Salutin riffs

If I could, I would have just linked directly to today's Rick Salutin column in the Globe and Mail. But the columnists are behind their subscription wall and I refuse -- REFUSE! -- to pay twice, once for the paper version and again for the online paper.
Salutin often takes a contrary view, and his writing is so vivid and crisp that he often convinces me that he is right. Here are his three riffs from today:

Let us give thanks that our nation is not an imperial power. I am thinking mainly about the effects of empire not on the ruled but on the rulers like our southern neighbours . . . look at how hard it is for them to get clarity about the bog in Iraq. The issue gets framed as: When will Iraqi forces be ready to take over, so our troops can leave? But the nationality of forces fighting against the insurgency isn't what counts; the imperial power always tries to use the locals as its police (as the British did in India and Africa). What counts is who has power over policy and resources in Iraq, and there's no sign the United States plans to relinquish any. So the debate on when to "draw down" U.S. troops and leave is hollow. Some of it is diversionary propaganda from the Bushites; but much of it is sincere self-delusion, because many Americans just don't want to see themselves in their imperial reality.

Then Salutin goes on a tear about CEOs who decry higher government spending:

The boys seem especially peeved at Paul Martin for not staying as stingy and accommodating as he once was . . . Back in 1995, [Martin said] "some people seem to enjoy the bloodsport of cutting spending; they forget that a country is about people, and a government is about representing people." The guy has always been a cluster of contradictions -- not the worst thing for a person in politics to be.

Finally, he talks about the last parliament:

During the past hysterical months, I often found myself flipping to the parliamentary channel to see what was on, as I would to a sports or news channel. They'd be debating issues that mattered, with evident passion and involvement. MPs, even backbenchers, emerged as personalities; there was genuine back and forth and, above all, uncertainty of outcome, as in sports. They passed significant legislation and had meaningful debates . . . due to that disparaged, belittled, uncontrollable minority situation, a great Parliament.