Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson - a Review

I had the chance to read Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson last week on a lengthy flight. The book doesn’t really fit this blog thematically but I figure there are a few tie-ins. For one thing, I was able to get through this 571 page book on a 12 hour Air Canada day time flight between Israel and Canada. My other tie-in is more personal. Much of the book deals with Jobs at work and the manner in which he dealt with his employees, partners, co-workers and even family members. As an employment lawyer, these are the types of issues that I regularly address so I figured that this was another reason I should write about this book.

Early on, Isaacson includes a great deal of discussion about Jobs’ rebellious and anti-authoritarian nature. Jobs loved to play practical jokes on classmates, friends and teachers. (Does this sound familiar?). One of my favourite stories is the time Jobs and some friends came up with the idea of a “bring your favourite pet to school day” and proceeded to plan and advertise it without official sanction just to create chaos at school for a day with dogs and cats chasing each other around.

As a product of the times of the late 60s and early 70s, Jobs greatly enjoyed Bob Dylan music and dropping acid (LSD). He traveled to India to visit gurus and came back to North America wandering around barefoot as a vegan and self-described “fruitarian” at times. For a while, he apparently believed that with this type of diet, he would not develop body odour and could avoid regular bathing. People around him did not agree and were forced to raise this with him.

Even though this book was an "authorized" biography, Isaacson does not bury the unsavoury aspects of Jobs’ character, particularly the way he dealt with people around him. Some of these stories resonated with me, both as an employment lawyer who often hears similar stories and as someone who has worked with these types of outrageous characters. Jobs cheated his partners and employees out of money he owed them; he publicly humiliated his employees and colleagues, calling their ideas stupid (and worse) and heaped all sorts of abuse on them. He generally treated those around him in shockingly horrible fashion with nothing but contempt reserved for those he thought of as intellectually inferior.

Yet on more than one occasion, Isaacson explains away or otherwise excuses this behaviour. He writes that Jobs’ employees understood that he was building a list of exclusively “A list” employees and that this was his way of pushing those around him to work harder and achieve more. He suggests that the employees understood this and were happy with the trade-off. Those who were not up to the task or could not put up with Jobs were dismissed or quit.

In later sections of the book, Isaacson refers to Jobs as a “magical genius.” This is a recurrent theme, echoing the quote attributed to Leo Durocher that "nice guys finish last.” In other words, Isaacson seem to back the idea that the ultimate achievements of Jobs and of Apple overshadow any indiscretions in Jobs’ conduct or treatment of others. It is not expressly stated this way by Isaacson, but Isaacson’s message comes through quite clearly. It is one of the recurrent themes of the book. Do great accomplishments excuse or justify everything else?

I found the development of Apple and the treatment of many of the historical events in Apple’s history to be quite riveting. Whether dealing with how Jobs and Apple took advantage of Xerox early on, Jobs’ role in building Pixar or how Jobs personally oversaw and negotiated key aspects of iTunes, including his personal meeting with record industry executives and celebrity artists to get the rights to music for iTunes, much of this history is quite fascinating. Jobs’ successful efforts to persuade U2, Bob Dylan and ultimately even the Beatles to permit access to their musical catalogues are interesting and at times exciting.

As the book progresses and Isaacson deals with the newer Apple technology – the iPhones and then the iPads, there is a palpable sense of awe with these products with little critical assessment. After reading these chunks of the book, I began feeling the urge to run out and get an iPad II, and maybe even an iPhone as well (I have currently been using a blackberry)(I haven't done this yet...). Isaacson seems to blindly accept Jobs’ assessment that “Android (Google's competing operating system) is crap” and that Apple is on the right track in pushing the fully integrated closed system. Although this method has greatly benefited Apple to this point, it is not clear that the continuation of this type of system will allow Apple to hold the #1 spot indefinitely over Google or other tech companies.

It seems to me that the debate is much more complicated than that described in the book. Google has made and continues to make great strides with its “open” system. The Google type system may well be doing much more for human scientific advancement and technological access than Apple even though the wide range of different Google compatible products necessarily leads to a great variation in quality.

At the outset, I hadn’t really been sure that I wanted to read this book but it had received so much publicity that I decided I had to pick it up when I saw it in Costco. I found much of it quite interesting and generally enjoyed the story. It is well written (although at times a bit choppy, reflecting the speed of at which the book was published after Jobs died). It raises a number of issues and themes for discussion including the role of art and design in technology; different methods of invention; the purpose of technology itself and how to gauge what the public needs or wants; and whether success in business overrides everything, including morality and human kindness. On this last point, there are few, if any stories throughout the book detailing acts of kindness, generosity or goodwill on Jobs' part. Particularly given Job's enormous wealth, this is quite a disappointing indictment.

As well, the books details Jobs’ very difficult and ultimately losing battle with cancer. Very personal aspects of his illness and his treatment are examined including his decision to avoid surgery when cancer was first discovered and somehow hope that he could "will it away."

Jobs’ lifelong sense of personal abandonment is analyzed and traced to the fact that he had been an adopted child. This is used as another justification for Jobs' behaviour towards others. Yet this sense of abandonment did not prevent Jobs from doing the same thing when he was 23 – fathering a child and abandoning her. For a lengthy time period, Jobs denied paternity, even after a DNA test was conducted and showed a very high likelihood that this was his daughter. Ultimately, Jobs relented and provided assistance but his overall level of interaction with this daughter was relatively low.

The book returns to the clash between the openly rebellious youth of Jobs and the kinds of things he accessed and benefited from (His early “hacking” involvement with Steve Wozniak was in creating a machine that would crack telephone company codes and allow people to make free long distance calls) to his ultimate arrival at an end-to-end series of products, presented to users as a fait accompli with little room for innovation or challenge or the kind of questioning and hacking that Jobs embraced when he was younger. The limited range of options available in Apple products and the very limited ability for users to change the devices are reflective of Jobs' desire for control over everything with which he was involved from the employees and contacts with whom he worked to the consumers who bought the products.

After having finished the book last week, reading it cover to cover on one flight, I have continued to contemplate many of the issues raised. For that, I have to credit Isaacson. He has put together a study of Jobs and of this particular Apple that comes with more than a healthy dose of “food for thought.”

Jerusalem Not Tehran: Another Rally to Oppose the Silencing of Women's Voices

According to Israeli on-line news site ynet.co.il, in a recent poll, some 49% of Israelis agreed with the statement that religiously observant soldiers should not be forced to remain at ceremonies at which women are singing. As I discussed in my previous blog post on November 17, 2011, this issue has been getting increased publicity over the past few months as a result of a number of incidents in which women were publicly shunned by Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox groups.

Last night, hundreds of women and men attended a performance and demonstration in the centre of Jerusalem in support of the right of women to sing publicly and, more broadly, the need for Israel to continue as a society of equality, democracy and freedom rather than creeping towards a society with greater theocratic influence and control.

A number of well-known Israeli singers performed at the concert including international recording artist Achinoam Nini. One of the musical groups, Tarentina, began its set wearing full black, mock burkas. After playing a song in these outfits, they peeled off the head coverings and commented on the oppressive requirement of having to wear such cumbersome clothing in some societies. Echoing the sentiments of other speakers at the rally, they noted that “Israel is not Iran and Jerusalem is not and should not become Tehran.”

The rally was organized by Micki Gitzin, chair of “Free Israel,” an organization that has planned a number of these rallies over past number of months. Gitzin told the audience that “we will continue to sing anywhere and anytime until there is an end to the movement to shun women.”

Ultra-Orthdox Jews and many other observant Orthodox Jews maintain that it is improper to listen to a woman singing in public. In Orthodox synagogues, only men are involved in leading prayer services and reading from the Torah and women are generally seated in a different section of the synagogue, behind a wall (a mechitza). It is therefore not surprising that these communities would apply or attempt to apply that separation and view of equality more broadly. It is more disturbing that so many other Israelis, even many secular Israelis, would agree that it should be their “right” as observant Orthodox Jews to implement such rules in public arenas outside of the synagogue environment.

Conservative Judaism has recognized the connection between what occurs in the synagogue and its effect on equality more generally. In a recent responsa for the Schechter Institute, Rabbi David Golinkin traces the development of this ultra-Orthodox prohibition against hearing a woman’s voice publicly by examining Jewish law. He concludes that the first real authority to require a general legal prohibition against hearing women sing publicly was Rabbi Moshe Sofer (the “Hatam Sofer”) in the early 19th Century. (Volume 6, Issue No. 2, November 2011). Citing author Emily Teitz, Rabbi Golinkin notes that this relatively recent prohibition was not consistent with Jewish religious practice throughout earlier periods during which women often sang publicly, including at synagogues throughout the middle ages. Moreover, he notes that there is also authority for the proposition that it would be a greater halachic (Jewish legal) problem for observant men to walk out while women were singing (and thereby insult them) than it would for such observant men to actually sit and listen to the women singing respectfully.

In Israel, Conservative Jews have played an active role in the struggle to ensure equality in the synagogue and in society, generally. At last night’s rally, a co-ed choir, “Shirat Machar” – “The Songs of Tomorrow” performed as one of the opening musical acts. Shirat Machar is a musical ensemble comprised of teenagers affiliated and supported by Noam, the Conservative youth movement in Israel. Most if not all of the Conservative synagogues in Israel are egalitarian which means full participation by men and women in leading services, reading from the Torah and participating in other ways in the religious services. This egalitarian outlook, which begins in the synagogue, affects attitudes of congregants in many other ways.

Sadly, in some circles, the flip side is true. Attitudes towards women and towards gender equality that begin in Orthodox synagogues are often carried forward to other areas of life including family law, the law of estates and inheritance and even views of appropriate conduct between men and women.

The difficulty in Israeli society is the historic “compromise” under which earlier Israeli governments ceded much of the authority over religious affairs to the monopolistic control of the Orthodox establishment. As this authority has expanded recently with the growth of religiously observant communities in Israel, issues of gender equality have begun to face new and greater challenges. Rallies of the type held last night are aimed not just at ensuring that women’s voices continue to be heard in public in Israel but that democracy and equality for all, regardless of gender, continue to be among the most significant values in Israel.

Looks Like a Goose, Tastes like a Pig - a Kosher Pig...

It's not yet April Fool's - but I couldn't resist including this. After all, it is supposedly true, according to Haaretz, one of Israel's major national daily newspapers.

An organically grown, Spanish goose has been located that, apparently, tastes just like a pig. Of course, observant Jews cannot eat pigs, which are one of the animals expressly forbidden in the Torah for consumption. But there is nothing wrong with eating a goose that tastes like a pig, as long as it has been slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law.

The Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, has given these geese the official stamp of approval. So Israeli restaurants that observe Kosher dietary laws (certainly not all restaurants in Israel are Kosher) will soon be able to sell Kosher "pork" – (which will really be disguised goose). Score another one for those observant Jews who just have to find a way to eat what everyone else is eating - more or less. And it is bound to help with those Jews who have always wanted to keep Kosher but just can’t give up the swine...

Personally – I have never really gotten excited about simulated bacon bits, kosher imitation crab, fake pepperoni pizza or other Kosher items masquerading as some prohibited non-Kosher food. There may be a way to season the right kind of chicken so that it tastes just like a lobster but those who are eating it would not have had the experience of torturing it first by tossing it on a hot barbecue or into a boiling pot.

Maybe our Rabbis would be better off ensuring that we are able to eat some healthy green vegetables – like broccoli, asparagus, spinach, collard greens and other wonderful food items that have recently been facing increasingly stringent rules (due to the existence of microscopic or almost microscopic bugs). Many vegetables are banned or hard to find in Israel – without any really compelling reason (as far as Jewish law is concerned), other than a relatively new found Rabbinical interest in an increased level of vigilance for avoiding the tiniest of insects, even those that are not normally visible to the naked eye.

Consider this crazy picture. The Kosher Indian restaurant at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Jerusalem (that I reviewed in a previous post), which is supervised by the highest level of Kosher authorities in Israel, may soon be able to add Kosher simulated "pork" to its offerings but will still not be able to serve cauliflower and potatoes ("aloo ghobi"), a dish that is so essential to Indian cuisine - or a range of other vegetarian delicacies.

It seems to me that Israelis interested in eating healthy diets are really the ones getting goosed, yet again.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/israel-s-chief-rabbi-set-to-import-kosher-pork-1.397320

Israel Needs a Two Day Weekend

Anticipation of the weekend for many North Americans and others living in western countries can often be a preoccupation. Canadian pop singers have written a number of different anthems. 1980’s band “Loverboy” topped the charts with its hit “Everybody’s Working for the Weekend.” Hard rock band “Triumph” was less successful with its 1970’s song “I live for the Weekend,” but still captured the idea. There have been many other examples.

There is no doubt that not everyone in these countries enjoys the benefits of the weekend. In Canada, retail activity has grown dramatically over the past twenty years after Canadian Provinces eliminated Sunday closure laws. Many people continue to work in a range of industries on Saturday or Sunday or sometimes both. Many professionals and others work one or both weekend days. But there are still a significant number of people who enjoy a five day work week with Saturdays and Sundays off. There are many others with two days off, even if those days are two other days.

For observant Jews, a two day weekend in the diaspora has generally been a blessing. Saturday, as Shabbat, has meant attendance at Synagogue, family time, no travel, no commercial activity and a real day of rest. Observance of Shabbat in many areas has helped build a sense of community and synagogues have often played a central role.

Sunday, has been generally set aside for almost everything else that people might want to do but don’t have time to do in a busy week. Shopping, kids’ sports activities, family outings, leisurely brunches, weddings, unveilings, the list goes on and on. For North Americans and other westerners, it’s hard to imagine moving to a six day work week instead of a five day week. In fact, in the late 20th century, some writers began to speculate about a utopian future of shorter and shorter work weeks, perhaps even three or four days.

In contrast to the rest of the western world, Israel does not have a two day weekend. Sure there is a Hebrew word “sof shavua,” meaning weekend - but really it just means Friday night and Saturday.

Israeli students go to school six days a week. Although younger kids often finish by 1:30 p.m., the fact is that there are still six days of waking up early to be on time for school. Many people in Israel work six days a week. Although many leave work early on Fridays and a growing number don’t work at all that day, Friday is not seen as a universal day of rest. For those parents who have the day off, their kids are still in school so it is not a family day.

A six day week is one of the most difficult adjustments for immigrants who are often used to enjoying a two day weekend (and a number of three day long weekends throughout the year). But it is also difficult for Israelis, even if they have never had the opportunity to enjoy the rhythm of a five day week rather than one that stretches over six.

Earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Sivan Shalom, proposed a legislative change to turn Israel into a five day work week society. The initiative met with significant opposition and is currently being “studied.”

Many observant Jews are opposed to the idea of turning Sunday into a second day of rest, arguing that it would not suit a Jewish country to adopt a Christian day of rest. But a legislatively mandated weekend would not turn Sunday into another Sabbath in a religious sense. In Israel today, in many areas, buses do not run on Saturday; restaurants and stores are closed; many activities are viewed as religiously prohibited. Turning Sunday into at least a partial day of rest would not mean adopting all of these measures in relation to Sunday. In fact, observant Jewish families would be among the major beneficiaries of a two day weekend. They could spend Saturday observing Shabbat; and then spend Sunday enjoying so many other activities. Many of these other activities would be defined as “work” under Jewish law and prohibited on Shabbat, even if they are, in fact, leisure activities. But this “work” would certainly permissible and even encouraged on Sundays.

Some people argue that Friday is already a shortened day due to the need to prepare for Shabbat, especially in the fall and winter. If Sunday becomes a weekend day, they maintain that Israel will effectively be transferring to a four-day work week rather than a five day week. But although some people work short days or have Fridays off, kids are in school and everything is opened. In Israel currently, the weekend does not really begin on Fridays for most people, or at least not until Friday evenings.

There has also been some opposition to including Sunday in the weekend from Israel’s significant Muslim population, who argue that Israel should make Friday a second weekend day if it is to make this kind of change. Other countries in the Middle East have a Friday-Saturday weekend. However, Israel’s principal trading and commerce partners are Europe and the United States as well as, increasingly, countries in the far-east rather than the other Middle Eastern countries. Perhaps this might change one day but that does not seem too likely in the short term, despite the current “Arab Spring” (which so far, seems more like the start of a long winter…) So a commercial synchronization with the west would probably be a better step for Israel.

Others have put forward arguments about the potential effect on productivity in Israel society. What will happen if the country reduces its six day work week? Won’t this dramatically affect commercial output? Well, some have cynically responded that Israel would be lucky to get four days of productivity from its workers even under the current six day system…

After all, it is worth reviewing, less cynically, but more realistically, some actual highlights of the Sunday to Friday “work week.” Post offices, banks, government offices, conveniences stores all close certain mornings or afternoons during the week – and not even at the same time! In many industries, workers take ½ hour breaks, all together from 10 a.m. to 10:30 every day. Some stores still close from 1 to 4 p.m. or from 2 to 5 p.m. for an afternoon siesta. Much of this would probably have to change to ensure the proper use of a two day weekend. But Israeli commerce would benefit from the certainty of having almost everything open, universally, on a regular schedule.

Whether it is Friday-Saturday or Saturday-Sunday, it seems to me that Israeli society would benefit greatly from switching to a five day week. Kids should be in school normal hours, from 8:30 to 3:30 p.m. or 8 to 3 p.m. Monday to Thursday and perhaps until 12:30 or 1 p.m. on Fridays. Government offices should be open five full days a week from 8 to 4:30 or 8 to 5 p.m., as should banks, post offices and other organizations. While some workers will find it annoying to actually have to work five full days, a far greater percentage of Israelis will benefit from access to an extended weekend.

For observant Jews and for those who wish to see greater observance of Shabbat in Israeli society, a two day weekend will provide an alternate day for many people to do their errands, their shopping and to travel. Saturday night could become a great night for pubs, restaurants, movie theatres and many other places offering public entertainment.

For all Israelis, whether Sabbath observant or not, a two day weekend is likely to help reduce stress levels and slow down the hectic pace of Israeli society. This can only be a good thing – even if it will be a Herculean challenge to bring Sivan Shalom’s proposal into effect.

Gender Equality in Israel - Some Recent Issues

Gender equality issues have been percolating through the media in Israel over the past few months. For Israel as a democratic country, the trend is somewhat disturbing. The impetus for some of these issues has been the increasing power of the religious right, and sometimes a confluence of interests between Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) and other “mainstream” Orthodox groups. Israel is not alone in wrestling with these issues. Western democracies with any level of constitutional protection are finding that one of the major legal battlegrounds is the clash between minority religious rights and gender equality. These issues are being addressed in France, Canada, the U.S. and many other countries. The difference in Israel is that the Jewish character of the state often veils protection for religious rights and provides enhanced protection to the fundamentalist side of these disputes. Most recently, this has increasingly come at the expense of equality rights.

A few months ago, there was an incident that drew significant publicity in Israel. A number of religious male cadets left an Israeli Defence Forces event because the event included public singing by women, something that is viewed as prohibited under ultra-orthodox tradition. In another military event, a group of female soldiers were asked to leave a Simchat Torah celebration and go to a separate area, so as not to be with the male soldiers while they were dancing. These incidents have raised a great deal of concern in a country in which women have fought so hard to obtain and ensure greater equality of opportunity in the military. These issues led to major rallies across Israel on November 11, 2011 at which large groups of protesters, led by women’s organizations, rallied for the right to “hear the voices of women” in society.

Another battleground has been Jerusalem. Haredi groups have been defacing billboards that included pictures of women. Advertisers have yielded to some of this pressure and increasingly avoided using pictures of women in Jerusalem advertising. The Haredi community also attracted significant attention when it divided the streets of Mea Shearim in Jerusalem for the festival of Sukkot, with women only allowed on one (narrower) side of the street.

Although these might sound like isolated examples, there are many others. For example, I watched a televised national celebration of Israeli Independence Day last year. The celebration was set up as one that would be acceptable to religious audiences. In a musical evening that went for more than 2 hours, none of the performers were women. This was not the only televised national celebration – there were others that fully included women on different channels. But I still found this type of televised national celebration to be deeply offensive.

Israeli law has already, for years, provided a two track legal system in relation to family law. People with divorce or other domestic legal issues can go the rabbinical authorities to have their disputes adjudicated. Good luck getting a just resolution in a rabbinical court if you are a woman. After all, women are not even considered proper witnesses in many areas of Jewish law. Fortunately, parties have the option of bringing disputes to the general court system. However, it is a race - since the Court to which the dispute is brought initially is entitled to take jurisdiction generally.

Most recently, in an example that actually favoured women’s rights, the Israeli Supreme Court unanimously upheld the conviction of former President Moshe Katsav for Rape and other instances of sexual assault. I have previously written about the lower court decision and won’t get into great detail here. But there are a few key points worth mentioning. Katsav took the position at trial that everything was fabricated and that he had no sexual relations of any kind with any of the victims. He provided various alibis, which were carefully examined by the three-judge lower court and were all found to be completely fabricated or otherwise unsupportable. On appeal, the main thrust of one of his key arguments was that the lower Court failed to take into account the possibility that he had consensual, romantic relationships with each of the victims. Is it surprising that the Supreme Court dismissed this out of hand?

Yet what have been truly amazing are the types of attacks that Katzav’s lawyers and supporters have launched in the media against the Court’s decision. It seems that what has upset them so greatly is that the Israeli Supreme Court was willing to say non-consensual sexual contact and assault is a crime, even if came as a result of abuse of authority, breach of fiduciary duty and unwarranted pressure rather than as a physically violent attack. This seems to have been yet another fault line between orthodox and non-orthodox views of gender equality.

In countries like Canada, with its Charter of rights that enshrines equality (gender and other types), courts are more likely to favour gender equality over the rights of religious minorities, at least that has been the trend to date. But in Israel, given the state supported “Jewish character” of the state, and the lack of a constitutional document that enshrines equality, the challenge is significant, particularly as the percentages of Orthodox and Ultra -Orthodox increase.

In part the problem in Israel goes to defining “Jewish character.” The State has provided a monopoly over religious affairs to the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. This applies to weddings, funerals, Kashrut (dietary laws), funding for synagogues and a host of other areas. As a result, the State directly and indirectly sanctions practices that dramatically discriminate against women. Orthodox synagogues have gender-separate seating and bar women from participating in services. Women are not called to read from the Torah, they are not permitted to lead services and, generally, their voices are not heard.

It is not too difficult to see a spill-over effect of these practices to views of gender equality in the rest of society. After all, how can men, who routinely justify the exclusion of women from a wide range of religious practice and participation, be expected to treat women equally as fellow professionals, work colleagues, teachers, bosses and employees?

It seems to me that this problem will only be addressed, not only in Israel but across the world, when synagogues, churches and mosques all enshrine equality and egalitarianism as crucial values. This has occurred in Reform and Conservative Judaism, in some Church denominations and some other religious groups. But these groups are generally still in the minority. For example, Reform and Conservative Jewish groups do not receive state funding in Israel, while Orthodox groups do.

To ensure equality in Israel, the State and the Courts will soon be called upon increasingly to make decisions that pit equality rights against religious rights. Will Israel continue to favour equality rights under growing demographic pressure? The State can begin now by eliminating the monopoly that it has provided to the Orthodox over many areas of Jewish law. If the political or legal will is not there, Israel risks increasing the Orthodox character of the State, which can only mean a slide closer to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and, of course, a disaster for gender equality.

Ethical Oil by Ezra Levant - A Review

Ezra Levant is not afraid of controversy. As an active Conservative, columnist, talk show host and political activist, Levant’s views have often ruffled feathers and generated publicity. Given his right wing outlook, and the fact that he has recently worked for one of the world’s largest tobacco corporations, one might be tempted to dismiss his views about the oil industry as self-serving propaganda. But I don’t think it’s fair to tar Levant with this broad brush without carefully considering the arguments he puts forward in his 2010 work Ethical Oil.

I read the book, subtitled “the case for Canada’s oil sands” yesterday. The book is only about 234 pages long but I found the central premise to be extremely compelling. Levant argues that any consideration of the merits of Alberta’s oil sands projects should take into account a variety of political and other considerations, rather than environmental considerations alone and should weigh these factors against other world oil suppliers and against other energy sources. When taking into account a range of factors including treatment of workers, accountability of the oil companies, operation within a legal framework, and where the profits go, Levant has little trouble concluding that the Canadian tar sands are currently the most ethical source of oil in the world. I think it is hard to argue with that conclusion.

Entitled “the very short list of democracies that sell oil,” chapter 2 of Ethical Oil reviews the world’s major oil suppliers as a list of “dictatorships, human rights abusers and warmongers.” From Saudi Arabia, described as a major sponsor of world terrorism, Levant proceeds to examine Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela and Sudan, collectively a “rogue’s gallery” of some of the “world’s worst places.” He cites a quote from Michael Besancon of the chain Whole Foods, stating that “fuel that comes from tar sands refineries does not fit our values.” He proceeds to examine that suggestion by questioning whether places like Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Nigeria better suit those Whole Foods “values.” When politicians, lobbyists and corporations like Whole Foods state a preference for Saudi or Iranian oil over tar sands oil, have they properly considered issues like the promotion of peace, human rights and equality of men and women?

Levant is not afraid to tackle the environmental impact of tar sands development. One of his arguments here is to put things into context, particularly when weighed against other energy sources, other countries (particularly China) and even other oil producing nations. He points out that Canadian technology is constantly becoming more efficient and better environmentally, whereas the other oil producing nations are causing greater and greater damage.

Chapter 8, entitled “Greenpeace’s Best Fundraiser Ever,” includes this great question: “Why do the world’s most prominent anti-oil groups focus on Canada’s oil sands but virtually ignore polluting dictatorships that are worse by any conceivable measure?” Levant uses this segue to launch an attack on the hypocrisy of Greenpeace, which rails against nuclear power across the world but is largely silent when it comes to condemnation of China – particularly through Greenpeace-China. The book provides a detailed explanation of the issues affecting Greenpeace and ties this back to the type of unfair criticism that the tar sands face as compared to other, more polluting energy sources.

Chapter 11, entitled “Saudi Arabia’s War Against the Oil Sands,” includes some fascinating tidbits. Like the fact that Saudis spent $6.6 billion in a single year in the U.S. on lobbying efforts to polish their image in Washington. Or that they contributed some $10 million to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library (as the single biggest contributor), $10 million to George H.W. Bush’s Library and, of course, tens of millions to Jimmy Carter, who is described by Levant as a “mouthpiece for Arab foreign policy.”(This probably wouldn't be too different from a description by someone like Dershowitz). Levant also points out that the Binladin family (yes, the same Binladin family) hired Al Gore to come give lectures in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. There really is something wrong with a world in which so much American and Western money continues to flow to such an obnoxious, undemocratic, terror-sponsoring regime.

Levant addresses the cost to the U.S. of securing and protecting Middle Eastern oil supplies (i.e. of defending the Saudis and other Middle Eastern countries) and juxtaposes that against the very substantial economic benefit to Canada itself (and the U.S.) of developing the oil sands. I won’t go through all of these arguments.

While it might be argued that Levant has downplayed or minimized some very real environmental damage that continued development of the tar sands would cause, the central thesis of the book is that this is one factor to be considered among a range of others. I think there is much to be said for Levant’s premise that a preference for buying oil from regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran could have much more dangerous consequences for the world – including the world’s environment and world peace – than Canada’s development of Alberta’s oil sands.

None of this is intended to prefer a long range preference for tar sands oil as the world's bright source of future energy for generations to come. But given consumption rates today and the world's massive reliance on oil, wouldn't it be better if more of the oil were to come from Canada?

2011 Ice Hockey in Israel at Metulla

Well the 2011-2012 ice hockey eason is underway in Metulla, Israel. As I've explained in earlier blog entries on this site, this is the northernmost point in Israel. From Ra'anana, the drive is 177 km, each way.

Nevertheless, every two weeks, the list is filled with 30 players and 2 goalies - most of whom drive at least 2 hours to come and play ice hockey. They come from Jerusalem, Ra'anana, Tel-Aviv, Modin and many other Israeli cities and towns.

The games are non-contact and are set up with three lines, divided by skill level. This is great for a guy like me. I get to play on the third line with the other shleppers (hacks). The first line is actually quite fast-paced hockey and is fun to watch. Some of the players played Junior hockey in Canada or U.S. College hockey so they are quite good. The 2nd line is in between. Sometimes it is faster than other times, depending on which players have shown up. The lines are changed up fairly evenly and everyone gets to play for about 1/3 of the 1 1/2 hour ice time slot. There are almost always two goalies with full equipment.

On the way to the game, I had to make my way through 1/2 hour or so of Ra'anana traffic, just to get onto the toll road (Route 6) (known as the Yitzhak Rabin Highway). The exit out of Ra'anana to Route 6 is really poorly designed and is especially crazy during rush hour. We had to leave at about 5:30 p.m. to get to the rink on time. Apparently, the traffic problem is being fixed with the development of a new highway next to Ra'anana, due to open over the next couple of years.

Once on the highway, the speed limit is 110 and there isn't too much traffic so you can make it up north reasonably quickly. In total, the drive to Metulla took about 2 1/2 hours. We made it to the area by about 7:50 p.m. - which gave us enough time to grab a coffee at Aroma at the shopping mall in Kiryat Shemona, the last "big town" before Metulla, about 10 km away.

Getting to play on the same line as my son is quite fun, though I have to say, he is becoming a much better hockey player than me. Nevertheless, I managed to score a goal...which is pretty rare.

Aside from these bi-weekly Thursday night games, the Israeli Hockey Association is running a tournament with the same rule set up from February 6 to 10, 2012. They have been doing this annually and attract players from all over the world. Players can come in teams or can come individually and be placed on teams. The tournament is designed to raise awareness of ice hockey in Israel and to encourage tourists to come and visit Israel, while spending a bit of time playing some hockey. Two years ago, legendary Canadian hockey player Paul Henderson dropped the puck at the opening game of the tournament.

For those who are planning to be in Israel at some point but cannot make the tournament, there are sometimes spots available for casual players who want to come out and play at one of the games on a Thursday night. In fact, the association even lends equipment to players who didn't manage to bring their full gear to Israel.

The Thursday night games are attended by a great group of guys (and sometimes a young woman or two). After the games some of the players go for a swim in the pool, which is part of the ice rink complex (fittingly named the "Canada Centre"). Others head to Kiryat Shemona to have a post-game Shawarma, usually at a small kosher take-out place called "Shlomi's Baguette."

The drive back to Ra'anana, without any traffic can take as little as about 1 1/2 hours, so we were able to make it back by about 1:30 a.m. With the cost of the ice time (about $45 per player) and the crazy prices of gas in Israel, this is a fairly expensive activity. But getting on to the ice for an hour and a half in Israel is really a great time, especially if you are a Canadian.