Palin's impatient (and wrong) foreign policy teacher

Sarah Palin's anticipated interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson is now being publicised by some in the media as conclusive proof of the Governor of Alaska's lack of foreign policy experience. At one point of the interview Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "Bush doctrine". Her answer ("In what respect Charlie?") is being mocked as evidence of Palin's ignorance, an ignorance to be expected from a woman politician who, quite obviously for Gibson and many others, has no business in contending for the vice presidency of the United States.

According to the creator of the term, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, Palin was right in demanding from Gibson a clarification of his question. Gibson's characterization of the "Bush doctrine" as purely a doctrine of preemptive war is wrong according to Krauthammer:

It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Krauthammer centers his criticism in Gibson's perceived exasperation on defining the Bush doctrine for Palin and how this issue has been overexploited by the pundits to further dicredit McCain's VP pick:

Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Strange bedfellows: Mexican millionaire Carlos Slim and The New York Times

(Courtesy of Scott Wilbur. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)


El Universal has announced that Mexican businessman Carlos Slim has acquired 6.4 per cent of Class A actions of The New York Times.The newspaper adds that the move makes Slim the third largest holder behind the Sulzberger family.

Slim's intentions in this deal are not clear, according to the same paper. Slim has declared his investment follows strictly financial reasons and that this is not part of a strategic maneuver to influence the media across the Mexican border. He declined to state how much he paid for his share of NYT actions or if he has any plans to increase his holdings.

Slim owns TELMEX, the national telephone company in Mexico, a quasi-monopoly sold by the state in a questionable privatization dealing during the Carlos Salinas administration. The company has since profited from the lack of competition. Currently, Mexicans pay some of the highest telephone and mobile rates while Slim has become the second richest person in the world.

Unlike U.S. billionaires Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, Slim has not been particularly keen to share his wealth through grand scale philanthropic efforts. Neither has he attached himself to any progressive causes in the Mexican political landscape. On the contrary, he has been active in defending the de facto and legal privileges that allow his company to thrive in one of the most unequal countries in the hemisphere. Slim's political views in Mexico would mostly resemble those of many conservatives in the United States. Up until now he has made clear his support to a Mexican state strong enough to protect his vested interests but, at the same time, weak in responding to the demands of the majority.