Vladimir Putin Goes Shopping

Czar wannabe Vladimir Putin, whom one can only picture as a pouting little boy in short pants, is in the market for weapons to bolster his failing effort in Ukraine. 

To that end, he is meeting with neighbouring tin-pot dictator, North Korean leader of people starving in the dark,  Kim Jong Un. Travelling with him in his personal green and yellow armoured train is an entourage of toadies and boot-lickers so necessary for his type of government.  

Strange it is that traditionally the beggar with cap in hand visits the country of the provider.  Putin's official dinner for Kim might overcome that miscue. The visitors, I suspect, still packed an extra lunch lest the Russian economy collapses while they're in town.

When he meets murderous Un, murderous Putin will be smiling and gracious. Unconfirmed is whether he will be on his knees to better kiss all the appropriate places. However, it is to be hoped he will not need to endure the ultimate humiliation by expressing admiration for Un's hair style; it would be a sure-fire deal-clincher.

Historians vs. Peter Newman

The newspapers have been agog lately over the death of journalist Peter Newman.  Curious it is that all comments, reminiscences  and obituaries were by writers with journalistic background.  And not one word from historians who on occasion took issue with Newman's treatment of historical events. 

Were none asked to comment on Newman's passing?  One such University of Toronto history professor, the late Michael Bliss, author of two dozen books on Canadian personalities and events, expressed opinions on Newman's approach to history, opinions contrary to the journalist's  liking. 

Newman's reaction was the lowest form of argumentation:  the personal ad hominem reply, a hoary and unimaginative pun on the historian's name. 

Could it be that Prof. Bliss did not care to see "facts dance" as Newman told his helpers to produce but preferred  the academic approach to history?

There is still time for the common media to elicit professional comment on possibly contrary interpretation of events in our history.  Balanced reportage is the motto, is it not?