The first rule for an ambassador is to NOT shoot off his mouth. Oops! Canada already in U.S. missile plan: McKenna
So now Martin either has to fire him, or admit that what McKenna says is true.
UPDATE Wednesday - so when Paul Martin announces tomorrow that Canada is NOT participating in missile defense, I think McKenna was supposed to be whispering to the Bush administration and the Pentagon that, really, Canada is participating through NORAD, don't worry boys. But McKenna got the script wrong, and announced the whisper in public. Double oops! Please, people, remember your lines!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Judge not
My Blagh points to this story The Globe and Mail: Famous Players drops same-sex advertisements which outlines some of the tactics now being used to oppose gay marriage:
CFAC states on its website that it's vision is to see "Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada". Well, here are some principles that I suggest could be applied:
"judge not, that you shall not be judged" (Luke 6:37)
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12)
"inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these My brethern, you have done it unto Me" (Matthew 25:40)
"We were starting to get e-mails that were threatening to our staff," Nuria Bronfman, the Toronto-based vice-president of corporate affairs for Famous Players, said yesterday. The man who placed the ad, another Famous Players executive, said yesterday he'd received death threats. Also, "the phone calls were starting to get abusive," explained Ms. Bronfman, "so we thought it's not fair for our staff to have to go through that sort of thing."The story says that among the groups angry about the ads is the Canadian Family Action Coalition, which tried to take credit last fall for convincing the Royal Bank to drop its Rainbow Sticker promotion and which tried last spring to stop the addition of sexual orientation to Canada's hate crime legislation.
CFAC states on its website that it's vision is to see "Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada". Well, here are some principles that I suggest could be applied:
"judge not, that you shall not be judged" (Luke 6:37)
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12)
"inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these My brethern, you have done it unto Me" (Matthew 25:40)
Fear? Never mind.
Smirking Chimp highlights this Miami Herald column: Robert Steinback: 'Is it safe to order French fries again?'
Steinbeck comments about Condi Rice's recent luv-fest with France and says "Politicians are prone to changing with shifting political winds. But it's downright scary when the American people -- highly educated, democracy-trained and First Amendment-protected -- robotically accept what we are told seemingly without question or deliberation. But this has become a pattern in America since 9/11. Fear clouds rational, critical thought, and this administration and its conservative supporters have fed America a steady diet of fear since that dark day."
But at a significant level, its just not real anymore. The actors are all still saying their lines but the audience is now just talking amongst themselves.
On Thursday, CNN ran what should have been a big story Goss warns of terror threat to U.S.
Public reaction? Nada. No editorials that I could see, no follow-up stories about new preparations. The Conservative CPAC conference was going on at the time down the street, the largest collection of conservative talent in the US -- and none of the bloggers there said anything I can find about this big new threat. Neither did the progressive blogs note any expressions of concern -- Kos had a post about port security spending which only proves that Homeland Security and the Bush administration aren's taking terrorism threats very seriously either, treating it just like a big money pot for red state pork.
Increasingly, it strikes me as just cover-your-ass -- if there ever is another attach, everyone can say, well, we warned you. As Rozanne Rozannadanna would say, never mind.
Steinbeck comments about Condi Rice's recent luv-fest with France and says "Politicians are prone to changing with shifting political winds. But it's downright scary when the American people -- highly educated, democracy-trained and First Amendment-protected -- robotically accept what we are told seemingly without question or deliberation. But this has become a pattern in America since 9/11. Fear clouds rational, critical thought, and this administration and its conservative supporters have fed America a steady diet of fear since that dark day."
But at a significant level, its just not real anymore. The actors are all still saying their lines but the audience is now just talking amongst themselves.
On Thursday, CNN ran what should have been a big story Goss warns of terror threat to U.S.
Public reaction? Nada. No editorials that I could see, no follow-up stories about new preparations. The Conservative CPAC conference was going on at the time down the street, the largest collection of conservative talent in the US -- and none of the bloggers there said anything I can find about this big new threat. Neither did the progressive blogs note any expressions of concern -- Kos had a post about port security spending which only proves that Homeland Security and the Bush administration aren's taking terrorism threats very seriously either, treating it just like a big money pot for red state pork.
Increasingly, it strikes me as just cover-your-ass -- if there ever is another attach, everyone can say, well, we warned you. As Rozanne Rozannadanna would say, never mind.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Behind the 8-ball
With the news this morning of blasts in Baghdad aimed at Shiite mosques, I wonder whether Iraq's insurgency, which protrayed itself as a nationalist battle against the American military occupation, is now transforming itself into an insurgency portraying itself as a nationalist battle against Iranian influence in Iraq.
Robert Kagen's column in today's Washington Post -- Shiites and Stereotypes attempts to assure Washington that Shiite government in Iraq shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as an Iranian plot to control Iraq. But I wonder how it looks to the people on the ground in Iraq itself -- Iran, at the very least, is a long-standing ally of the Iraqi Shiites and a model for the kind of religious government they want to create. And the Iraqi military leadership, now running the insurgency, are the same people who fought for a decade against Iran and hate Iran passionately.
Where does this leave the United States? Behind the 8-ball -- in the bizarre situation of using 150,000 of its best and brightest American troops to prop up what might be an Iranian puppet government against a nationalist insurgency that will say it is battling Iranian control of Iraq. And how in the world do they get themselves out of this mess, when they would need to stay in Iraq if they want to use their Iraqi bases to launch a war against Iran or Syria?
Somebody told me there'd be days like these, strange days indeed.
Robert Kagen's column in today's Washington Post -- Shiites and Stereotypes attempts to assure Washington that Shiite government in Iraq shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as an Iranian plot to control Iraq. But I wonder how it looks to the people on the ground in Iraq itself -- Iran, at the very least, is a long-standing ally of the Iraqi Shiites and a model for the kind of religious government they want to create. And the Iraqi military leadership, now running the insurgency, are the same people who fought for a decade against Iran and hate Iran passionately.
Where does this leave the United States? Behind the 8-ball -- in the bizarre situation of using 150,000 of its best and brightest American troops to prop up what might be an Iranian puppet government against a nationalist insurgency that will say it is battling Iranian control of Iraq. And how in the world do they get themselves out of this mess, when they would need to stay in Iraq if they want to use their Iraqi bases to launch a war against Iran or Syria?
Somebody told me there'd be days like these, strange days indeed.
Its like a cop handing a suspect to the Mafia
I've been laid low this week due to a cold and/or flu, but I could not miss noting this Bob Herbert column about the Mahar Arar case and so-called "extraordinary rendition" -- Our Friends, the Torturers: "The entire point of this atrocious exercise is to transfer the suspect to a regime skilled in the art of torture. It's as if a cop picked up a suspect on the street and handed him over to the Mafia to extract a confession. One's guilt or innocence is not relevant. No legal defense is permitted. If a mistake is made, too bad."
Particularly apt, I thought, was Herbert's analogy to police handing a suspect over to the Mafia for questioning. Yes, that's exactly what it is.
Also notable, I notice, is the development of a whole new language to hide what is going on. George Orwell would find terminology like "extraordinary rendition" and "enemy combatant" falls into his definition of "political language" which is "the defence of the indefensible" and "has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
Particularly apt, I thought, was Herbert's analogy to police handing a suspect over to the Mafia for questioning. Yes, that's exactly what it is.
Also notable, I notice, is the development of a whole new language to hide what is going on. George Orwell would find terminology like "extraordinary rendition" and "enemy combatant" falls into his definition of "political language" which is "the defence of the indefensible" and "has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Pathetic
The Globe and Mail: Bitter attacks open debate on same-sex
Typically incoherent Conservative argument!
I have a test -- for every comment you hear against gay marriage, substitute the words "interracial marriage". And if the comment then sounds like ignorant bigotry, well, it is.
"Let us not forget, it is the Liberal Party that said 'none is too many,' when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler," Mr. Harper said yesterday. "It is the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's West Coast, an act which [former prime minister] Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for." Mr. Harper dredged up the 60-year-old events just after the Prime Minister questioned the sincerity of those who would ban gay marriage, saying opponents refuse to admit that it would take the invocation of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to do it.I don't get it -- is it Harper's argument now that because the Liberal party once discriminated against Jews and Japanese, that it should be OK today for the Liberals to discriminate against gay people?
Typically incoherent Conservative argument!
I have a test -- for every comment you hear against gay marriage, substitute the words "interracial marriage". And if the comment then sounds like ignorant bigotry, well, it is.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Round and round and round it goes, and where it stops, nobody knows
Updating yesterday's story about whether Canadian soldiers treated Afghan prisoners humanely, the Ottawa Citizen today reports that Canada's JTF2 captives vanish at Guantanamo
"Members of the Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 commando unit took at least three prisoners in January 2002 and another four during a raid several months later. But attempts by Canadian officers to find out what happened to the people appear to have been stymied by the U.S." Canada was, after all, just a US ally during this war, so what business could it be of ours?
So we're considering joining this military in the missile defense initiative but won't participate in weaponizing space? Why would we think they would tell us?
"Members of the Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 commando unit took at least three prisoners in January 2002 and another four during a raid several months later. But attempts by Canadian officers to find out what happened to the people appear to have been stymied by the U.S." Canada was, after all, just a US ally during this war, so what business could it be of ours?
So we're considering joining this military in the missile defense initiative but won't participate in weaponizing space? Why would we think they would tell us?
Swinging in the wind
Conservative MP ripped for saying gays can marry - just not each other' Stupidest. MP. Ever. Calgary Conservative MP Jason Kenney gets into the Valentine's Day spirit: ". . . homosexuals aren't barred from marrying under Canadian law. Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman."
And I keep noticing how Conservatives keep complaining about how the Liberals are out of touch with the ethnic communities on the gay marriage issue.
Such a viewpoint only illustrates how profoundly Conservatives misunderstand this issue, and how completely untrustworthy they would be on civil rights issues as a government -- because, boys, gay marriage is not a popularity contest. Paul Martin and the Liberals aren't legalizing gay marriage just to pander to their base or their branches or whatever. They aren't doing it just because they think it makes them "look good" to some voting constituency. They're doing it simply because they believe it's the right thing to do. They support the principle that EVERYBODY'S civil rights matter. And the fact that the Conservatives cannot understand this says a great deal about the heart of today's Conservative party. where painted but empty masks hang from barren trees, swinging in the wind.
And I keep noticing how Conservatives keep complaining about how the Liberals are out of touch with the ethnic communities on the gay marriage issue.
Such a viewpoint only illustrates how profoundly Conservatives misunderstand this issue, and how completely untrustworthy they would be on civil rights issues as a government -- because, boys, gay marriage is not a popularity contest. Paul Martin and the Liberals aren't legalizing gay marriage just to pander to their base or their branches or whatever. They aren't doing it just because they think it makes them "look good" to some voting constituency. They're doing it simply because they believe it's the right thing to do. They support the principle that EVERYBODY'S civil rights matter. And the fact that the Conservatives cannot understand this says a great deal about the heart of today's Conservative party. where painted but empty masks hang from barren trees, swinging in the wind.
Dispatch from inside the rabbit hole
Tomorrow belongs to me!
The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper "Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me"
Oh Fatherland, Fatherland, Show us the sign
Your children have waited to see.
The morning will come when the world is mine.
Tomorrow belongs to me!
As I read this TalkLeft story about white supremists buying billboards proclaiming "The Future Belongs to Us!" this song from Cabaret started playing in my mind - a TalkLeft commenter noted it as well.
The National Alliance which is directing this campaign is also involved in the Zundel case. And in poking further around their site, I found this notice of a protest just a week ago at Anne McLelland's constituency office (with a bogus photo - this is NOT Edmonton in February!) -- I don't know how many actually attended -- and a link to another Canadian website, The Freedom Site which purports to be some sort of free speech site but actually seems to think there is something noble about hating Jews and Aboriginals and immigrants (except, apparently, their own ancestors) and selling Heritage Front t-shirts and David Duke books. Eeeuuuu!
UPDATE: Orcinus also has a post about the National Alliance and their connection to the conservative US agenda. "If you look at most of these cases, the thread running through them is that they are clearly tying themselves to mainstream conservative issues: the National Alliance ad campaign, for instance, targeted immigration and "European American" rights. What is enabling these extremists, in reality, is a conservative movement that has in fact been moving in their direction in recent years. Like the NASCAR folks, conservative Republicans apply cosmetics and give lip service to the causes of equality and tolerance. But the proof, as always, lies in the pudding."
The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper "Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me"
Oh Fatherland, Fatherland, Show us the sign
Your children have waited to see.
The morning will come when the world is mine.
Tomorrow belongs to me!
As I read this TalkLeft story about white supremists buying billboards proclaiming "The Future Belongs to Us!" this song from Cabaret started playing in my mind - a TalkLeft commenter noted it as well.
The National Alliance which is directing this campaign is also involved in the Zundel case. And in poking further around their site, I found this notice of a protest just a week ago at Anne McLelland's constituency office (with a bogus photo - this is NOT Edmonton in February!) -- I don't know how many actually attended -- and a link to another Canadian website, The Freedom Site which purports to be some sort of free speech site but actually seems to think there is something noble about hating Jews and Aboriginals and immigrants (except, apparently, their own ancestors) and selling Heritage Front t-shirts and David Duke books. Eeeuuuu!
UPDATE: Orcinus also has a post about the National Alliance and their connection to the conservative US agenda. "If you look at most of these cases, the thread running through them is that they are clearly tying themselves to mainstream conservative issues: the National Alliance ad campaign, for instance, targeted immigration and "European American" rights. What is enabling these extremists, in reality, is a conservative movement that has in fact been moving in their direction in recent years. Like the NASCAR folks, conservative Republicans apply cosmetics and give lip service to the causes of equality and tolerance. But the proof, as always, lies in the pudding."
And so it begins
DRUDGE REPORT: FEC May Tighten Restrictions On Internet Political Activity
Since the American election, I've been saying that the Bush administration is bound and determined to bring the progressive bloggers to heel. Howard Dean was extraordinarily successful in internet fundraising, and now that he has been electec chair, Daily Kos has raised close to $100,000 for the democrats in two days. Can't have that . . .
Since the American election, I've been saying that the Bush administration is bound and determined to bring the progressive bloggers to heel. Howard Dean was extraordinarily successful in internet fundraising, and now that he has been electec chair, Daily Kos has raised close to $100,000 for the democrats in two days. Can't have that . . .
Canadian troops? Doing this? Outrageous!
POGGE points us to this Ottawa Citizen story and this awful photo.
The Canadian Forces' practice of covering the heads of Afghan prisoners with hoods and using plastic handcuffs is an outdated way to handle captives and could violate the Geneva Convention, a senior military police officer warned last year. But Department of National Defence officials say since that the Afghan mission is a peacekeeping operation, any prisoners taken by Canadian troops are not subject to the convention.
This is BULLSHIT, totally and completely.
I'm glad at least one major has objected to it. But as POGGE says, "These are the kinds of games with semantics that have been used to justify the treatment of detainees in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. I didn't realize that DND officials had been studying at the feet of Alberto Gonzales."
And if we don't see Bill Graham in the Commons tomorrow assuring Canadians that the Canadian military follows the Geneva Conventions in ANY Canadian military operation of ANY kind, ANYWHERE in the world, regardless of whose war it is . . .
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Remember this?
So as we were watching tonight's Law & Order: Criminal Intent, which was about ghost prisoners in a Brooklyn jail, I mentioned to my husband that 1,800 people had been arrested during the Republican Convention and held for two days incommunicado at some pier in New York City. He said "What? I hadn't heard anything about that! Why wasn't there something on the news about it?" Now, my husband keeps up with the news as much as anyone does -- I'm the internet and news junkie in the family -- and he was stunned that he had heard nothing about this either during or since -- nothing in the papers or on the TV news or on the talk shows, and we were watching a lot during the convention. "How did you know about it?" he asked me. I told him I had read about it on the left-wing blogs at the time, but that it hadn't ever got any real coverage, I guessed.
Just goes to show, doesn't it, how a major event effectively disappears if the media are too scared to write about it.
So I started to wonder what had happened since, and found this story from a week ago: USATODAY.com - Protesters challenge NYC arrests
"Despite the sweeping arrests, more than three-quarters of the people arrested during the convention had their cases dismissed outright or dropped in exchange for a promise to behave for six months. Fewer than 10% have pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor or violation. And out of 28 trials, 10 protesters have been convicted. The handful of convictions and large number of dismissals are seen by protesters and their advocates as evidence that police wanted to take demonstrators off the streets and intimidate potential participants into staying home." Gee, ya think?
UPDATE: And thinking about this a little further, I remember that the Democrats were too cowardly to march with the New Yorkers -- so scared were they of being seen as "anti-war". So maybe that's why the police could arrest people so indiscriminately, and the media could ignore the story -- Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and John Kerry weren't out there on the front lines supporting these anti-war protestors, nor did they lead a news crew to Pier 57 to bail them out. Well, maybe now with Howard Dean chairing the DNC, the Dems will get some guts and some heart.
That will be news to Zelda
Does anyone remember the movie "Getting Straight"?
It was Elliot Gould's best movie, and Candice Bergen's too. Among many great scenes, the greatest was the Master's Oral.
It culminated in a bit of business between Gould and one of the Masters examiners, who was trying to get Gould to agree that F. Scott Fitzgerald was gay. Seeing his degree disappearing unless he could appease this examiner, Gould tried mightly to find some ethical way to agree with the examiner's belief. He twisted and turned, but he just couldn't do it, finally bursting out with "well, that will be news to Zelda". Needless to say, the Oral deteriorated from there. ("The greatest expression of English literature is...the Limrick!")
I was reminded of this scene when I read this post Matthew Yglesias: Thinking Things Through about the Social Security debate in the US. The right-wing politicians and economists are trying so hard to find some way to support Bush's plan, twisting and turning to make sense of it, and to try to make it sensible. But they just can't do it. It DOESN'T make sense, it will never make sense, the emperor HAS NO CLOTHES.
And that won't be news to Zelda at all.
It was Elliot Gould's best movie, and Candice Bergen's too. Among many great scenes, the greatest was the Master's Oral.
It culminated in a bit of business between Gould and one of the Masters examiners, who was trying to get Gould to agree that F. Scott Fitzgerald was gay. Seeing his degree disappearing unless he could appease this examiner, Gould tried mightly to find some ethical way to agree with the examiner's belief. He twisted and turned, but he just couldn't do it, finally bursting out with "well, that will be news to Zelda". Needless to say, the Oral deteriorated from there. ("The greatest expression of English literature is...the Limrick!")
I was reminded of this scene when I read this post Matthew Yglesias: Thinking Things Through about the Social Security debate in the US. The right-wing politicians and economists are trying so hard to find some way to support Bush's plan, twisting and turning to make sense of it, and to try to make it sensible. But they just can't do it. It DOESN'T make sense, it will never make sense, the emperor HAS NO CLOTHES.
And that won't be news to Zelda at all.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Dispatch from the trenches
On Rabble, we find Charles Demers' Pride and prejudice in the chapel o' love
A good article all around, skewering people who want the left to stop dealing with "wedge issues" like gay marriage. "One would assume that, in the face of such a blatantly contradictory, homophobic, illiberal, anti-democratic, obscurant campaign by the right, we might see a reinvigorated, confident, accessible and lucid counter from left. One would be wrong, as one nearly always is when one expects invigoration, confidence, accessibility and lucidity from us." He decries the left's failure to mount an aggressive defense of gay marriage because it is thought to be a "wedge issue". ". . . we know from the experience of workers and activists of colour what appeals to ignore 'wedge issues' means: 'Shut up about abortion, language rights, affirmative action, tiered wages, and wheelchair access. We need to emphasize campaigns that white men can get behind.' "
And he points out something I have wondered about as well -- the hypocrisy of Harper's use of the "polygamy" scare tactic, while also courting Muslim men whose religion has been interpreted by some to actually support having more than one wife.
And for more news on the gay marriage fight, now the Conservatives are playing the victim over some sort of email scam where MPs were told to send their constituents a pamphlet about gay marriage. The CP story leads with this remarkable sentence "The Conservatives say they're the victims of a dirty tricks e-mail campaign designed to make them look anti-gay ... "
Well, let me just remind the conservatives of this one little fact: opposing gay marriage IS anti-gay! They cannot have it both ways, demonizing gay marriage while pretending they actually support gay rights and gay people.
But they want to, oh how they want to. As a result, they're living in a self-created myth world, where they think they can pander to bigoted religious groups while denying that they are actually promoting bigotry.
I checked out the Conservative Party Website to see what it had to say on the issue. Here is their discretely-titled section "Definition of Marriage: The Conservative Party will fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." That's all. So, I guess they'll be issuing a press release any day now to say how happy they are now that parliament is deciding the issue, eh?
And here's an example of Harper's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric on the issue, from the text of a Feb. 5 speech , the most recent speech posted on the website. "I think its important to have equal rights, just as important to preserve traditional definition." That's it, one incoherent sentence. Of course, he was speaking to a Conservative meeting in Nova Scotia, with Peter McKay apparently in the room, so he knew he couldn't actually get into the scare tactics used in the Conservative ad campaign, about which he had not informed McKay before it started.
Well, I can only conclude that, while the left may be somewhat cowardly on the issue, this pales in comparison to the mean-spirited, deliberately-misleading hypocritical cowardice on the Conservative side.
A good article all around, skewering people who want the left to stop dealing with "wedge issues" like gay marriage. "One would assume that, in the face of such a blatantly contradictory, homophobic, illiberal, anti-democratic, obscurant campaign by the right, we might see a reinvigorated, confident, accessible and lucid counter from left. One would be wrong, as one nearly always is when one expects invigoration, confidence, accessibility and lucidity from us." He decries the left's failure to mount an aggressive defense of gay marriage because it is thought to be a "wedge issue". ". . . we know from the experience of workers and activists of colour what appeals to ignore 'wedge issues' means: 'Shut up about abortion, language rights, affirmative action, tiered wages, and wheelchair access. We need to emphasize campaigns that white men can get behind.' "
And he points out something I have wondered about as well -- the hypocrisy of Harper's use of the "polygamy" scare tactic, while also courting Muslim men whose religion has been interpreted by some to actually support having more than one wife.
And for more news on the gay marriage fight, now the Conservatives are playing the victim over some sort of email scam where MPs were told to send their constituents a pamphlet about gay marriage. The CP story leads with this remarkable sentence "The Conservatives say they're the victims of a dirty tricks e-mail campaign designed to make them look anti-gay ... "
Well, let me just remind the conservatives of this one little fact: opposing gay marriage IS anti-gay! They cannot have it both ways, demonizing gay marriage while pretending they actually support gay rights and gay people.
But they want to, oh how they want to. As a result, they're living in a self-created myth world, where they think they can pander to bigoted religious groups while denying that they are actually promoting bigotry.
I checked out the Conservative Party Website to see what it had to say on the issue. Here is their discretely-titled section "Definition of Marriage: The Conservative Party will fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." That's all. So, I guess they'll be issuing a press release any day now to say how happy they are now that parliament is deciding the issue, eh?
And here's an example of Harper's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric on the issue, from the text of a Feb. 5 speech , the most recent speech posted on the website. "I think its important to have equal rights, just as important to preserve traditional definition." That's it, one incoherent sentence. Of course, he was speaking to a Conservative meeting in Nova Scotia, with Peter McKay apparently in the room, so he knew he couldn't actually get into the scare tactics used in the Conservative ad campaign, about which he had not informed McKay before it started.
Well, I can only conclude that, while the left may be somewhat cowardly on the issue, this pales in comparison to the mean-spirited, deliberately-misleading hypocritical cowardice on the Conservative side.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Emotional physics
My Bhalg posts about Gwyne Dyer's new book, so I decided to look up his recent columns. What a great writer he is. The latest column on his website is Jan 17, when he writes about . the chances that the US will invade Iran. Here is how he ends it:
"Edward Luttwak, the military historian and strategic analyst who is renowned in Washington for his maverick views, recently described US foreign policy post-9/11 almost as an exercise in emotional physics. Never mind all the elaborate strategic plans and projects of the neo-conservatives, he implied; what really drives all this is just push-back. After 9/11, there was an enormous need in the US to do something big, to smash stuff up and punish people for the hurt that had been done to Americans. Afghanistan was a logical and legitimate target of that anger, but it fell practically without a fight and left the national need forOn Hardball tonight, the retired generals were talking about the US being in Iraq for another three years. I wonder how long Iran will be willing to wait?
vengeance unassuaged. The invasion of Iraq was an emotional necessity if the rage was to be discharged, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the United States. In this interpretation, all the talk about attacking Iran is the last wave of this emotional binge running feebly up the beach, and it is unlikely to sweep everything away. The talk is still macho, but the performance is not there to back it up. What the US public gets for all the taxes it pays on defence -- currently around $2,000 a year for every American man, woman and child -- is armed forces that are barely capable of holding down one middle-sized Arab country. There simply aren't any American troops available to invade Iran, and air strikes will only annoy them. What would really tip the whole area into an acute crisis is a re-radicalised Iran that has concluded that it will never be secure until it has expelled the United States from the region."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)