Tiger Woods and the curse of being famous

It is an unfortunate fact that in this day of blogs, e-mails, facebook, twitter, cellphone cameras and all of the other communications technology out there, being a celebrity is a hazardous lifestyle. There is little to no privacy available to you if you stray from the confines of your security enhanced home and even within those confines you need to keep your head down.

Tiger Woods’ recent accident has generated a rush of speculation and stories touted as ‘factual’, without any comment from Woods himself or his family nor any official statement from any other source. But you can sense the paparazzi’s lust to drag another icon down into the mud.

And that’s the problem: Tiger Woods is an icon. This far into his career he has been scandal free, a family man with a beautiful wife and a young family, but also dedicated to his craft. He is considered to be the most recognizable sports figure in the world. He has it all.

But now the sensationalized media is speculating about a marital dispute which, should it turn out to be the case, will severely tarnish his image as a man whose life is based on strong family values and reduce him to the status of all of those other athletes who have graced the covers of the scandal sheets.

He will still be Tiger Woods, possibly the greatest golfer of all time, but there will be a certain element of clay always clinging to his shoes.

I hope for his sake and for professional golf as well, that Mr. Woods will escape this tarnishing of his reputation.

This article says it very well.

We get news faster than we ever have. We just can’t trust it to be right. So patience, credibility and fairness are among the casualties here, too, at the intersection of celebrity and scandal — where voyeuristic rubbernecking is fun and nobody feels the need to tap the brakes, and the result is an international icon bleeding on the street while surrounded by more questions than answers.

I don’t pretend to know what is and isn’t true here. What I do know is that Woods is too famous to have any kind of accident quietly. Once upon a time, in a black-and-white America that was more romantic and less human, Joe DiMaggio could be an epic sports hero in public despite having secret issues with Marilyn Monroe in private. But that day is as dead as both DiMaggio and Monroe. There are too many lights on you these days for an athlete to be around anything shady.

Too many people are watching. And a cellphone camera is now credential enough to make just about anyone “media.” We’re all in this together now, linked by things like Twitter and Facebook, the lines blurred between network news and networking, which is how a reporter from Fox News somehow came to be “reporting” on this Tiger Woods incident while holding up a copy of the National Enquirer and citing TMZ in a mutated media ménage a` trois that didn’t exactly conjure a credibility that seems to have died with Walter Cronkite.

Here’s what we kind of know: The National Enquirer reported that Woods was having an affair with a New York party girl named Rachel Uchitel, who is one of the hottest Google trends today and has taken an unusual number of photos in a bikini. This report may or may not be true. That hardly seems to matter. Uchitel is denying any affair. That hardly seems to matter, either. Very soon after this report, Woods was checked into a hospital for facial lacerations and a suspicious car accident that either featured his wife aiding him or possibly beating him, depending on which whispers, outlets and paid-for-information anonymous sources you believe.

[snip]

What may or may not have happened to Woods isn’t any kind of new, of course. Promiscuity is older than sports, and falls from grace might be older than both. Kobe Bryant’s wife is wearing a $4.5 million apology for this kind of behavior on her finger. But what is new here is how quickly scandalous news spreads in an instant-gratification society that microwaves, TiVos, Google searches and gets its infotainment on demand. The news travels so fast that it is out there before it can be verified and before the participants have even uttered a public word, and the more credible news outlets are forced to follow the flocks toward TMZ and the Enquirer or be left behind.

And here’s why that’s relevant:

What if it isn’t true?

How do we go back and fix that?

And isn’t that kind of accident ultimately more damaging than the one involving Tiger Woods?

Tiger seriously/slightly hurt in a serious/minor car accident

The first news report I heard on the radio was that Tiger Woods had been seriously injured in a car accident while leaving his Home at Islesworth, Florida.. It sounded very serious and I was thinking of how tragic it would be for Woods to be taken out of the game this early in his career.  Shades of Ben Hogan.

But then things got a bit strange.

Tiger Woods was injured early Friday when he lost control of his SUV outside his Florida mansion, and a local police chief said Woods’ wife used a golf club to smash out the back window to help get him out.

The world’s No. 1 golfer was treated and released from a hospital in good condition, his spokesman said. The Florida Highway Patrol said Woods’ vehicle hit a fire hydrant and a tree in his neighbor’s yard after he pulled out of his driveway at 2:25 a.m.

Windermere police chief Daniel Saylor told The Associated Press that officers found the 33-year-old PGA star lying in the street with his wife, Elin, hovering over him.

“She was frantic, upset,” Saylor said in a briefing Friday night. “It was her husband laying on the ground.”

She told officers she was in the house when she heard the accident and “came out and broke the back window with a golf club,” he said, adding that the front-door windows were not broken and that “the door was probably locked.”

“She supposedly got him out and laid him on the ground,” he said. “He was in and out of consciousness when my guys got there.”

Saylor said Woods had lacerations to his upper and lower lips, and blood in his mouth; officers treated Woods for about 10 minutes until an ambulance arrived. Woods was conscious enough to speak, he said.

He was mumbling, but didn’t say anything coherent,” Saylor said.

The Florida Highway Patrol said alcohol was not involved, although the accident remains under investigation and charges could be filed.

Woods was alone in his 2009 Cadillac when he pulled out of his driveway from his mansion at Isleworth, a gated waterfront community just outside Orlando, the patrol said.

Woods’ injuries were described as serious in the patrol’s report, though his spokesman, Glenn Greenspan, issued a statement that Woods was treated and released.

Bad accident. Lying in the street. Blood in his mouth. Incoherent. Sounds damned serious. Then he was treated and released “in good condition”.

The media will be chasing this one for awhile.

But if Woods has only minor injuries from this accident, the biggest sigh of relief will come from the PGA. To lose Tiger’s star power in these economic times would be a major disaster to their marketing strategy..

And it would make the golf scene a lot less interesting.

British Rule: Do your civic duty and get arrested.

When I read this story a couple of weeks ago, I was impressed to see how Mother Britain has gone completely to hell.

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.

“I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

It has become increasingly apparent that in Britain justice has become a joke. When the law has been written in such an idiotic fashion that a man doing what he considers is his civic duty – who actually does the right and the intelligent thing -  goes to jail because the wording of the legislation on the books is  written to entrap not to serve the public, then something in the character of the country has been lost.

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.

“You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

“Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?”

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.

“If this what is considered to be good law or intelligent legislation in Britain then Britain is a good place to avoid.

But then again I don’t know why I should be freshly surprised by this story. This is the same country where a person defending himself against a burglar in his own home goes to jail while the burglar goes free.

The thing is, we can’t afford to be smug because this has taken place in ‘Jolly Old’ and assume that nothing so stupid could ever happen here. Give some of our bureaucrats and politicians half a chance and we too could have even more ridiculous legislation on the books. Although I am sure that if we looked just a little closer we could find much stupidity already sitting in our own legislative books just lurking there to astound us.

Stay alert.

An amazing thing occurred in Parliament last Tuesday

A truly amazing event took place in Ottawa this past Tuesday.

Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner’s private members bill C-391 to eliminate the federal long-gun registry, passed on second reading by a vote of 164 to 137. This was amazing on several different levels.

Firstly, it was a private members bill which rarely get passed, unless it deals with some innocuous, motherhood issue. But this was a controversial piece of legislation, that had anti-gun groups frothing at the mouth in frustration and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) pumping out misinformation in a desperate attempt to garner support to defeat the bill. But that didn’t happen.

Secondly, the Conservative government, after having torpedoed Garry Breitkreuz‘ Bill C-301 ,which would have killed the registry as well as clearing up several other inequities, and then engineering a Senate bill (S-5) which they said would eliminate the registry, but in reality would have simply taken the long-gun registry out of the federal government’s purview and passed in on down to the provinces, backed Ms. Hoeppner’s bill so enthusiastically they ran the risk of alienating even the opposition MPs that were already in favour of scuttling the registry. I’ll park my paranoia on that one.

Thirdly, the leaders of two of the three opposition parties, Jack Layton for the NDP and Michael Ignatieff for the Liberals stayed with the normal practice of giving their members a free vote on a private members bill.

So despite the wailing of the anti-gunners, who did their best to convince all and sundry that the loss of the registry would mean bodies piling up in the streets, and the CACP  who were in turn predicting a complete breakdown in law and order should the registry disappear, 12 NDP and 4 Liberal MPs voted with the Conservative minority to take it through 2nd reading. The Bloc of course, having their own agenda, voted solidly against the bill.

What was also interesting was the amount of media commentary that was in favour of getting rid of the long-gun registry. We saw numerous columns , articles and editorials in the newspapers supporting the Hoeppner bill – a long time coming, but encouraging to see.

So is it a fait accompli that the registry is on its way out?

Not by a long shot. There is a process.

From here it goes to to committee, in this case the Public Safety Committee, for modification or approval and already opposition members are bragging that they will gut the bill at this level. The Public Safety committee is made up of 12 members, one of which functions as the chair. Looking at the names on the committee it is apparent that it is evenly split between those who voted for Bill C-391 and those who voted against it. But, the chair -in this case Yorkton-Melville MP Garry Breitkreuz who has fought against the federal firearms legislation since its inception – only votes in the case of a tie which actually gives the opponents of the bill a voting majority.

If the bill survives this stage it goes back to Parliament for 3rd reading and provided that the opposition MPs stay true to their 2nd reading vote, and the vote is once again a majority in favour, it then goes to the Senate for for review and approval.

At which point the registry would disappear from our lives.

At least from some of our lives, as Quebec is already making noises about setting up a provincial registry, which is something they have wanted for some time.

Will Bill C-391 make it to the finish line? Good question.

The vice-chair of the Public Safety Committee is Ontario MP Mark Holland who has been the Liberal party’s stalking horse on this issue promoting the Liberal’s pro-gun control position at every opportunity, which bodes no good for the committee process.

On the other hand, the bill is very simple and straight forward. It get rid of the long-gun registry. No more and no less. If, as I understand, the committee in its deliberations cannot materially change the intent of the legislation there may not be much that they can do to corrupt Hoeppner’s bill.

At this point only time will tell.

Justice takes a back seat in the case of Toronto grocer

This story is wrong on so many levels.

Charges against the Chinatown grocer who tackled, bound and held a man stealing from his store still stand – and Wang (David) Chen won’t find out for another two weeks whether the prosecution will drop the most serious of four criminal offences he’s facing.

“I’m disappointed,” Mr. Chen said in court at Old City Hall Thursday. “The charges should have been withdrawn.”

Mr. Chen and two of his employees are facing charges of assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement and concealment of a weapon after they apprehended a man who had stolen from Mr. Chen’s Lucky Moose market earlier the same day.

Anthony Bennett pleaded guilty to two charges of theft in August – one in relation to Mr. Chen’s store, and another for stealing from a plant shop on King Street West. He got a lighter sentence for agreeing to testify as a Crown witness in the case against Mr. Chen, the store owner who caught him.

Lorne Gunter in his National Post column sums it up neatly.

Crown prosecutors always signal who they want most by making deals with the other accused in a case for their testimony against the most-desired target. Mr. Bennett, who has a criminal record for drugs and theft going back 33 years, got a lighter sentence (30 days, plus 15 days time served) in return for acting as a government witness against Mr. Chen. Prosecutors cannot see the distortion of justice inherent in letting go a habitual criminal — a man who for years has harassed and stolen from shopkeepers in Mr. Chen’s Toronto neighbourhood — just so they can win a conviction against a law-abiding citizen who grew tired of police and court inaction and decided to exercise his ancient rights to self-defence and citizen’s arrest.

The message this sends is that the Crown is more determined to discourage citizens from getting involved in local justice than it is in stopping thefts. It is more interested in the rights of criminals than the safety of ordinary Canadians and their property.

Something is significantly wrong with our justice system when a known thief is allowed to plea bargain for a lesser sentence by testifying against the man that he robbed.

When I first read about the case I figured that Mr. Chen was in trouble because he didn’t apprehend the culprit in the act of stealing his property but actually caught him some time later, as explained here.

Under the Criminal Code, a person must find someone in the act of committing a crime for a citizen’s arrest to be legal.

If the kidnapping charge is not withdrawn the case will be argued in front of a jury and a Constitutional challenge will be launched, Lindsay said.

“Arguably, under our current citizen’s arrest, you can’t arrest (the shoplifter) because he’s not actually committing a crime, even though you have excellent evidence that an hour earlier he committed a crime, including store surveillance video that shows the whole thing,” he said.

The same article also details the plea bargain details.

Bennett pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in August. The Crown wanted a 90-day sentence but offered him 30 days because he agreed to testify against Chen. With time served, he was out after 10 days.

The actions by the prosecutor are reprehensible, but it certainly sends a signal that you are at the mercy of the bad guys because if you try to defend your property you’ll get the book thrown at you while the perpetrator will get off with a slap on the wrist,

Isn’t it time that we put justice back into the justice system?

Banning body armour to stop crime

British Columbia in its ongoing battle to fight crime has decided to ban body armour. The rationale, according to Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Kash Heed is (I think) public safety.

Heed said the bill, the first of its kind in Canada, would mean gang members “will no longer be able to hide behind body armour.”

“Police see it all too often,” said Heed in a release. “The gang member or organized criminal is out on our streets and in our neighbourhoods while hiding behind the added protection of bulletproof vests, as innocent bystanders remain unprotected and vulnerable.

“By taking away criminals’ sense of security, we decrease the potential for violence in public settings.”

Please……give me a break.

As usual, the politicians get it backwards or maybe they just spin these things thinking the public is too stupid to recognize bullshit when they hear it.

Are we to believe that these gangbangers put on body armour and then go into public places to start a shoot-out?

Or could it be that because they have rivals out to kill them they put on body armour to hopefully survive an attack.

It seems to me that if the police think that they can “decrease the potential for violence in public settings” by banning body armour they could also keep those big time drug dealers off the roads and stop drive-by shootings by banning those big, black, Cadillac SUVs that seem so popular to the trade.

The U.S. is apparently more honest in their legislation against the use of body armour.  Although the article states that the US has similar legislation, that is apparently not the case.

The Canadian legislation is a blanket prohibition that makes it illegal for anyone not licensed to own or sell the product.

The Body Armour Control Act would:

• Place controls on the possession of body armour by allowing police to seize it from those unauthorized to own it;

• Create a licensing program for businesses and their employees who sell body armour, as part of the Security Services Act;

• Require those trying to buy body armour to get a permit proving a reasonable need for owning it; and,

• Require applicants to undergo a criminal-record check.

Anyone found with unlicensed armour could be fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to six months. A business illegally selling the protective equipment could face fines up to $100,000, and the business owner could also go to jail for up to six months.

So the Canadian law manufactures criminals.

While the US legislation according to Wikipedia (if Wiki can be trusted for factual info these days) limits the ban to convicted felons and the like.

United States law restricts possession of body armor for convicted violent felons. Many U.S. states also have penalties for possession or use of body armor by felons. In other states, such as Kentucky, possession is not prohibited, but probation or parole is denied for a person convicted of certain violent crimes while wearing body armor and carrying a deadly weapon.

The U.S. law targets existing criminals.

Regardless, I can see why the police want a blanket ban on body armour.

They don’t want to find themselves in a fire fight with an opponent who is wearing the stuff. The police are looking for a tactical advantage, which is understandable from their point of view.

They also want another reason to be able to arrest and charge that part of the population that they associate with the use of body armour, namely the drug dealing crowd. More to the point, the upper echelon of that business.

Anyway, its not that the government is going to get any flack over the wording of the legislation as there are few if any law-abiding citizens who would feel the need to deck themselves out in this regalia.

But the ban won’t stop these guys from wearing this gear, any more than the guns laws don’t stop them from illegally owning and carrying firearms, or the anti-drug laws don’t stop them from dealing, or the criminal code deters them from committing murder.

So don’t feed me the crap that this legislation will improve public safety, deter criminal behaviour or even stop the wearing of body armour. If you’re worried that one of your business rivals is going to take a shot at you, a fine or even a short jail sentence is going to look to be a far better option than a trip to the morgue.

But in the world of politics the government gets to pass another law showing they’re trying to do something about crime, the police get another tool they want and life goes on as before.

Trends in Homicide Rates in Canada

The following graph is courtesy of Dr. Gary Mauser from his research. It tells a tale.

Why not handgun hunting in Canada?

Let’s indulge in  bit of fantasy.

Lets say the federal government re-writes the Firearms Act and makes it possible to get licensed to carry a handgun into the backcountry. So you think, ‘maybe I could pot a grouse for supper, or wonder of wonders, hunt for Whitetail with a handgun’. Not going to happen, even if the feds were to suddenly see the light.?.

And why?

Because the majority of the provinces prohibit hunting with a handgun.

How?

Good question. And the answer is …… that all of the provincial hunting regulations ban the hunting of game with handguns either explicitly or through definition of what constitutes a firearm for the purpose of hunting.

New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act

No ban found on the use of handguns in hunting.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hunting Synopsis

No ban found on the use of handguns in hunting.

Nova Scotia Hunting Synopsis

During the general seasons for hunting deer, moose, and bear, holders of appropriate licences may use: • a rifle and ammunition of .23 calibre or greater; • a shotgun of 28, 20, 16, 12 or 10 gauge, using a single projectile; • a muzzle loaded firearm of .45 calibre or greater; or • a bow with a draw weight of 50 pounds or greater within the draw length of the archer when hunting moose and 40 pounds or greater within the draw length of the archer when hunting big game other than moose; and any arrow fitted with a broadhead. (Handguns specifically omitted).

Prince Edward Island Wildlife Act

No ban found on the use of handguns in hunting.

Ontario Hunting Synopsis

Firearms include rifles, shotguns, air or pellet guns, bows and crossbows. You may use semi-automatic or repeating firearms for hunting in Ontario, but not handguns or fully automatic firearms. Air and pellet pistols with a muzzle velocity less than 500 feet per second may be used for hunting in Ontario.

Manitoba Wildlife Act

Except as may be otherwise permitted by this Act or the regulations, no person shall capture, kill or take or attempt to capture, kill or take a wild animal, other than a fur bearing animal, an amphibian or a reptile, by means other than a rifle, shotgun, cross bow or bow and arrow. (Handguns specifically omitted)

BC Hunting Synopsis

It is illegal to hunt with a handgun in BC. (Page 9)

Alberta

It is unlawful to

5. set out, use or employ any of the following items for the purpose of hunting any wildlife:

• A pistol or revolver.

Saskatchewan

No ban found on the use of handguns in hunting.

Quebec Hunting Synopsis

“…. “firearms” means rifles, shotguns and muzzle-loading firearms authorized, according to the species”.

Yukon

It is unlawful to hunt big game with a

• Pistol or a revolver.

Northwest Territories

No ban found on the use of handguns in hunting.

Nunavut

Unable to find current regulations.

Six out of ten provinces ban the possibility of hunting with a handgun as well as one of the three Territories. (I am assuming that Nunavut does not have any restrictions written into their hunting regulations).

It is also possible that there is something in the three provinces that I have listed (Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, PEI and Saskatchewan) as having no specific restrictions against using a handgun for hunting purposes that I missed.

It would be interesting to hear the rationale that the other seven provinces and the Yukon have for singling out handguns as not acceptable for hunting. In some cases it might be just ignorance, where instead of using the term ‘firearms’ they speak to specifics, such as rifles and shotguns. But if you say that you can only hunt with a rifle or a shotgun, you have eliminated the possibility of using a handgun simply by default.

In the case of British Columbia, the restriction against hunting with a handgun showed up, out of the blue, in the regulations a number of years ago. It was put into the regulations, I believe, by one individual in the Ministry of Environment with no consultation even though there was a process in place to review with stakeholders any changes that the Ministry was contemplating. The reason given when queried was that some (anonymous) gun club had threatened to start hunting with handguns so the Ministry was compelled to put the ban in place.

This explanation was too ludicrous to be believable.

Firstly, anyone contemplating this would not be able to obtain a transport permit from the feds to carry a handgun into the backcountry and therefore would be in breach of the law under the Federal Firearms Act. Secondly, it shouldn’t be in the purview of Ministry staff to even make that kind of decision – and certainly not without consultation.

It seemed more like it was done by someone with a personal agenda.

On the other hand, the fact that 7 out of 10 provinces have regulations to keep handguns out of the hunting fields may not be a coincidence. A number of years ago a Ministry staff member told me that there was pressure being applied to all of the provinces to write a ban on the use of handguns into their respective regulations. He didn’t expand on that statement to say where the pressure was coming from and unfortunately I didn’t take it any further, but if he was correct it would appear that someone had an agenda.

What is particularly frustrating is that although a regulation can be added very simply – in this case by an individual in a key position, it is far more difficult – read almost impossible – to get it removed. It requires a request to the Minister and his committee, made up of MLAs from both parties, who are normally reluctant to remove an existing regulation unless there is a advocate at the table to make the point.

Thus even though there have been efforts to get this regulation removed from the B.C. hunting regulations it remains in place.

So in six of the provinces and one Territory we remain in a catch-22 situation. We cannot hunt with a handgun because the Federal Firearms Act makes no provision for a transport permit for that purpose. And in the unlikely event (at least at the present time) that the feds might modify the Act for transport permits that would allow for handgun hunting, the provincial regulations would provide another barrier.

You can’t win for losing.

The evolution of the American hunting rifle

Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for future considerations

I’m not sure when the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the shark for me, but it was probably when they gave it to Yasser Arafat in 1994. But by comparison, Arafat’s selection appears rational compared to the just announced award of the prize to U.S. President Barack Obama.

The choice was so bizarre, that much of the reaction seems to range from bewilderment to cynical amusement.

In a stunning announcement, Millard Fillmore Senior High School chose Shawn Rabinowitz, an incoming junior, as next year’s valedictorian. The award was made, the valedictorian committee announced from Norway of all places, on the basis of “Mr. Rabinowitz’s intention to ace every course and graduate number one in class.” In a prepared statement, young Shawn called the unprecedented award, “f—ing awesome.”

At the same time, and amazingly enough, the Pulitzer Prize for Literature went to Sarah Palin for her stated intention “to read a book someday.” The former Alaska governor was described as “floored” by the award, announced in Stockholm by nude Swedes beating themselves with birch branches, and insisted that while she was very busy right now, someday she would make good on her vow to read a book. “You’ll see,” she said from her winter home in San Diego.

And again in a stunning coincidence, the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences announced the Oscar for best picture will be given this year to the Vince Vaughn vehicle “Guys Weekend to Burp,” which is being story-boarded at the moment but looks very good indeed. Mr. Vaughn, speaking through his publicist, said he was “touched and moved” by the award and would do everything in his power to see that the picture lives up to expectation and opens big sometime next March.

At the same press conferences, the Academy announced that the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award would go this year to Britney Spears for her intention to “spend whatever it takes to save the whales.” The Academy recognized that Spears had not yet saved a single whale, but it felt strongly that it was the intention that counted most. Spears, who was leaving a club at the time, told People magazine that she would not want to live in “a world without whales.” People put it on the cover.

There was serious commentary as well, but little of it supportive.

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

I hope that President Obama will be able accept this award with a straight face.

Thanks to Instapundit for many links to this story.