The fence-mending tour is over -- its interesting to realize that, for Canada, this was seen as Bush's attempt to mend fences (it wasn't), while the American media seemed surprised that there are any fences to mendhere.
Humourist Rick Mercer and U of T professor Mark Kingwell were interviewed about the Bush visit on PBS's NewsHour: President Bush Visits Canada and both made some good points about why Canadians don't trust George Bush and the Bush administration. Basically, we don't like being dissed.
Mercer noted: ". . . one of the big sticking points between Canada and the United States is that Bush never came here. . . and his ambassador would roll back and forth across the country for the last four years telling Canadians what to do and telling us, you know, what we were doing wrong and how we should run our country and what laws we should pass and should not pass. And, as a result, there has been an incredible amount of animosity building between the two nations and not just over trade, which is obviously very big, but this feeling that there is this attitude coming from Washington that Canada is, you know, is a state, essentially someone who should do just what they're told when they're told. And, you know, Canadians didn't buy into that. And, as a result, that's why you see George Bush being phenomenally unpopular in this country."
Kingwell was even stronger: ". . . there are fundamental rifts on what kind of liberalism each country is pursuing. And the reasoned objection to an unjust war, the legitimate claims of cultural independence in these trade disputes where we are simply protecting the interests of our farmers and ranchers and loggers have highlighted those differences. So I would say probably it hasn't been this bad for a long time . . . I think many Alberta ranchers are not going to be particularly pleased with the mockery that the president offered on the issue. This has been a serious hit to the economy of the prairies. . . many Canadians are wondering not just why Bush is here now, but why it took him three years to thank us for what happened after 9/11. This was a significant breach of diplomatic protocol when there was no forthcoming thanks at the time. And I think that was part of what made the relationship deteriorate, part of a general loss of faith in the American attitude after 9/11 . . . I also think that his defense of his actions in Iraq as being in accordance with the United Nations Security Council is disingenuous. The Bush administration has consistently failed to cooperate with the United Nations; something that Canadians have been urging all along as the real basis of any kind of legitimate international action. He has also refused to cooperate with the international criminal court with various measures which Canadian diplomats and thinkers have been spearheading to try to give a legitimate basis to international law so that we don't see the kind of rogue action that we have seen in Iraq."
This was also portrayed as a dry run for a Bush trip to Europe in the winter -- oh, that's going to be fun, isn't it?
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Actual innocence
POGGE writes a great piece about Arar and the RCMP -- To serve and protect. Our reputation, that is.
In the comments section, someone posted "As for Arar, I do not know the full story and I doubt that we ever will, inquiry or not. You can be sure that there is some info about Arar that CSIS has that it will never share."
And that's exactly the problem now.
Being a law-abiding, tax-paying, white, middle-class person, I, too, used to believe in the police and the justice system -- I thought that, as a general rule, that police would NEVER finger someone as a suspect nor would prosecutors EVER bring charges against anyone unless they had GOOD reason to think the person was ACTUALLY GUILTY of a crime.
But over the last five years, there's just been too much bullshit going on in provincial justice systems across the country for me to believe this anymore. Not to mention the "guilty of being Aboriginal" bias which has thrown so many Aboriginal people in jail over the years that there is likely not a single Aboriginal person in the country who hasn't had at least one relative serving time -- certainly in Saskatchewan, that is the case.
Examples? Saskatoon's very own "Starlight tours" and the Stonechild inquiry and the Klassen case. Then there is Driskell, Phillion, Sophonow, Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott, and all the other cases referenced on Injusticebusters as well as all the Innocence Projects around the world.
So actually, no, I don't have any particular problem believing that Arar could be guilty only of being Muslim after 9/11.
First they came for the Aboriginals
and I did not speak out
because I was not Aboriginal.
Then they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not gay.
Then they came for the pro-choicers
and I did not speak out
because I was not pro-choice.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(with apologies to author Pastor Martin Niemöller )
In the comments section, someone posted "As for Arar, I do not know the full story and I doubt that we ever will, inquiry or not. You can be sure that there is some info about Arar that CSIS has that it will never share."
And that's exactly the problem now.
Being a law-abiding, tax-paying, white, middle-class person, I, too, used to believe in the police and the justice system -- I thought that, as a general rule, that police would NEVER finger someone as a suspect nor would prosecutors EVER bring charges against anyone unless they had GOOD reason to think the person was ACTUALLY GUILTY of a crime.
But over the last five years, there's just been too much bullshit going on in provincial justice systems across the country for me to believe this anymore. Not to mention the "guilty of being Aboriginal" bias which has thrown so many Aboriginal people in jail over the years that there is likely not a single Aboriginal person in the country who hasn't had at least one relative serving time -- certainly in Saskatchewan, that is the case.
Examples? Saskatoon's very own "Starlight tours" and the Stonechild inquiry and the Klassen case. Then there is Driskell, Phillion, Sophonow, Milgaard, Marshall, Morin, Truscott, and all the other cases referenced on Injusticebusters as well as all the Innocence Projects around the world.
So actually, no, I don't have any particular problem believing that Arar could be guilty only of being Muslim after 9/11.
First they came for the Aboriginals
and I did not speak out
because I was not Aboriginal.
Then they came for the Muslims
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the gays
and I did not speak out
because I was not gay.
Then they came for the pro-choicers
and I did not speak out
because I was not pro-choice.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(with apologies to author Pastor Martin Niemöller )
Monday, November 29, 2004
Liberal Manifesto
Eschaton points to this article - Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization, which could also serve as the Liberal Manifesto: "We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups . . . we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, 'loose', irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history." Right on!
Saturday, November 27, 2004
You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn!
When I saw this story in our own paper - Bush Tries to Restart Stalled N. Ireland Talks - I laughed out loud. The US government still thinks it has some kind of moral authority in world politics? Bush thinks that his own personal involvement in urging political reconciliation in Ireland will give Ian Paisley or Gerry Adams pause?
Sorry, folks, but after two years of Iraq and all its related unprincipled, hypocritical BS -- particularly Abu Gharib, of course, but also trashing Europe, fumbling North Korea and Iran, neglecting Africa, free passes for Pakistan and Sharon, undermining Powell, rejecting the World Court, rejecting Kyoto, allowing internal partisan theological politics to dictate foreign aid funding, and an overall pattern of incompetent follow-through for everything from AIDS to the roadmap to Darfur -- America's international credibility to tell anybody to do anything is gone.
And actually, I DO give a damn -- the world needs America's moral authority, but the Bush administration doesn't have any. Its just a damn shame.
Sorry, folks, but after two years of Iraq and all its related unprincipled, hypocritical BS -- particularly Abu Gharib, of course, but also trashing Europe, fumbling North Korea and Iran, neglecting Africa, free passes for Pakistan and Sharon, undermining Powell, rejecting the World Court, rejecting Kyoto, allowing internal partisan theological politics to dictate foreign aid funding, and an overall pattern of incompetent follow-through for everything from AIDS to the roadmap to Darfur -- America's international credibility to tell anybody to do anything is gone.
And actually, I DO give a damn -- the world needs America's moral authority, but the Bush administration doesn't have any. Its just a damn shame.
Friday, November 26, 2004
Is it April 1 already?
Two ridiculous stories in the New York Times -- this one Iraqi Leaders Plan to Meet Insurgents in Jordan and this one Iranians Refuse to Terminate Nuclear Plans .
In both cases, the headlines seriously overstate the case -- in the Iraq story, though 'Iraqi officials" have agreed to meet "oppositionists...if they renounce violence and terror" there is no sign that the unnamed insurgents have actually agreed to any meetings whatsoever. And as for the Iran story, this is a US State or delegation leak trying to show how the US is getting tough with Iran, but actually demonstrating how little influence or credibility the US has with the Iranians, the Europeans and the IAEC negotiators.
In both cases, the headlines seriously overstate the case -- in the Iraq story, though 'Iraqi officials" have agreed to meet "oppositionists...if they renounce violence and terror" there is no sign that the unnamed insurgents have actually agreed to any meetings whatsoever. And as for the Iran story, this is a US State or delegation leak trying to show how the US is getting tough with Iran, but actually demonstrating how little influence or credibility the US has with the Iranians, the Europeans and the IAEC negotiators.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Bad idea
So Canadians might be going to the war zone otherwise known as Iraq -- Canada aims to have role in Iraq election, PM confirms -- bad idea; terrible idea!
Not only is the idea of an election in Iraq ridiculous in and of itself, considering that the country is still at war, now the involvement of Canadians in this morass just makes us complicit in this American imperialist disaster. When the first Canadian is beheaded, who will we blame? The Martin government.
Not only is the idea of an election in Iraq ridiculous in and of itself, considering that the country is still at war, now the involvement of Canadians in this morass just makes us complicit in this American imperialist disaster. When the first Canadian is beheaded, who will we blame? The Martin government.
Thanks, guys, for whatever it was that you did
Well -- Grateful Bush set to visit Halifax -- how underwhelming!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
I'm getting a little tired of the Auditor General
The Auditor General quibbles about jurisdictional issues, while ignoring the real problem - that thousands of Aboriginal students cannot go to university.
This story Native education losing ground quotes the Auditor General criticizing how federal dollars are spent in education for Aboriginal students --"Indian Affairs has done little to fix a troubling range of old problems. . . These include jurisdictional squabbles, low teacher salaries, poor training and lax tracking of public dollars."
The story goes on to note that First Nations bands now manage 496 of the 503 schools on reserves - but this means the responsibility for salaries and training rests with the bands now, not with Indian Affairs. The "lax tracking of public dollars" is also a misleading statement, because the bands now do their own tracking.
What the Auditor General apparently does not mention, perhaps because she doesn't agree with it, is that the basic goal of supporting First Nations self-governance means that the bands are given the federal dollars to support education without federal strings attached -- self-government MEANS that the bands, not Indian Affairs, get to decide how the money is spent. To an auditor, this may be an accounting problem, but there are larger public goals here than accounting.
The basic problem is NOT accounting at all -- it is likely that most of the bands are doing their best. They simply do not have enough money - to pay higher salaries, to attract better-trained teachers, to finance more post-secondary students.
The true scandal in this story is buried at the end -- that 2,000 fewer post-secondary students are being supported this year than last, and there is a waiting list of 10,000 for post-secondary funding.
What most Canadians do not realize is that Aboriginal students are not eligible for Canada Student Loans. If their bands cannot afford to finance their post-secondary education, the only option for these students is to try to work their way through on their own -- an almost-impossible task with today's higher tuitions, particularly for an Aboriginal student, usually without parents or family who can help out, perhaps living for the first time in a city, unlikely to have the job skills or family connections to get a high-enough-paying summer job to cover the thousands needed for that tuition payment in September. These students are ambitious, willing, intelligent, hardworking -- and SOL until their band can support them. And THAT'S a far more serious problem for our country than any Auditor-General's report.
This story Native education losing ground quotes the Auditor General criticizing how federal dollars are spent in education for Aboriginal students --"Indian Affairs has done little to fix a troubling range of old problems. . . These include jurisdictional squabbles, low teacher salaries, poor training and lax tracking of public dollars."
The story goes on to note that First Nations bands now manage 496 of the 503 schools on reserves - but this means the responsibility for salaries and training rests with the bands now, not with Indian Affairs. The "lax tracking of public dollars" is also a misleading statement, because the bands now do their own tracking.
What the Auditor General apparently does not mention, perhaps because she doesn't agree with it, is that the basic goal of supporting First Nations self-governance means that the bands are given the federal dollars to support education without federal strings attached -- self-government MEANS that the bands, not Indian Affairs, get to decide how the money is spent. To an auditor, this may be an accounting problem, but there are larger public goals here than accounting.
The basic problem is NOT accounting at all -- it is likely that most of the bands are doing their best. They simply do not have enough money - to pay higher salaries, to attract better-trained teachers, to finance more post-secondary students.
The true scandal in this story is buried at the end -- that 2,000 fewer post-secondary students are being supported this year than last, and there is a waiting list of 10,000 for post-secondary funding.
What most Canadians do not realize is that Aboriginal students are not eligible for Canada Student Loans. If their bands cannot afford to finance their post-secondary education, the only option for these students is to try to work their way through on their own -- an almost-impossible task with today's higher tuitions, particularly for an Aboriginal student, usually without parents or family who can help out, perhaps living for the first time in a city, unlikely to have the job skills or family connections to get a high-enough-paying summer job to cover the thousands needed for that tuition payment in September. These students are ambitious, willing, intelligent, hardworking -- and SOL until their band can support them. And THAT'S a far more serious problem for our country than any Auditor-General's report.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Keep on bloggin'
The Blogging of the President: 2004 likes my Dylan Thomas homage - "Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light."
Its a little depressing, I know, but it expresses how I have felt and what I have seen in the progressive blogosphere since the Bush election.
First, there was the outrage and the disbelief. Then there was the doubt, the crying, the despair, the self-immoliation, the agonized reappraisal -- some of this is still going on. But what is emerging now is a new sense of mission, with a hard, white-hot nugget of anger at its core. "Gentlemanliness", otherwise known as bi-partisanship, is over for the progressive bloggers.
Their mission now, and they have chosen to accept it, is to try to save America, the world's greatest democracy, from turning into a fascist failed state. And the anger is not focused on Bush anymore, but on the the Christian Right yahoos, exploitive businessmen, congressional idiots, Red State voters, military yes-men, administration hacks and media syncopants who would let this happen through a deadly combination of ignorance, selfishness and jingoism.
Hang in there and keep on bloggin', guys -- apres vous, le deluge.
Its a little depressing, I know, but it expresses how I have felt and what I have seen in the progressive blogosphere since the Bush election.
First, there was the outrage and the disbelief. Then there was the doubt, the crying, the despair, the self-immoliation, the agonized reappraisal -- some of this is still going on. But what is emerging now is a new sense of mission, with a hard, white-hot nugget of anger at its core. "Gentlemanliness", otherwise known as bi-partisanship, is over for the progressive bloggers.
Their mission now, and they have chosen to accept it, is to try to save America, the world's greatest democracy, from turning into a fascist failed state. And the anger is not focused on Bush anymore, but on the the Christian Right yahoos, exploitive businessmen, congressional idiots, Red State voters, military yes-men, administration hacks and media syncopants who would let this happen through a deadly combination of ignorance, selfishness and jingoism.
Hang in there and keep on bloggin', guys -- apres vous, le deluge.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Finally
Hep C victims on way to compensation
Well, its about time.
These people who contacted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions have deserved compensation for a long time. I am still angry at the provinces who took the federal money allocated for their care and treated it like general revenue.
I wonder how many Canadians remember the whole miserable history of this scandal? The timeline is here. The Arkansas angle is here. And Canadians should be eternally grateful to the Globe and Mail for exposing and covering this story.
Well, its about time.
These people who contacted Hepatitis C through blood transfusions have deserved compensation for a long time. I am still angry at the provinces who took the federal money allocated for their care and treated it like general revenue.
I wonder how many Canadians remember the whole miserable history of this scandal? The timeline is here. The Arkansas angle is here. And Canadians should be eternally grateful to the Globe and Mail for exposing and covering this story.
Iran -- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em
Daily Kos :: Iran Suspends Nuke Enrichment; Brits Screw Up Bush Narrative
DHinMI from Daily Kos is exactly right with this entry on the recent announcement that Iran is suspending uranium enrichment -- "But instead of claiming success for pressuring the Iranians to agree to the suspension, Bush almost seemed disappointed at the news . . . nowhere in Bush's statement can one discern a sense of satisfaction or relief. No, instead it seems as if the administration is setting up another fake crisis. . . And now the Europeans screwed up their plan. The problem for Bush, assuming that he wants saber rattling over Iran, is that unlike two years ago with Iraq, this time the British do not seem as inclined to help the Bush administration jangle the cutlery."
My only question about this is the statement that Bush "almost seemed" disappointed? Try "is" disappointed.
This is exactly the same tone that the Bush administration took when Iraq tried to prove that it had dismantled its WDM -- disappointment and derision, instead of relief or hope, with the underlying narrative that of course, right-thinking people would be damned fools to believe anything those Ay-rabs say.
DHinMI from Daily Kos is exactly right with this entry on the recent announcement that Iran is suspending uranium enrichment -- "But instead of claiming success for pressuring the Iranians to agree to the suspension, Bush almost seemed disappointed at the news . . . nowhere in Bush's statement can one discern a sense of satisfaction or relief. No, instead it seems as if the administration is setting up another fake crisis. . . And now the Europeans screwed up their plan. The problem for Bush, assuming that he wants saber rattling over Iran, is that unlike two years ago with Iraq, this time the British do not seem as inclined to help the Bush administration jangle the cutlery."
My only question about this is the statement that Bush "almost seemed" disappointed? Try "is" disappointed.
This is exactly the same tone that the Bush administration took when Iraq tried to prove that it had dismantled its WDM -- disappointment and derision, instead of relief or hope, with the underlying narrative that of course, right-thinking people would be damned fools to believe anything those Ay-rabs say.
Unbelievable!
Salon.com Politics-Dishonoring JFK's death describes a new video game experience -- just in time for Christmas!
On the 41st anniversary, become Lee Harvey Oswald and try to assassinate Kennedy with just three bullets! Its Educational -- gain points for getting it right (body, head, body) but lose points for hitting Jacqueline instead! Blood spurt option also available!
And our next game -- Putting Jesus on the Cross -- how many hammer blows will it take to attach the hands and feet well enough that the lifelike Christ will not fall off when the cross is raised! Extra points for stabbing the spear directly into his side! Its Educational!!! (Blood spurt option available!)
On the 41st anniversary, become Lee Harvey Oswald and try to assassinate Kennedy with just three bullets! Its Educational -- gain points for getting it right (body, head, body) but lose points for hitting Jacqueline instead! Blood spurt option also available!
And our next game -- Putting Jesus on the Cross -- how many hammer blows will it take to attach the hands and feet well enough that the lifelike Christ will not fall off when the cross is raised! Extra points for stabbing the spear directly into his side! Its Educational!!! (Blood spurt option available!)
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Gagliano? A 'soldier'? Get real
I have often thought that if Alfonso Gagliano, now trying to track down his condo records, hadn't been a politician he could have had a career playing mobsters in the movies -- his appearance is so 'New Jersey Italian' that he could easily fit in with all the shadowy figures sitting in the background at the Bada Bing.
This whole brouhaha comes from the story of another mobster, remembering a meeting more than a decade ago and basing his ID on a photograph. Who can take seriously the accusation that he was a "soldier" in the Montreal mafia?
At the very least, Gagliano would have been a capo.
This whole brouhaha comes from the story of another mobster, remembering a meeting more than a decade ago and basing his ID on a photograph. Who can take seriously the accusation that he was a "soldier" in the Montreal mafia?
At the very least, Gagliano would have been a capo.
The Honourable John F. Kerry, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Go, John, Go! Protect Every Child is a winner.
In a way that no "losing" American candidate has ever done before, John Kerry is asserting himself as the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Usually, the losing presidential candidate just disappears off the public stage in America -- while in a parliamentary system, the Leader of the Opposition remains in the public eye and keeps pushing his party's agenda.
John Kerry received the second-highest number of votes anyone has ever received for president -- 55 million people voted for him. And he mobilized a campaign organization like no democrat has ever done before. So why shouldn't he take advantage of that, and begin using his Senate seat as a focus for vigorously opposing Bush and promoting the kind of progressive ideas that could help democrats win the midterms?
And he has picked a great issue -- one I thought could have been the focus of his whole campaign -- health insurance for children.
Who can be opposed to this? The republicans are caught flat-footed by this initiative. If they oppose it, as will be their natural inclination, they look like cheapskate, ignorant, uncaring fat-cats. Who could deny a baby a life-saving operation? How could anyone say no to wheezing child needing treatment for asthma? When the parents of these children see their kids being helped, they will know who did this for them. And when these children reach adulthood, they will NOT stand for being denied health care again.
And I wouldn't be surprised if his "catastrophic coverage" idea gets revived again, too -- the big HMOs and health insurers would love it if the government would take these expensive and controversial cases off their hands.
Now, Kerry's assertiveness won't be popular with some Senate democrats -- and no, I'm not talking about Hillary. I'm talking about some of the high-profile senators like Durbin and Rockefeller -- the ones who, in talk show appearances during the campaign, never lifted a finger to defend Kerry against the swift boat smears and the 87 billion twist. The "public as co-sponsor" gambit in Kerry's health care initiative prevents his fellow Senators from ignoring him or watering his initiative down before the public even sees it.
Keep your $15 million, John -- maybe you can use it better than the other dems can.
In a way that no "losing" American candidate has ever done before, John Kerry is asserting himself as the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Usually, the losing presidential candidate just disappears off the public stage in America -- while in a parliamentary system, the Leader of the Opposition remains in the public eye and keeps pushing his party's agenda.
John Kerry received the second-highest number of votes anyone has ever received for president -- 55 million people voted for him. And he mobilized a campaign organization like no democrat has ever done before. So why shouldn't he take advantage of that, and begin using his Senate seat as a focus for vigorously opposing Bush and promoting the kind of progressive ideas that could help democrats win the midterms?
And he has picked a great issue -- one I thought could have been the focus of his whole campaign -- health insurance for children.
Who can be opposed to this? The republicans are caught flat-footed by this initiative. If they oppose it, as will be their natural inclination, they look like cheapskate, ignorant, uncaring fat-cats. Who could deny a baby a life-saving operation? How could anyone say no to wheezing child needing treatment for asthma? When the parents of these children see their kids being helped, they will know who did this for them. And when these children reach adulthood, they will NOT stand for being denied health care again.
And I wouldn't be surprised if his "catastrophic coverage" idea gets revived again, too -- the big HMOs and health insurers would love it if the government would take these expensive and controversial cases off their hands.
Now, Kerry's assertiveness won't be popular with some Senate democrats -- and no, I'm not talking about Hillary. I'm talking about some of the high-profile senators like Durbin and Rockefeller -- the ones who, in talk show appearances during the campaign, never lifted a finger to defend Kerry against the swift boat smears and the 87 billion twist. The "public as co-sponsor" gambit in Kerry's health care initiative prevents his fellow Senators from ignoring him or watering his initiative down before the public even sees it.
Keep your $15 million, John -- maybe you can use it better than the other dems can.
Friday, November 19, 2004
"Virtuous Violence"
In this Antiwar.com column, There Is No One Left to Stop Them author Paul Craig Roberts says "Many Bush partisans send me e-mails fiercely advocating "virtuous violence." They do not flinch at the use of nuclear weapons against Muslims who refuse to do as we tell them." I had never heard the term "virtuous violence" before, so I Googled it.
A lot of the references referred to "virtuous violence" as a term used by parents to justify spanking and even forms of child abuse. It also has had religious connotations in some references.
But this March, 2004 essay on Virtuous Violence by Chicago journalist Bob Koehler seems to be the most relevant definition.
In it, he quotes a 1962 paper by psychologist Gabriel Breton, writing about the human compulsion to find a reason for waging war.
"Peace constitutes a terrible danger. . . As (peace) presents itself today, it threatens to deprive us forever of the justifications of virtuous violence. What shall we do? Along with representations of hell, it is the destruction by arms of large human groups which nourishes most assiduously the popular imagery. If violence ceases to be demanded by right and justice, will we have to deal directly with the monster who inhabits each one of us? . . . The purely political categories disappear and any position, opinion or policy is classified as good or evil. . . Violence has never tried to look so righteous.”
A lot of the references referred to "virtuous violence" as a term used by parents to justify spanking and even forms of child abuse. It also has had religious connotations in some references.
But this March, 2004 essay on Virtuous Violence by Chicago journalist Bob Koehler seems to be the most relevant definition.
In it, he quotes a 1962 paper by psychologist Gabriel Breton, writing about the human compulsion to find a reason for waging war.
"Peace constitutes a terrible danger. . . As (peace) presents itself today, it threatens to deprive us forever of the justifications of virtuous violence. What shall we do? Along with representations of hell, it is the destruction by arms of large human groups which nourishes most assiduously the popular imagery. If violence ceases to be demanded by right and justice, will we have to deal directly with the monster who inhabits each one of us? . . . The purely political categories disappear and any position, opinion or policy is classified as good or evil. . . Violence has never tried to look so righteous.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)