, Trudeau et al want to return to the Liberals’ traditional honest broker role in the Mideast. Made famous by the former Liberal Prime Minster Lester B. Pearson, and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This approach could be summarized as follows. Under Trudeau, the Liberals still believe in a two-state solution. One state for Israel and one state for the Palestinians, in the West Bank and in Gaza.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada should be a friend of Israel. But as a friend of Israel, the Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada is entitled to disagree with Israel’s policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and the continuation of the illegal West Bank settlements.

The Trudeau Liberals still believe in the continued existence of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. At least for now.

Where Trudeau differs from Harper, is that Trudeau and his fellow Liberals appear to be influenced by Paul Heinbecker, former Canada Ambassador to the United Nations, who is adamant that all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank must be dismantled. He and the Trudeau Liberals believe that these settlements are illegal and contrary to several UN Resolutions.

Accordingly, Trudeau and the Liberals want Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with few adjustments.
The Harper approach is more flexible and generous to the Israelis with respect to the West Bank settlements that have been created.

Secondly, Trudeau and his Liberals, based on their belief of the illegality of these West Bank settlements, want Israel to stop the expansion of any more settlements, as a pre-condition to Palestine Authority President Abbas re-engaging with Israel in peace talks.

This position is in contrast to the Harper government’s position that peace negotiations should be commenced without any preconditions.

Furthermore, contrary to the Harper approach that the only solution to the current Israeli-Palestinian gridlock, is direct peace negotiations, between the parties themselves, Trudeau and the Liberals believe that the UN should play a more active role and Canada should play a more active role in the United Nations.

For the Trudeau Liberals, Canada has lost considerable international stature because of its one-sided support of Israel. Which they cite as the primary reason for Canada’s failure in 2010 to secure a United Nations seat in the Security Council.

Ironically, this is the same view of Prime Minister Harper.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-condemns-un-hatefest/article1315601/

But from a different perspective.

The Conservatives under Harper, view Canada’s rejection by the majority in the UN General Assembly, due to Canada’s unwavering support of Israel, as a badge of courage.

To the Trudeau Liberals, Canada’s failure in this regard is a badge of international embarrassment.

This latter view has been recently and forcefully articulated by former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who, together with many Liberal Chretienites, still have considerable influence within the Federal Liberal Party.

In other words, contrary to the Harper approach, the Trudeau Liberals are more amenable to Canada being supportive of the Palestinian quest for observer-state status at the United Nations.

Also as part of the balanced approach, Trudeau and the Liberals want to reach out to the current government in Gaza, being the Hamas government.

This is also contrary to the current Harper government with respect to Hamas. The Harper government treats Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that this approach is self-defeating. My sources advise that a new Trudeau government will try to find a diplomatic way, either directly or indirectly through the UN, to reach out to Hamas and to assert itself in the discussion in re-introducing Canada’s balanced and even-handed honest broker role.

The Trudeau Liberals believe that Hamas was democratically elected to represent the Palestinian people in Gaza and no two-state solution can be successfully and effectively accomplished between Israel and the Palestinians without the approval of the Hamas government in Gaza and the support of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

These Trudeau Liberals also cite the Globe and Mail editorial of September 9, 2012, entitled, ” Better To Talk to Your Enemies”. In that editorial the Globe criticized the Harper government for closing down the Canadian embassy in Tehran, Iran. The Globe concluded, ” It is precisely because it (Iran) is a threat to its own people and those in other countries that Canada should continue to talk with Iran and not retreat from its international responsibilities.”

Similarly, the Trudeau Liberals do not believe that Hamas is a threat to its own people and those in other countries, (ie Israel) and regardless, Canada should reach out to Hamas and thus Canada should not retreat from its international responsibilities.

Justin Trudeau believes that Prime Minster Harper is a divisive force domestically, and he believes that Harper has made Canada a divisive force in the Middle East by Canada’s very strong pro Israeli position. http://www.winnipegjewishreview.com/article_detail.cfm?id=499&sec=4

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals see that the Harper Government appears about 80% in favour of Israel and about 20% in favour of the Palestinians. Justin Trudeau wants to move Canada away from being so pro Israeli to being a good friend to Israel and to being a good friend to the Palestinians, more of a 50/50 split. Or perhaps even a 55/45 split in favour of the Palestinians.

Shades of Lester B. Pearson. It looks like Trudeau wants to take Canada back to the future.

How Your Daughter Can Land Her Dream Wall Street Job-Or Any High-Powered Corporate Job

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Lifestyle

There is no one secret sauce for success on Wall Street. Let us say that there are several secret sauces.

In the last 12 months, three young women of friends of mine have been accepted for jobs at prestigious Wall Street firms. Two in investment banking. One in a law firm.

Three unique women, from seemingly different backgrounds. Yet all three share the same extraordinary qualities.

This is what they are not. They are not from wealthy backgrounds. Their fathers or mothers were not themselves, Wall Street lawyers or investment bankers. They were not legacy children. They were not even from New York. Perhaps that is a good thing.

Here are some of the qualities they share.

They are smart, intelligent, very hard-working. And their first priority was high academic achievement.

Okay, those traits can be easily attributed to thousands of young American women.

Coincidentally, each of these women were raised by single mothers who were career-oriented professionals.

I am not suggesting for a moment, that in order for your special daughter to succeed on Wall Street, you, as a mother, must be a career-oriented professional. Or you should separate from your husband, before your brilliant daughter hits middle school.

On the other hand, I am a silver linings type of guy.

If your “good for nothing” husband has been stepping out with his secretary. Or you are tired of supporting your slacker husband while he lounges at home, trying to complete “The Great American Novel”.

It may be time to dump his sorry ass. And instead focus on your brilliant daughter.

In other words, the end of an insupportable relationship, may create a silver linings opportunity to further assist your daughter. Which may be much more rewarding for your daughter and for you, in the long run.

The more salient point is that each mother significantly focused her efforts on providing enormous personal and emotional support to her daughter. Each mother also created a stimulating environment from which these naturally ambitious women could grow and thrive.

In addition to stressing academics, these mothers stressed participation and success in competitive sports.

One young woman became a competitive figure skater and tennis player. Another young woman was also a competitive tennis player. The third young woman was very non-athletic. But like the other two women, she possessed natural drive and motivation. Essential qualities. And she became a kick ass 10K runner.

Being a competitive athlete is not a precondition for success on Wall Street for a young woman. But it helps.

Competitive sports require incredible hard work, dedication, personal sacrifice. But also such sports generally produce a hard-driving competitive spirit, the will to win and the thrill of winning and defeating your opponents.

Qualities critical to the “dog eat dog” Wall Street, male-dominated, environment.

On a personal note, I highly recommend that your daughter, participate in competitive sports with young men at an early age. The sooner young women understand the male psyche, the better.

Let me illustrate.

I knew a young woman who played on my son’s hockey team since the age of nine. She was one of a handful of girls in an all boys’ hockey league. To her credit she did not want to dress in a separate girls’ locker room. She wanted to be treated equally with the rest of the boys on her team. She wanted to dress for each game in the boys’ locker room.

I recall one time, when she and my son were nine, some other boys on the team were trying to embarrass this girl, by showing off their little members in the locker room. This tough little girl was unflappable. And not impressed either.

She called them dicks. And laughed at their small dicks. The boys never bothered her again.

The moral of the story, is that Wall Street boardrooms, or any boardrooms of bankers, lawyers, accountants and businessmen, are just little boys’ locker rooms, with money.

If your young daughter can feel comfortable in a boys’ locker room, she will then feel comfortable in any Wall Street or Main Street boardroom.

Returning to the three young subject women, their three mothers also ensured that these young women were given a variety of opportunities to meet a wide variety of young men and women in many different situations. Through summer camps (tennis camp, band camp, space camp and math camp). Through family and school trips. Through interesting summer jobs in banks, law firms and hospitals. Through travel and research in Europe and Asia. These mothers constantly challenged their daughters, to get out of their comfort zones. To dive in to new experiences. And learn quickly to swim, or sink.

Basically these women were encouraged to engage in activities that forced these young women to experience different social/business situations and be forced to adapt and to constantly make new friends and acquaintances. And to be comfortable talking to and relating to young men and the strange male-dominated business/banking world.

Notwithstanding the Sheryl Sandbergs of the world, to date and for the foreseeable future, Wall Street is still a male-dominated, testosterone-driven jungle, on crack, ( literally and figuratively) motivated by success, money, power, and more money.

So in addition, to being smart, intelligent, hard- working, a very high academic achiever, with a competitive drive for success, the superior candidate for Wall Street, must also be engaging, charming, self-assured and very comfortable around a phalanx of high-powered male masters of the universe. Tough, but warm. Interested, but not needy or desperate.

One of the above young women, having already secured a job offer at a good Wall Street investment bank, sought my advice prior to her final interview with one of the top Wall Street investment firms.

I told her that smart and very qualified women like her, were the future of Wall Street. She had the potential to be one of Wall Street’s future leaders. This top firm needed her more, than she needed them. Go into the room of these high-powered bankers, as if you own them. As if you own the room. Be effective. But be cool.

I am not sure whether this young woman took my advice. But she nailed her interview and this prestigious investment bank hired her. I predict Wall Street will be a better place because of these three young women, and women like them.

Bibi and Erdogan Bury the Hatchet Thanks to Obama

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

There were low expectations for the summit meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the talks were a major diplomatic and personal success for both leaders.

President Obama used the occasion to reset his relationship with Israel and Bibi. He did four things particularly well.

First, in a speech before Israeli students, Obama made it clear that although he and his government were not supportive of the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the fact that there was some ongoing construction was not an excuse for the Palestinians to do nothing — i.e., to make no effort to restart the peace negotiations with Israel.

Recall that in the past, Obama pressured Bibi to stop all West Bank settlement expansion as a precondition to the Palestinians re-entering peace negotiations. At that time Bibi caved to Obama’s demands and put a moratorium on such activity. But Abbas and his people failed to enter into negotiations forthwith. (The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.) They stalled and by the time they half-heartedly entered into negotiations with Israel, it was clear they were not serious about sitting down and seriously negotiating a substantive peace.

Clearly, Obama, realized he had overplayed his hand on the settlement matter. This time around, he called on the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate without preconditions.

Second, when Obama was last in the Mideast, he implied publicly that the origins for the founding of Israel was just over 50 years ago. In other words, Obama was articulating the Arab position that Israel was founded in 1948 as a result of the world’s international guilt for the extermination of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in World War II.

Many Jews believe that the Jewish people have a historic, religious and almost biblical claim to the lands where Israel was founded — a claim which dates back centuries, not decades.

On this trip, Obama acknowledged this historical and biblical claim (at least in part) by honoring the memory of Theodor Herzl, one of the historical founders of Israel who died in the early 20th century, by laying a symbolic stone on his grave.

Third, Obama made an effort to appear more friendly to Bibi. They even joked aboutBibi’s efforts to convince Obama to establish a “red line” on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The two men are not all of sudden great buddies. But at least there appears to be a greater mutual respect between these two stubborn leaders. And that is a huge achievement.

Lastly, Obama, used the power of his presidency to convince Bibi and Turkish Prime Minster Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make nice and mend what was once a close military and diplomatic relationship between Turkey and Israel. For his part Bibi called the Turkish Prime Minister and publicly apologized for the loss of Turkish lives that occurred when Israeli soldiers boarded one of the Turkish boats bound for Gaza to break through the Israeli naval blockade. Bibi also promised Erdogan, that Israel would pay reparations for the loss of life.

Pre-Erdogan, Turkey had a very close military and diplomatic relationship with Israel.Bibi’s apology may be the beginning of a resetting of this important Israeli/Turkish relationship. It was also important for Israel,Turkey and the U.S. since it will help these allies to focus on the Syrian crisis in the Israeli/Turkish backyard.

In the past, I have not been a fan of Obama’s distant and cool treatment of Israel. This time, Obama brought his “A” game scored the winning “three pointer” with just seconds remaining in the fourth quarter of this diplomatic contest.

The Silent Rage of Toronto House Husbands

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Lifestyle

For the last several months, I have been undercover as a Toronto House Husband. Women, you would be shocked to learn how many men, in the Annex, Allenby area, North Toronto, Forest Hill Village and other parts around the city, are stay-at-home dads, or as some call it, house husbands. And for the most part, they are royally pissed off. Some are depressed with their lives. Others started foaming at the mouth. This is the first in the series of reports in which I will report to you what is really going on behind the warped leaded glass windows in Arts and Craftsy Allenby. Or the so-called “faux Georgian mini mansions” in Lawrence Park and North Toronto. And ladies, it ain’t pretty!

Since September 2012, I have met with, shot back some beers with, play-dated with, and played poker with about 200 house husbands. I estimate that there are thousands of such individuals in the GTA. I confess that this survey lacks a certain scientific credibility; it’s informal, anecdotal. So sue me.

Ladies, you will be relieved to know that 70% of the men surveyed love their kids, and 20% can’t stand their kids. They can’t wait for them to be potty trained so they could be shipped off to boarding school. Okay, that figure is a little troubling because 10% were so drunk or stoned they didn’t know if they had kids. That is a little more sobering.

As for their wives, the numbers are considerably worse. Only 40% still love their wives, 30% still like their wives, 20% were indifferent, and 10% had psychotic episodes at the mere mention of their spouses’ names. I don’t think that is a good sign, but I could be wrong on that one.

Of the 40% who said they still loved their wives, the majority admitted that the sex was pretty regular, at least two-to-three times each week, once a month it being with their wives. The 30% who still like their wives could not remember the last time they had sex with their wives. But they did speak very favorably about the neighborhood massage parlour around the corner. After hearing that, I was too depressed to talk about see with the majority balance of the hubbies. Note the pattern here.

I am no psychologist, though in university I had a brilliant feminist psychology professor for two semesters in my junior year and part of my senior year. I may have even audited a course of hers. The 70s are a bit of a blur for me. Whatever. You don’t need a PhD in the Fourth or Five Wave of Post-Feminism to conclude that there is something rotten in the state of marriage here in the Big Smoke.

In my next report, I go further undercover. Literally, under the covers—and talk with Soo Kim Lee (an alias), the grande madame of second story massage parlours up and down Yonge Street and Eglinton. She analyses for me the tortured psyches of her Toronto house husband clients. And I get a freebie for promoting her services. Win, win.

– See more at: http://www.yummymummyclub.ca/family/daddy/20130322/the-silent-rage-of-toronto-house-husbands#sthash.a27378wh.dpuf

Bob Rae: The Most Principled Liberal Leader in the Last 50 Years

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Bob Rae never ceases to surprise.

In a recent speech in Saskatoon, reported in the Huffington Post, Bob Rae, unequivocally voiced his support and his Liberal Party’s continued support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Rae stated, “It’s in our national interest to see that these resources are developed in a truly and deeply sustainable way….I agree with the state department view that says that there’s no net environmental effect of building the pipeline in the United States.”

This is a gutsy and principled stand for Rae to take.

There is significant opposition to Keystone and to Alberta’s oil-based economy within the Liberal Party and among Canadian environmentalists both within and without the party.

Rae could have spoken, like Liberals in the past, out of two sides of his mouth. Like some of his predecessors, he could have been pro-environment, anti-Keystone in Quebec and in the west, pro-oil and pro Keystone.

Rae could have been slippery like NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, who wants to be the next Canadian prime minister. Mulcair plays to his leftist Quebec base by being non-supportive of Keystone. And he fatuously criticizes Harper for supporting a north/south pipeline to the US.

According to Mulcair, a east/west line would create more oil-based jobs. In truth, Mulcair would love to see the Alberta oil sands closed down. But he cannot state that publicly or he would lose a large number of NDP votes and seats west of Ontario.

Bob Rae is a true class act.

On two separate occasions, he ran for the Federal leadership and lost. He was the most experienced and best candidate in both leadership races. He should have won.

A lesser man would have taken his political ball and gone home. Retired. With his well-deserved provincial and federal pensions.

While the Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff sought sanctuary back at University of Toronto, after the Liberals’ devastating defeat in the last federal election, Bob Rae soldiered on.

Through political smarts, hard work and humour, he brought back the Liberals from the brink of political extinction. He hammered Mulcair and the NDP on his left. He held Harper and the Tories to account, on his right.

Ironically, his recent actions saved Stephen Harper from political embarrassment.

Recall Chief Spence refused to end her hunger strike unless Harper and the Governor General met with her. Harper refused to personally meet with her. Both Harper and Spence refused to back off from their respective positions.

It would have been an international embarrassment to Harper, the Tories and to Canada, if Chief Spence took ill or died from starvation.

Instead, Rae stepped into the fray and negotiated with Spence a face-saving solution, in which the opposition parties would support and press for her demands. With that written undertaking in hand, Spence terminated her hunger strike.

Rae has kept the Federal Liberals in the political game. He has made them competitive again.

Justin Trudeau should be kissing Rae’s butt, for handing him a revived Liberal party to lead.

In the interests of full disclosure, Bob and I were classmates at law school.

We were acquaintances, but not close friends. I actually thought that he was a silver spoon socialist who was playing at politics. And that he would be eaten up in the rough and tumble of the real world of politics.

Bob Rae proved me and his many detractors wrong. He was not only intellectual and a policy wonk, but he was also an excellent street fighting , grass roots politician. He succeeded in federal politics and was victorious in provincial politics as well.

I also believe that history will ultimately be kind to Bob Rae. Rae should not be blamed entirely for the economic troubles that Ontario experienced in the 90s during his administration.

Bob Rae and the NDP took over an Ontario economy that his predecessor Liberal David Peterson had rendered sick and suffering. Bloated and in debt. Unemployment soaring. Bob Rae tried to stimulate the economy, much like Barack Obama tried to do in this first term of office.

Once Rae realized that this tax and spend approach was further driving Ontario up against a debt wall, he courageously cut back on government expenditures through “Rae Days”.

For decades Rae has been unfairly attacked for doing the right, but unpopular thing. Much what Dalton McGuinty has done ( freezing teachers’ wages) in the twilight of his own administration.

The Liberals and Canada owe you a large debt of gratitude. Enjoy your retirement. Le Gros Bob!!

Barack, Take a Lesson from Bibi — Suck it Up

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

In a few days President Barack Obama will be journeying to Israel to meet his counterpart Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu. For once, Barack should abstain from concentrating on his own soaring oratory. Instead, he should quietly watch and learn from Bibi about how to craft a coalition and make government and democracy work.

Yes, I am aware that Bibi is prime minister in a parliamentary democracy. And Obama is president in a federal constitutional republic, where as head of the executive branch, he is independent of the legislature. And I may be guilty of comparing Java oranges to California grapes.

But there are surprising similarities between these two men. And their two countries.

Though their relationship is less than affectionate, these two leaders share similar personality traits. And somewhat similar political situations. Each believes he is the smartest person in the room. Each is intelligent, pragmatic and arrogant — and sometimes inflexible, intransigent and a bit aloof.

And each guy has daddy issues.

Though both just won a national election, they are constrained by their opposition. And their countries are internally divided over conflicting political and social ideologies.

In the last election, Obama won a decisive victory against his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. But Obama has been held back by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives and by Republican opposition in the Senate. To date Obama has faced Congressional gridlock, and his Democratic party and the Republican party have not been able to agree on anything substantial: the budget, taxes, cutting government programs, climate change, significant gun control, immigration reform — nothing.

Accordingly, unless Obama and his people come up with a better plan, this administration will fail to have Congress pass its legislation on gun control, immigration reform and a responsible budget to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.

Bibi’s Likud-Beitenu faction won the largest number of seats of all the Israeli parties. But the election results have brought nothing but tsouris (“misery”) for Bibi. His parliamentary group was in fact reduced to 31 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, the Israeli parliament. If Bibi did not get his act together quickly, his 7 year reign as Israeli leader was going to come to an ignominious end.

Bibi had until Monday, March 16, to form a majority coalition government with some of the other parties that had won seats in the last election. To paraphrase, Samuel Johnson, “the threat of calling another Israeli election and potentially being thrown out of office on his tuchus, certainly concentrated Bibi’s mind.

Did Bibi go on the Israeli equivalent of Letterman or “The View” and whine to the Israeli people like a spoiled, self-entitled trust fund brat? No he did not. Bibi sucked it up. Swallowed his considerable pride. And walked across the street and broke Matzoh with his sworn enemy, his former chief of staff, Yair Lapid, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, which had won 19 seats.

Previously, Yair had jumped into bed with Naftali Bennett, the head of the religious nationalist Jewish Home party. Both Yair and Naftali had come together due to their parties’ opposition to Bibi’s previous policies of exempting ultra-Orthodox Jewish men from mandatory service in the Israeli armed forces and from the work force for the purpose of Torah study.

This was the major defining issue in the last election. Both Yesh Atid and the Jewish Home parties rode the wave to victory demanding an end to these exemptions and the cutback of welfare payments to these ultra-Orthodox Torah students.

In order to build a majority coalition unified against the ultra-Orthodox parties, Bibi then attracted the dovish Tzipi Livni, of Kadima fame, now leading her own centre-left Hatnua party. Throw in a few stragglers from the centrist Kadima party and presto, magic, Bibi secured a majority of 68-70 seats in the Knesset.

To summarize, Bibi’s coalition consists of the centre-left Hatnua party, the centrist Yesh Atid and Kadima parties, Bibi’s own right wing Likud-Beitenu party and the religious nationalist Jewish Home party. Notwithstanding their conflicting ideologies, Bibi has masterfully secured a consensus among these coalition parties. The priorities of his new government will be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, enact budget reform, expand Israel’s mandatory military conscription and lower the cost of living.

His coalition also includes three party leaders, who will want to replace him as prime minister in the next election; namely, Tzipi Livni, Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Talk about your Lincoln Team of Rivals. Oy vey!

Bibi’s outreach to his rivals is the equivalent of President Obama bringing into his Cabinet Republicans Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Not very likely and practical. But the White House’s fluency in Spanish would definitely skyrocket.

My point to President Obama is that if even hard-ass Bibi could show some flexibility and achieve consensus among warring factions, surely Barack could come down from his lofty lectern and deal mano a mano with his Democratic Congressmen and Senators and Republican counterparts.

Bibi has shown that if a leader gets down in the trenches and seriously negotiates and compromises, even at the expense of his own supporters, responsible government programs and, more specifically, a budget deal among ideological enemies are possible and achievable.

Like Bibi, Barack does not have the luxury of time. It is time to concentrate the mind, Mr. President.

Canadian Investigative Reporter Mitch Wolfe Unmasks the Real Justice Merrick Garland- Obama’s Nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Little known Canadian reporter/blogger Out Scoops Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe “Spotlight” Team in its own Backyard!!

President Obama recently nominated Merrick Garland, currently Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill the seat on the Supreme Court created by the recent untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

Obama made this formal announcement in the White House Rose Garden. He was flanked by Judge Garland and Vice President Biden.

I watched online this public announcement several times. I felt in my gut that something was not right about this picture. Because I knew Merrick well at Harvard. As undergraduates, we served for three years together on Harvard’s most visible student-faculty committee, the Committee of Houses and Undergraduate Life. (CHUL)

In announcing his selection of Garland, Obama stated, “I’ve selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness, and excellence.”

Obama further went on to add, “these qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle.”

The Merrick Garland I remember from Harvard was all these qualities. But he was also much much more!

The Merrick I remember was a dominant force in the intellectual and academic life of Harvard. He majored in one of Harvard’s most highly selective concentrations, Social Studies. In which he graduated summa cum laude. He stood at the top or near the top of the entire Harvard-Radcliffe class. A tremendous achievement.

Merrick was also a dominant force in student government. He was fearless. He was tough and supremely self-confident. He loved debating not only his fellow students, but he was not afraid to take on the famous tenured professors on the committee, many years his senior. Merrick was brilliant. And he knew he was brilliant. He was also arrogant. But then again many Harvard and Radcliffe students in those days were arrogant.

And especially so on this student-faculty committee. Composed of elected representatives from each of the Harvard Houses,( upper class residences) who in turn were selected by many egocentric Harvard- Radcliffe types who were in turn presidents of their high school student councils.

My point is that the Merrick Garland presented at the Rose Garden, that rather short , slight, grey-haired and inoffensive and harmless guy, with glasses, who seemed a foot shorter than the lanky Obama, is not the tough and self-assured Merrick Garland that I knew at Harvard.

And I suspect the image that was presented that day, was not the brilliant and penetrating jurist who has risen to become the chief justice of the second most powerful court in the land, after the U.S. Supreme Court.

Merrick was portrayed in the Rose Garden as brilliant, but basically harmless and inoffensive. A long-serving public servant. With integrity and decency.

In fact, Merrick, after almost two decades on the federal bench, is the most experienced federal jurist to be nominated in the history of the Supreme Court. He is probably the most intelligent Supreme Court justice and I suspect will become one of the most powerful and influential Supreme Court justices within a short time of his confirmation.

Dec1972- article by MGarland in Harvard Independent

Above is an article, I dug up from the archives, written by Merrick as a 20 year old junior at Harvard for the Harvard Independent about the pros and cons of student-faculty committees versus student- run governments. Note the fire in Merrick’s self-confident eyes.

Check out this article which reflects his incisive and steel-trap mind. In this article, Merrick zeroed in on where the power lay in Harvard- the Administration and the faculty ( ie the executive and Congress) , but clearly not with the students, whose only influence was derived from their association with faculty members.

However, in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, its power, as co-equal to the other two branches, is derived from the Constitution. And Merrick knows this in his bones.

As at Harvard, Merrick knows where the power lies, and as a Supreme Court Justice, he will not shrink from exercising his influence on the most powerful court in the land.

Merrick is more than the harmless consensus builder that Obama has suggested. If confirmed, I predict Merrick will dominate this court as he did the faculty and the students on CHUL in his Harvard undergraduate days.

 

Women in Gaza: Neglected By Canadian Feminists Obsessed with Israel

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media

Now, the feminist writers from the very well-respected Toronto media, NOW Magazine and the online rabble.ca, did not openly come out and lay the blame for the latest Middle East public relations debacle at the feet of Israel. But I’ll buy a free dinner at the vegan, slow food, locavore Toronto restaurant of your choice if you can find one article in either paper that explicitly and substantially criticizes Hamas and the Palestinians for their terrible and discriminatory mistreatment of women in Gaza. And especially the most recent incident of discrimination against Palestinian women: the cancelling of a UN-sactioned marathon because the Hamas Government refused to permit Palestinian women in Gaza to participate.

According to a Hamas spokesman, women running alongside the men would be contrary to Islam and the customs and practices of Palestinians. “We don’t want women and men mixing in the same race,” Gaza’s Cabinet secretary, Abdul-Salam Siam, said. “We don’t want any woman running uncovered.” Apparently, Hamas leaders believe that fully-covered women riding on the backs of motorcycles or smoking water pipes are also contrary to Islam and Palestinian customs.

According to the article, about 216 Palestinian women and 119 women from other countries were prepared to participate in the race. And these women were prepared to dress modestly. Most of the women were going to wear full length running pants and long-sleeve shirts, as they had done in previous Gaza runs. But it was not enough for the Hamas rulers.

The banning of women from the proposed Gaza marathon by Hamas occurred, coincidentally, a few days before International Women’s Day. Talk about really bad timing. It is at moments like these that I believe God, whoever he or she may be, has a bizarre sense of humour.

The frustrating part of the failed race is that even under the most conservative interpretations, Islam has no specific ban against women running. So Hamas and the Palestinian men in Gaza cannot properly justify this overt discrimination on religious grounds.It seems that the mere sight of the movement of a woman’s body, no matter how fully clothed, just makes Palestinian men uncomfortable. Therefore Palestinian women should be seen, and mostly stationary. Otherwise they will be viewed as immodest and probably on the verge of being wanton.

Why, in the name of the holy trinity of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer, aren’t Canadian feminists raising a huge bloody stink about this?

If this marathon had been cancelled in Israel for these reasons, such militant feminists as Susan Cole and Judy Rebick would be heading to the barricades. Naomi Klein and Maude Barlow would be frothing and fulminating on CBC. The Canadian universities would be ablaze with renewed anti-Israeli fervor.

But because this is occurring in Gaza, there is not a murmur. Not a peep. It is like the Silence of the Feminist Lambs.

I challenge everyone to search on NOW and rabble.ca’s sites for the phrase “discrimination against Women in Gaza” — or any variation thereof. Do you find any significant articles calling out Hamas or Palestinian men on their mistreatment of women? Or is all the criticism reserved for Israel?

Curious, I went on the rabble.ca website and typed “banning of women from Gaza marathon” in its search window. Relevant results? None. Nil. Gornisht. ( That’s Yiddish, for nothing).

I then typed in the words “Women in Gaza.” The following stories and headlines came up as results: “Massacre in Gaza: Israel Strikes Kill More Than 200” (Dec 30, 2008); “January Protests Against Israeli Assault on Gaza” (Jan 31, 2010); “Israel Launches Airstrikes on Gaza Again” (November, 2012)

Go on the NOW website, and type, “banning of women from the Gaza marathon” into the search box. The response you’ll get: “No Results”. That is “bupkis,” babe.

I also invite to go on the NOW website and type “Women in Gaza”. You will be provided with stories about a vigil against the occupation of Gaza and about the pull out of Gaza by Israel. Nothing about the cancelled marathon.

Why is that? Are these feminists so angry and hostile to Israel, and so supportive of the Palestinian cause, that they cannot rationally bring themselves to criticize Palestinian men who mistreat women?
Don’t Palestinian women deserve concern and empathy?

There is a famous Latin saying: res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

The blatant failure of Canadian leftist feminists to speak up against the banning of women from the Gaza marathon by Hamas, speaks for itself. And this silence, ain’t pretty.

The CBC Blew Jack Layton’s Biopic, Big Time

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media, Politics

After watching “Jack,” the biopic of Jack Layton broadcast on Sunday night on the CBC, I realize once again why CBC is such a mediocre television network. It should stick to what it does best: news, current events, Evan Solomon, Rick Mercer and broadcasting “Hockey Night in Canada.”

Every time this made-for-TV movie got rolling, picked up a bit of steam, had a bit of momentum, CBC would interrupt the flow and the story with annoying ads for Rogers wireless products or AXE deodorant.

This was supposedly CBC’s version of “must see TV”.

This was a film about a good politician who, for a brief time, caught political lightning in a bottle. And transformed a third-place loser into the Official Opposition. It is a great story of politics and political smarts and courage.

CBC, the least you could have done, was have the show sponsored by a few corporate heavyweights and limited ads to the beginning, middle and end of the show. This was not some third-rate American TV sitcom. You could have broadcast this smarter.

But I digress. (Sorry about the anti-CBC rant. I have to get back on my pro-Canuck happy pills.)

As to the TV film itself: “Jack” focused on NDP Leader Jack Layton’s amazing 2011 federal election campaign, in which against all odds and the pundits’ predictions, Layton — played by Rick Roberts — led the “Orange Crush” NDP to a thrilling historic political breakthrough in Quebec and a second place finish, ahead of the Liberals.

The film also depicted Layton’s very warm and close relationship with his spouse and political and life partner, Olivia Chow, and his heroic battle with cancer during this penultimate campaign.

There were a few nice touches. I thought Sook-Yin Lee was excellent as Olivia Chow. She came across as a smart, funny, witty, politically astute, very devoted to her mother and, of course, to Jack.

In real life, Jack and Olivia supposedly had a very loving relationship. In the TV film, there was a very brief scene of Jack and Olivia in bed, which seemed very natural.

But the film ultimately failed because of a few glaring defects.

Rick Roberts was terribly miscast as Jack Layton. Physically, Roberts is too tall, and too baby-faced. He made the tough, street fighting Jack Layton, look like a tall, gangly, always sweet and slightly goofy Disney comic character. Roberts reminded me of Sheldon on “The Big Bang Theory.” The Jack Layton role called for a more macho, mustached, shorter Tom Cruise-like character. Part fighter. Part salesman.

Jack Layton in real life had rough edges and flaws. Those made him an interesting person and a compelling politician. As a city council man, he was arrogant, full of himself, and, to some voters, extremely unlikable. At times he came across as a smarmy used car salesman. That was one of Layton’s major problems. To many Toronto voters, he appeared untrustworthy. Recall Layton lost by a huge margin to June Rowlands in the 1991 Toronto mayoral race. And June Rowlands was one of the most mediocre Toronto politicians and mayors in the city’s history.

This film should have shown Jack Layton in his early political career, warts and all. It should have exposed his flaws — even his alleged arrest in a Toronto massage parlour in the 90s. Then his incredible, though brief, transformation into the most successful federal NDP politician in history would have been more dramatic, thrilling and real. And authentic.

The film sanitized Jack Layton. He was sweetness and light and Mr. Positive at the beginning. He was canonized at the end. As a result, the film lacked conflict. It lacked resolution. It lacked honesty. It failed to show Layton struggling and fighting to overcome obstacles, and his own personality defects, thus making his ultimate success, that much sweeter. Even the portrayal of the thrilling 2011 election campaign lacked tension and drama when in reality, the actual campaign was a wild and exciting ride.

In short, by sanitizing and canonizing Jack Layton, the TV film did a disservice to the man. And it was mediocre TV.

Sadly a missed opportunity for CBC.

What Tuchusgate Teaches Us About Toronto Politics

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

The City of Toronto, like any major city, is facing major problems. There is poverty, unemployment and in certain rough sections of the city, murders and violence. There is serious gridlock. The transit system is over used and in need of repair. The city’s overall infrastructure is decaying and is also in need of massive amounts of funding that the City itself cannot afford.

Notwithstanding all these urban ills, the Toronto Star, recently devoted its front page to the bizarre story of what I have dubbed Tuchusgate.

Here’s what happened: Women’s Post publisher and former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson alleged that at an evening public function, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford “grabbed my ass” (as she put it) and uttered inappropriate comments about his wish that Thomson had been in Florida with him because his wife wasn’t there.

In another article, the Star reported that the Mayor denied all these allegations.

The liberal Star is no fan of Mayor Ford’s and seems to take great pleasure in covering — at length and in depth — all of his troubles.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Sun, which is more of a tabloid rag, seemed to get its own great pleasure from issuing a large front page headline reading “Assgate.” The more right-wing Sun included comments from Mark Towhey, Ford’s chief of staff, which made Thomson’s allegations seem less credible.

This is a classic “he said/she said” allegation and defense scenario.

I do not know whom to believe.

But this matter suggests a few things.

Toronto politics is a really dirty business. And the greater city of Toronto is still very polarized between those who support and love Mayor Ford — “Ford Nation” — and those who cannot stand him and will do practically anything to get rid of him before the next election.

Sadly, I tend to think that “politics” played a large role in Thomson’s going public with the allegation about Ford groping her.

If Thomson was groped by Ford, she should have gone to the police and pressed for charges of sexual assault to be laid against the Mayor. And what if Thomson was only interested in an apology? There was still no need for her to go on her Facebook page and tell all her FB friends about these alleged incident, then to be interviewed by various newspapers and talk shows about it. She could have gone quietly to Mayor Ford and sought an apology from him.

Instead, she sought to embarrass Ford publicly. Perhaps to bring him down a notch. Maybe even to boost her public profile and the circulation of her paper. All under the guise of promoting and defending women’s rights.

My Facebook friend Rob Davis dug up an old video of John Turner, the Liberal candidate for prime minister in 1984, who was caught patting women’s bums when greeting them on the campaign trail. Turner’s bum patting was the beginning of the end of his campaign. He came across as a sort of “immature private-school boy” who had somehow had missed out on the women’s movement of the ’70s and ’80s. (Here is the CBC link to the famous Turner bum patting of Iona Campagnolo, the female Liberal President who apparently had to take being groped by Turner, for the Liberal Team.)

As I said, politics can be a dirty and slimy business.

I think Rob Davis’s point in resurrecting the Turner bum-patting was to remind us that such behaviour can also be laid at the backdoor of silly old white Liberal men, as well.

In other words, buttheads, like confirmed and alleged buttpatters, come in both Tory Blue and Liberal Red.