Prior to his injury, Federer had dropped his number one ranking but today he has won the Australian Open. Tennis pundits in recent years have bestowed the best one handed backhand drive in the game to Stan Wawrinka and Richard Gasquet. Wawrinka most likely today generates the most power from the back hand wing and Gasquet utilizes more torque from a smaller physique. However; Roger Federer today demonstrated the importance of a compact back swing and set up to deal with the immense power generated by today’s tour players. While enjoying the highlights this morning, I noticed that Roger was always delivering the drive on the backhand side during service return when in years past he would often deliver the more defensive blocking style of return. It’s evident that in the run up to his tour return that his team put a focus on absolute conviction of the backhand drive from every backhand position on the court. This would have lead to more repetition in practice and mastery of set up. Today he delivered fluid cross court backhand winners at will with acute angles while managing points with sustained depth from the base line all in the context of that human back board on the other side, Rafael Nadal. Not only now a legend of the game, in Roger Federer tennis has never had a better ambassador of the sport.
This man meandered his way into the consciousness of Canadians through his activities in entrepreneurial game shows and CBC spots as political and business pundit. Apparently, he has achieved a business win through the sale of a company and it’s evident that he possesses oratory and leadership like skills. Additionally, he seems sincere in reaching out to deliver positive change. However; I’m struck by his boorishness. He seems to lack the empathy for listening to the flip side of an argument which in my estimation is a key ingredient for holding power in public office. Canadians are looking for a leader who possesses the conviction to deliver with strength in order to convert an ideal into policy and for this it seems like this man may be ideally suited should he begin to show signs of personal humility. He is thankfully a capitalist at a time when the socialist sentiment is beginning to erode the power of our great nation. In contrast to the projected opinion of the journalistic elite, I believe there to be no particular political liability in a unilingual Canadian seeking the highest office in the land given that he is endowed with a motivation to learn our other official language. When one reviews the educational and ancestral roots of our country one concludes that unilingual English Canadians should be as deserving of their quest for high office as is any other Canadian who had bilingual access as a norm to their native Canadian homeland. Mr. O’leary’s entrance into the Conservative Party’s leadership contest should add spice to our political debate.
Of course the Oxfam report is written from the perspective of inequity without reference to the direct benefits bestowed upon society as a result of products and services deployed into the market by such individuals of immense financial success. Certainly, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Gates weren’t always as philanthropic as they are today. However; with time and with some contemplation of their position within society individuals in the class of these gentlemen come to learn about their larger role serving mankind. How does one measure efficiency gains realized by the technology created by Mr. Bloomberg or productivity power generated by accounting clerks deploying Microsoft Excel? Capital markets have always put a price on new products and services and the price has always included the risk undertaken by entrepreneurs to create something from nothing. Without the financial reward offered in order to undertake a risk, life as we know it would lack industrial progress and an improved quality of life for the masses.
Governments’ role is not to redistribute wealth. Governments’ role is to administer the rule of law, protect citizens from military incursion, and collect taxes for the purpose of paying for resources that serve citizens collectively such as roads and hospitals, and jails. Some governments are more liberal and determine that there are many more resources that its people need to rely on collectively and hence more tax receipts are needed to serve this agenda. Some governments bring particular progressive ideals which don’t necessarily align with the populous’ appetite for increased taxes.
At the heart of the capitalist model is payment for the delivery of products and services. Those who deliver get paid. Those who don’t, don’t. The market establishes pricing and particular providers may demand higher pay in the context of the nature of their product or service. Hence; inherent within the capitalist model is competition. Those less successful providers may be motivated by the system to change industries or change tactics in order to improve results. There should be no reward for failure but the incentive to find victory.
Those members of our society whose contributions are not directly associated with the capitalist models and hence have a lower income may qualify from government programs, family support, and receipts from charitable foundations.
The backdrop of the release of this new research from Oxfam is a reminder that the capitalist model is under siege and there is an increased propensity of interest groups to want everything from their governments while contributing little of themselves.
Joe Scarborough has responded on the record to criticism that he’s cozying up to Trump while apparently representing the journalism industry. You see – he used to be a lawyer before running for Congress and to my knowledge he has no formal education in journalism. MSNBC has engineered programming around his Washington experience and unlucky but charming Mika Brzezinki co-hosts without the privilege of a co-hosting platform. Joe loves the spotlight and the sound of his own voice. Consequently, Mika is tested to get her chances at the early morning week day time slot. Joe’s incessant interrupting of whoever makes this the most annoying of Washington diatribes. Fortunately for the program, stalwart intellects appear as tidy side shows defusing bombastic irrational jibberish from its host.
Now, Joe feels compelled to defend his appearance with Trump on the evening of December 31st just when the big party was getting started. Trump in his wisdom wanted to meet Mika and Joe at the party to talk shop and now in a state of indignation having likely never taken formal curricula in journalistic independence, Joe is seething at his critics. Ironically the criticism is being fueled from the most professional of journalistic tools. You guessed it – twitter. There is no list long enough Joe of guilt ridden Washington yesteryear journalists whom you can cite in your exculpatory defense.