I've been thinking about the thousands and thousands of US war casualties, lying in Walter Reed hospital or at home trying to put their lives back together, hearing all the D-Day coverage.
And I was reminded of this song, one of the great anti-war songs from Ireland. Click on the link and then on the song title to hear the music.
Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye
While goin' the road to sweet Athy,
hurroo, hurroo
While goin' the road to sweet Athy,
hurroo, hurroo
While goin' the road to sweet Athy,
A stick in me hand and a drop in me eye,
A doleful damsel I heard cry,
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Chorus:
With your guns and drums and drums and guns,
hurroo, hurroo
With your guns and drums and drums and guns,
hurroo, hurroo
With your guns and drums and drums and guns,
The enemy nearly slew ye
Oh my darling dear, Ye look so queer
Johnny I hardly knew ye.
Where are your eyes that were so mild,
hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild,
hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild,
When my heart you so beguiled
Why did ye run from me and the child
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye
Where are your legs that used to run,
hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run,
hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run,
When you went for to carry a gun
Indeed your dancing days are done
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye
I'm happy for to see ye home,
hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home,
hurroo, hurroo
I'm happy for to see ye home,
All from the island of Sulloon;
So low in flesh, so high in bone
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye
They're rolling out the guns again,
hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again,
hurroo, hurroo
They're rolling out the guns again,
But they never will take our sons again
No they never will take our sons again
Johnny I'm swearing to ye
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Good for the Anglicans
Its not the complete endorsement it might have been, but the Anglican Church took a bold stop forward by recognizing the "integrity and sancity" of same-sex relationships - Anglican measure recognizes same-sex alliances This took courage. Good for them.
Cutsey headline, boring story
More gonzo journalism. This cutsey headline Liberal team running out of gas? is followed by this so-called news story:
Reporters used to kicking up dust around the prime minister were left sputtering in dust of their own Sunday. Two media buses accompanying Paul Martin through France were at the tail end of a motorcade going 150 kilometres an hour, accompanied by gendarmes on motorcycles. They were on the way from Juno Beach to Caen, the military base where reporters were to catch a plane back to Ottawa. But the second bus couldn't keep up. It had to pull out of the motorcade and into a gas station when the fuel light indicator came on. Reporters had been with Martin on the beaches of Normandy to commemorate Canada's contribution to D-Day.
That's it -- the whole story. Whenever did reporters get the idea that, on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, Canadians deserved a story about how a bus full of reporters ran out of gas -- well, it didn't actually run out of gas, just had to stop FOR gas. And this was in France, not in Canada, but we need to blame the Liberals for it anyway though it wasn't even their bus. But what's the difference when a headline is at stake?
Reporters used to kicking up dust around the prime minister were left sputtering in dust of their own Sunday. Two media buses accompanying Paul Martin through France were at the tail end of a motorcade going 150 kilometres an hour, accompanied by gendarmes on motorcycles. They were on the way from Juno Beach to Caen, the military base where reporters were to catch a plane back to Ottawa. But the second bus couldn't keep up. It had to pull out of the motorcade and into a gas station when the fuel light indicator came on. Reporters had been with Martin on the beaches of Normandy to commemorate Canada's contribution to D-Day.
That's it -- the whole story. Whenever did reporters get the idea that, on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, Canadians deserved a story about how a bus full of reporters ran out of gas -- well, it didn't actually run out of gas, just had to stop FOR gas. And this was in France, not in Canada, but we need to blame the Liberals for it anyway though it wasn't even their bus. But what's the difference when a headline is at stake?
Some questions about the Conservative platform
Here is the Liberal Platform, and here is the ConservativePlatform Its hard to make comparisons because the Liberal platform provides 10 times the detail, including lengthy discussions of policy frameworks within which the liberals have already developed legislation and initiatives, and say they will develop more.
As for the Conservatives, their platform is a series of bullet points, which give short shrift to a series of regional and national issues, but which sometimes highlight bizarre specifics ("natural health products"?) Its unclear the extent to which these promises are meaningful because the overall framework within which the Conservative would implement these ideas sometimes hasn't been articulated.
For example, the Conservative platform says things like this:
• Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races [where did this come from and what does it mean? Surely the parties can do what they will in this regard.]
• Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers. [Seven words -- no other mention of agriculture, fishing and forestry. Why are all of these lumped together? Are farmers, with hundreds of thousands invested in land and machinery, and fishermen, who also have thousands invested in their equipment and licenses, actually the equivalent of forestry workers? And I could find no other reference to agriculture anywhere in the platform.]
• Improve access to new drugs and natural health products. ["Natural health products?" why would this be a national priority?]
• Work to improve economic and social conditions for aboriginal Canadians. [Other than these 10 words, I could find no other reference to First Nations in the platform.]
• Become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy. [no specifics, just this 17 word sound bite - and what the heck is "clean land"?]
• Protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography. [what loopholes? this panders to the base but doesn't actually mean anything]
• Build a more constructive partnership with our major allies and trading partners
and enhance the North American trade relationship. [The Globe said this means some kind of customs union - does it?]
• Implement a Made in Canada foreign policy. [what do these seven words mean? What have we had up to now? Its the Liberals who kept us out of Iraq, when Harper would have supported Bush.]
As for the Conservatives, their platform is a series of bullet points, which give short shrift to a series of regional and national issues, but which sometimes highlight bizarre specifics ("natural health products"?) Its unclear the extent to which these promises are meaningful because the overall framework within which the Conservative would implement these ideas sometimes hasn't been articulated.
For example, the Conservative platform says things like this:
• Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races [where did this come from and what does it mean? Surely the parties can do what they will in this regard.]
• Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers. [Seven words -- no other mention of agriculture, fishing and forestry. Why are all of these lumped together? Are farmers, with hundreds of thousands invested in land and machinery, and fishermen, who also have thousands invested in their equipment and licenses, actually the equivalent of forestry workers? And I could find no other reference to agriculture anywhere in the platform.]
• Improve access to new drugs and natural health products. ["Natural health products?" why would this be a national priority?]
• Work to improve economic and social conditions for aboriginal Canadians. [Other than these 10 words, I could find no other reference to First Nations in the platform.]
• Become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy. [no specifics, just this 17 word sound bite - and what the heck is "clean land"?]
• Protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography. [what loopholes? this panders to the base but doesn't actually mean anything]
• Build a more constructive partnership with our major allies and trading partners
and enhance the North American trade relationship. [The Globe said this means some kind of customs union - does it?]
• Implement a Made in Canada foreign policy. [what do these seven words mean? What have we had up to now? Its the Liberals who kept us out of Iraq, when Harper would have supported Bush.]
Leadership
In response to comments on my previous post, I wanted to do a follow-up on my thinking about leadership.
First, I think of Reagan now exactly the same way I thought of him when he was alive -- death doesn't deify someone. He got elected because America blamed Carter for the hostages being held in Iran. And previously, Carter got elected because America was ashamed of Ford, who pardoned Nixon -- and Nixon got elected because America was mad at Johnson and the Democrats over Vietnam.
Actually, looking back on it, the elections of Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Clinton were the only ones in the last half-century where the candidate was elected primarily on his own merits, not as a reaction to the foul-ups of the previous administration.
But I digress . . . my point is this:
Leaders of countries, however they come into power, absolutely have to understand their leadership role. When they don't, bad things always happen.
The role of an elected leader is to decide what is important and to focus on it. Exerting leadership day-to-day is a balancing act between belief and reality -- the leader has to have goals in which he believes, but also has to adjust to the situation in which he finds himself. This means he sometimes has to jettison a goal if he cannot convince his electorate to support it. The leader must attract and hire people who are smarter than he is, and give them enough authority to do their best work. But he still has to provide enough supervision and direction that they will respect his agenda and not replace it with their own.
Kennedy understood this, and so did Bush the Elder and Clinton. They let their cabinet and military and White House aides do much of the decision-making. But if these people started to swerve off the rails, the president knew enough about each decision that he could step in and get the train back onto the tracks. Perhaps, come to think of it, it was this inherent leadership ability that enabled these men to get elected on their own merits in the first place.
Reagan didn't have it -- he surrounded himself with people who were supposedly smarter than he was, who did all sorts of bad things to enrich themselves and their friends because he wasn't paying attention. Carter didn't have it either -- he didn't trust anyone in Washington, having run as a populist, and so he tried to do everything himself and buried himself in detail. Johnson let the joint chiefs run Vietnam while he focused on doing good for America, but the bad decisions they made on Vietnam ran his presidency into the ground. Nixon was reelected by allowing his aides to develop a culture of dirty tricks, an approach that showed his basic disrespect for the American people -- an attitude which became, ultimately, his downfall. Their stories are instructive.
Bush the Younger is now in trouble because he believed his own press clippings, which told him that he was a moral beacon of light for America but so ignorant of government and foreign affairs that he needed older, supposedly wiser heads to tell him what to do. Well, they did. And what a mess they have made of it. Now, as Joe Klein writes in Time, Bush is too ensnared by his own ideology to accept this or to deal with it. Klein writes "The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty."
First, I think of Reagan now exactly the same way I thought of him when he was alive -- death doesn't deify someone. He got elected because America blamed Carter for the hostages being held in Iran. And previously, Carter got elected because America was ashamed of Ford, who pardoned Nixon -- and Nixon got elected because America was mad at Johnson and the Democrats over Vietnam.
Actually, looking back on it, the elections of Kennedy, Bush the Elder, and Clinton were the only ones in the last half-century where the candidate was elected primarily on his own merits, not as a reaction to the foul-ups of the previous administration.
But I digress . . . my point is this:
Leaders of countries, however they come into power, absolutely have to understand their leadership role. When they don't, bad things always happen.
The role of an elected leader is to decide what is important and to focus on it. Exerting leadership day-to-day is a balancing act between belief and reality -- the leader has to have goals in which he believes, but also has to adjust to the situation in which he finds himself. This means he sometimes has to jettison a goal if he cannot convince his electorate to support it. The leader must attract and hire people who are smarter than he is, and give them enough authority to do their best work. But he still has to provide enough supervision and direction that they will respect his agenda and not replace it with their own.
Kennedy understood this, and so did Bush the Elder and Clinton. They let their cabinet and military and White House aides do much of the decision-making. But if these people started to swerve off the rails, the president knew enough about each decision that he could step in and get the train back onto the tracks. Perhaps, come to think of it, it was this inherent leadership ability that enabled these men to get elected on their own merits in the first place.
Reagan didn't have it -- he surrounded himself with people who were supposedly smarter than he was, who did all sorts of bad things to enrich themselves and their friends because he wasn't paying attention. Carter didn't have it either -- he didn't trust anyone in Washington, having run as a populist, and so he tried to do everything himself and buried himself in detail. Johnson let the joint chiefs run Vietnam while he focused on doing good for America, but the bad decisions they made on Vietnam ran his presidency into the ground. Nixon was reelected by allowing his aides to develop a culture of dirty tricks, an approach that showed his basic disrespect for the American people -- an attitude which became, ultimately, his downfall. Their stories are instructive.
Bush the Younger is now in trouble because he believed his own press clippings, which told him that he was a moral beacon of light for America but so ignorant of government and foreign affairs that he needed older, supposedly wiser heads to tell him what to do. Well, they did. And what a mess they have made of it. Now, as Joe Klein writes in Time, Bush is too ensnared by his own ideology to accept this or to deal with it. Klein writes "The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty."
Reagan's legacy
I seem to have spent today finding great things to quote that other people wrote.
Here's another one: Whiskey Bar: Ronald Reagan Billmon writes about Reagam's foreign policy:
Reagan's foreign policies . . . still make my blood boil. . . His decision to challenge the Soviets on every front - which, given the senility and paranoia of the Breshnev-era Soviet leadership, could easily have led to war - is, of course, relentlessly promoted by the conservative propaganda machine as the masterstroke that ended the Cold War. In reality, it was the end of the Cold War (made possible by Mikhail Gorbachov's rise to power) that headed off the disaster that Reagan's recklessness might otherwise have triggered.
The legacy of Reagan's policies in the Middle East, meanwhile, are still being paid for - in blood. The cynical promotion of Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the alliance of convenience with Saddam Hussein against Iran, the forging of a new 'strategic relationship' with Israel, the corrupt dealings with the House of Saud, and . . . the weakeness and indecision of his disastrous intervention in Beruit - all of these helped set the stage for what the neocons now like to call World War IV, and badly weakened the geopolitical ability of the United States to wage that war.
But all this pales in comparison to Reagan's war crimes in Central America. We'll probably never know just how stained his hands were by the blood of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of defenseless peasants who were slaughtered in the Guatemalan highlands, or the leftist politicians, union leaders and human rights activists kidnapped and killed by the Salvadoranian death squads, or the torturned in Honduran prisons, or terrorized by his beloved contras. . . Looking back, it's also easy to see the propaganda connections between Reagan's war in Central America and the current Orwellian nightmare in Iraq. There were the same moral oversimplications - pure goodness versus absolute evil - the same flowerly rhetoric about freedom and democracy (to be administred to impoverished campesinos with machine guns and torture chambers.) There was the same lurid hype about the dire danger to the homeland - as when Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was just a "two-day drive from Harlington, Texas." And of course, we're even looking at some of the same actors - Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Colin Powell. To a large degree, the Reagan administration's covert wars in both Central America and the Middle East formed the template for how the war in Iraq was packaged, sold and - unfortunately - fought.
. . . The ritual deification of Ronald Reagan has become one of the essential bonds that holds the modern Republican Party together . . . the tremendous conservative nostalgia for Ronald Reagan is a sign of a movement that is, if not in decline, then poised on the cusp of it. It's an implicit admission that the golden age, when a conservative ideologue like Reagan could win the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans (and not just the instinctual cultural loyalty of red state America) has passed away.
The contrast with Bush the younger - desperately scrambling to avoid defeat in a bitterly polarized electorate - is painfully clear. In it's obsessive desire to glorify Ronald Reagan, the conservative movement is retreating psychologically into its own past. It's a sign that the political era that opened the night Reagan was elected may also be nearing its end. To which I can only say: Rest in peace.
My own memory of the Reagan era was that it was on his watch that the US lost its cities -- US cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc) had been fighting economic disaster all through the 70s, and Reagan's policies which withdrew federal support from things like low-income housing, jobs programs, drug rehab, policing, schools and hospitals tipped them over; youth gangs, crime, poverty and despair overwhelmed city governments across the US. It took years for Clinton's policies to turn the cities around.
Here's another one: Whiskey Bar: Ronald Reagan Billmon writes about Reagam's foreign policy:
Reagan's foreign policies . . . still make my blood boil. . . His decision to challenge the Soviets on every front - which, given the senility and paranoia of the Breshnev-era Soviet leadership, could easily have led to war - is, of course, relentlessly promoted by the conservative propaganda machine as the masterstroke that ended the Cold War. In reality, it was the end of the Cold War (made possible by Mikhail Gorbachov's rise to power) that headed off the disaster that Reagan's recklessness might otherwise have triggered.
The legacy of Reagan's policies in the Middle East, meanwhile, are still being paid for - in blood. The cynical promotion of Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the alliance of convenience with Saddam Hussein against Iran, the forging of a new 'strategic relationship' with Israel, the corrupt dealings with the House of Saud, and . . . the weakeness and indecision of his disastrous intervention in Beruit - all of these helped set the stage for what the neocons now like to call World War IV, and badly weakened the geopolitical ability of the United States to wage that war.
But all this pales in comparison to Reagan's war crimes in Central America. We'll probably never know just how stained his hands were by the blood of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of defenseless peasants who were slaughtered in the Guatemalan highlands, or the leftist politicians, union leaders and human rights activists kidnapped and killed by the Salvadoranian death squads, or the torturned in Honduran prisons, or terrorized by his beloved contras. . . Looking back, it's also easy to see the propaganda connections between Reagan's war in Central America and the current Orwellian nightmare in Iraq. There were the same moral oversimplications - pure goodness versus absolute evil - the same flowerly rhetoric about freedom and democracy (to be administred to impoverished campesinos with machine guns and torture chambers.) There was the same lurid hype about the dire danger to the homeland - as when Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was just a "two-day drive from Harlington, Texas." And of course, we're even looking at some of the same actors - Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Colin Powell. To a large degree, the Reagan administration's covert wars in both Central America and the Middle East formed the template for how the war in Iraq was packaged, sold and - unfortunately - fought.
. . . The ritual deification of Ronald Reagan has become one of the essential bonds that holds the modern Republican Party together . . . the tremendous conservative nostalgia for Ronald Reagan is a sign of a movement that is, if not in decline, then poised on the cusp of it. It's an implicit admission that the golden age, when a conservative ideologue like Reagan could win the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans (and not just the instinctual cultural loyalty of red state America) has passed away.
The contrast with Bush the younger - desperately scrambling to avoid defeat in a bitterly polarized electorate - is painfully clear. In it's obsessive desire to glorify Ronald Reagan, the conservative movement is retreating psychologically into its own past. It's a sign that the political era that opened the night Reagan was elected may also be nearing its end. To which I can only say: Rest in peace.
My own memory of the Reagan era was that it was on his watch that the US lost its cities -- US cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc) had been fighting economic disaster all through the 70s, and Reagan's policies which withdrew federal support from things like low-income housing, jobs programs, drug rehab, policing, schools and hospitals tipped them over; youth gangs, crime, poverty and despair overwhelmed city governments across the US. It took years for Clinton's policies to turn the cities around.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
The end of "the West" as an historical construct
Good column The Decline of the West By Gwynne Dyer
: I usually find Gwynne Dyer's columns perceptive and interesting. This one is a D-Day retrospective about the differences between Europe and the US, now that the Cold War is over. One example of the contrasts -- Europeans see terrorism as a long-term problem that can do considerable damage and must be contained; Americans (or at least those who set the terms of the public debate) see it as an apocalyptic threat that must be destroyed at any cost. This ind-set fed the Bush administration's instinctive unilateralism and provided a saleable political rationale for the neo-conservatives' project of 'pax americana'. The resulting wars have accomplished in three years what might otherwise have taken fifteen: the Western alliance has been gutted, although the shell remains.
: I usually find Gwynne Dyer's columns perceptive and interesting. This one is a D-Day retrospective about the differences between Europe and the US, now that the Cold War is over. One example of the contrasts -- Europeans see terrorism as a long-term problem that can do considerable damage and must be contained; Americans (or at least those who set the terms of the public debate) see it as an apocalyptic threat that must be destroyed at any cost. This ind-set fed the Bush administration's instinctive unilateralism and provided a saleable political rationale for the neo-conservatives' project of 'pax americana'. The resulting wars have accomplished in three years what might otherwise have taken fifteen: the Western alliance has been gutted, although the shell remains.
Agenda vs mission
Rex Murphy's column Leaders are so-so, so we yo-yoin today's Globe is terrific. I think he hits the nail right on the head
What gains the Tories have made from the Liberal follies and mischief is as much as they are going to make. From here, they have to manufacture new support on their own ground and on their own issues. Which is both an advantage and a threat. Mr. Harper is going to face a real testing. The public in essence will use that testing to answer the question of the election: Should this man and his party be the beneficiary of their anger and disappointment with the Liberals?
It is also the critical point in Paul Martin's campaign. His trip to Normandy for D-Day celebrations will allow for a natural hiatus from the campaign. It will give him the space to start this whole effort anew. Which he has no choice but to do.
He must drop the previous scripts, isolate himself from the campaign mechanics, the dubious artists of spin and campaign management, and speak -- to borrow a phrase -- straight from the heart. Why has he sought this job? What does he, really, want to do with it? Why is Paul Martin running? This is a message that can only come from him.
It is possible for him to earn a second look from the voters, but he has but this one chance to do so. An outburst of authenticity could burn off the smear from the sponsorship mess. It could disentangle him from the McGuinty tax-hike harpoon.
For both leaders, this is the crucial turn of the campaign.
Mr. Harper needs to state his agenda. Mr. Martin needs to state his mission.
What gains the Tories have made from the Liberal follies and mischief is as much as they are going to make. From here, they have to manufacture new support on their own ground and on their own issues. Which is both an advantage and a threat. Mr. Harper is going to face a real testing. The public in essence will use that testing to answer the question of the election: Should this man and his party be the beneficiary of their anger and disappointment with the Liberals?
It is also the critical point in Paul Martin's campaign. His trip to Normandy for D-Day celebrations will allow for a natural hiatus from the campaign. It will give him the space to start this whole effort anew. Which he has no choice but to do.
He must drop the previous scripts, isolate himself from the campaign mechanics, the dubious artists of spin and campaign management, and speak -- to borrow a phrase -- straight from the heart. Why has he sought this job? What does he, really, want to do with it? Why is Paul Martin running? This is a message that can only come from him.
It is possible for him to earn a second look from the voters, but he has but this one chance to do so. An outburst of authenticity could burn off the smear from the sponsorship mess. It could disentangle him from the McGuinty tax-hike harpoon.
For both leaders, this is the crucial turn of the campaign.
Mr. Harper needs to state his agenda. Mr. Martin needs to state his mission.
Shorter Christie Blatchford
Christie Blatchford"I'm pro-choice, of course, but birth control is so easy to get and pregnancy out of wedlock is not shameful anymore, not like it was when I was a girl, so any woman with an unwanted pregnancy these days must be an ignorant slut who deserves to be hassled about having an abortion."
June thoughts
It was about a year ago that I started to notice there was something going wrong in Iraq.
At that time, I was anti-Bush because of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and the preemptive war doctrine, and various other Canadian things like Arar and the border and softwood lumber, etc, etc. I had been opposed to the war in Iraq, and I was very glad that the Liberals had kept us out of it. But I had basically stopped paying a lot of attention to Iraq, thinking that things were basically progressing there, even though they hadn't found any weapons nor had they found the Husseins. More important to me was finding stories about Afganistan, where Canadian troops were fighting, even though Afganistan had basically disappeared from the news. But I thought, in spite of my earlier forebodings, that maybe Iraq was settling down and maybe Tony Blair could force some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Then the constant drip, drip, drip of casualties began -- story after story, all with basically the same headline "US soldier killed in Iraq" "Two US soldiers killed in Iraq" " Tikrit blast kills three US soldiers" "Road bomb kills US soldier" -- on and on, day after day. I started to think the news editors were making mistakes, posting the previous day's story again. I kept thinking "but I read this already" as the stories kept on coming. As June, 2003 progressed, I thought maybe I was the one who was out-of-step -- the mainstream media didn't seem to notice or be bothered by these constant stories of casualties.
I had been reading Liberal Oasis occasionally since before the war started, but then I started following his links and reading further, discovering Josh Marshall and Antiwar.com and Eschaton and Counterspin. Then Dean started speaking out against the war, and he found such a response that I realized many, many Americans shared his anti-war view. And it was such a relief to realize that I was not alone in thinking that Iraq was a disaster for America. So that's basically what started this whole blog thing for me.
At that time, I was anti-Bush because of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay and the preemptive war doctrine, and various other Canadian things like Arar and the border and softwood lumber, etc, etc. I had been opposed to the war in Iraq, and I was very glad that the Liberals had kept us out of it. But I had basically stopped paying a lot of attention to Iraq, thinking that things were basically progressing there, even though they hadn't found any weapons nor had they found the Husseins. More important to me was finding stories about Afganistan, where Canadian troops were fighting, even though Afganistan had basically disappeared from the news. But I thought, in spite of my earlier forebodings, that maybe Iraq was settling down and maybe Tony Blair could force some progress on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
Then the constant drip, drip, drip of casualties began -- story after story, all with basically the same headline "US soldier killed in Iraq" "Two US soldiers killed in Iraq" " Tikrit blast kills three US soldiers" "Road bomb kills US soldier" -- on and on, day after day. I started to think the news editors were making mistakes, posting the previous day's story again. I kept thinking "but I read this already" as the stories kept on coming. As June, 2003 progressed, I thought maybe I was the one who was out-of-step -- the mainstream media didn't seem to notice or be bothered by these constant stories of casualties.
I had been reading Liberal Oasis occasionally since before the war started, but then I started following his links and reading further, discovering Josh Marshall and Antiwar.com and Eschaton and Counterspin. Then Dean started speaking out against the war, and he found such a response that I realized many, many Americans shared his anti-war view. And it was such a relief to realize that I was not alone in thinking that Iraq was a disaster for America. So that's basically what started this whole blog thing for me.
Does anyone remember "Seven Days in May"?
Capitol Hill Blue: Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides
A month ago, I posted some questions about Bush's erratic behaviour. Now here is a bit of a rag, Capital Hill Blue, with some stories too:
. . . the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state." Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. . . . In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration. “We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.” Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues. “This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items , , , when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."
A month ago, I posted some questions about Bush's erratic behaviour. Now here is a bit of a rag, Capital Hill Blue, with some stories too:
. . . the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state." Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home. . . . In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration. “We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.” Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues. “This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items , , , when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."
Real "real life"
The Circling the Wagons
What an odd but interesting column - Brooks writes
"In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change."
Well, I never thought Canada was particularly rational, or Britain, or France, etc, but this is exactly what happens in all of those countries. The parties have a core of supporters, but there is a large (likely 50 to 60 percent) swing vote.
Then Brooks says "But that is not how things work in real life [presumably he is actually talking only about American life, but he doesn't specify]. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, 'Partisan Hearts and Minds,' most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch."
Perhaps this is how Americans are, though I do not believe it really, but this is definitely not how the rest of the world works.
Brooks continues "Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."
And isn't this scary? This seems to accept partisanship as a state of being so profound, so deeply rooted, that it is impossible to change it.
Rubbish! What these political scientists apparently didn't consider, and Brooks neither, is that the US style of partisanship, which has only been in existance since the mid-80s really, is an aberration. This isn't the way most democracies actually work. People in the United States are no stupider than people anywhere else. And if the rest of the world doesn't consider political affiliation to be a genetic trait, why should America? Its that attitude that got you into Iraql
What an odd but interesting column - Brooks writes
"In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change."
Well, I never thought Canada was particularly rational, or Britain, or France, etc, but this is exactly what happens in all of those countries. The parties have a core of supporters, but there is a large (likely 50 to 60 percent) swing vote.
Then Brooks says "But that is not how things work in real life [presumably he is actually talking only about American life, but he doesn't specify]. As Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler argue in their book, 'Partisan Hearts and Minds,' most people either inherit their party affiliations from their parents, or they form an attachment to one party or another early in adulthood. Few people switch parties once they hit middle age. Even major historic events like the world wars and the Watergate scandal do not cause large numbers of people to switch."
Perhaps this is how Americans are, though I do not believe it really, but this is definitely not how the rest of the world works.
Brooks continues "Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."
And isn't this scary? This seems to accept partisanship as a state of being so profound, so deeply rooted, that it is impossible to change it.
Rubbish! What these political scientists apparently didn't consider, and Brooks neither, is that the US style of partisanship, which has only been in existance since the mid-80s really, is an aberration. This isn't the way most democracies actually work. People in the United States are no stupider than people anywhere else. And if the rest of the world doesn't consider political affiliation to be a genetic trait, why should America? Its that attitude that got you into Iraql
Thursday, June 03, 2004
The Conservative vision of Canada - let's punch out anyone we don't agree with
Here's an ugly picture -- Old issues continue to haunt Harper When a gay activist tried to pin Harper down on his gay marriage stance, "Tory supporters then hit Mr. Smyth with signs and an elderly man punched him in the face before police intervened."
How can anyone believe the country would be better off if these yahoos were in charge?
How can anyone believe the country would be better off if these yahoos were in charge?
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Strike Two
So lets see -- Harper says he won't change the languages act, though the designated Tory languages critic says they should. And Harper says he won't hamper women's access to abortion, though the designated Tory health critic says they should. So what, exactly, would the Tories do?
This quote from 16th paragraph of this Globe and Mail story is actually the led:
"While the party's platform has not yet been fully released, Mr. Harper's position on abortion is that he would not bring forward any changes to the law. However, if a backbencher pressed the issue, he would allow a free vote." (emphasis mine) Well, you can bet that some Reform backbenchers will "press the issue" so to speak.
Welcome, Canada, to the chaotic world of "free votes", where you elect someone without a clue about what they will do once elected. Free votes are basically a license for every kook and nutcase in Canada to get busy -- organizing pressure groups in ridings, picketing constituency offices, running newspaper and radio ads to get their local MP to vote their way.
Excuse me, Mr. Harper, but in Canada we have PARTIES which have PLATFORMS. Based on the platform, people decide who they will vote for during the ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Then the party which RECEIVES THE MOST VOTES gets to enact its platform by, if necessary, exerting party discipline over its own members to make sure they vote for the platform which the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE supported. Its called parliamentary democracy.
It doesn't work very well when, two weeks into the campaign, a party doesn't yet have its platform organized -- "trust us" is not a platform. And it doesn't work at all if, once elected, an MP is constantly subjected to pressure from individuals or organizations in his riding to vote their way, regardless of what his electorate wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)