It's my intention to start a thread where we can link and discuss columns or editorials that irk us or earn our kudos. I expect, like me, there might be other wannabe columnists with a bitter axe to grind. So, let's have fun, shall we?

I feel like Dr. Lecter, and I want to ask Kenneth Whyte Editor-under-Conrad of the National Post if he wants his bowels in or out.

Okey Dokey.

From the National Post

I'm not familiar with Mr. Whytes body of work. Perhaps he has complained about one party (tory) rule in Alberta or Ontario as much as he's complaining about "one party" (liberal) rule federally. But, then I bet not. Hypocrisy is viewed as virtue on the right, after all.

Floating the idea that the real opposition should be newspapers? (Gufaw!!) Sober, reasoned debate from the "If it bleeds, it leads" crowd? We've already seen the National Post's political wisdom with their backing of Stockwell Day. I mean, if Whyte had any sense of personal embarrassment, he'd leave the subject alone.

Think tanks as opposition? I've seen more holes in the research of the Fraser Institute "shill tank" than Panzers had at Stalingrad.

Politicians are insufferable as opposition. Having journalists and corporate catamites as opposition would take an insufferable condition and make it ten times worse.

I've just started reading the National Post lately. It's kind of like the Toronto Sun with a suit and tie.

Whyte goes on and on and on.... and really only offers up a tired old solution: The Alliance and tories should band together.

Well, If I was a tory right now, I'm not sure I'd want the Alliance millstone around my neck. The Alliance, which continues to fragment faster than an atom at Fermilab, is not to be so easily separated from the National Post, either. If I was a tory, (just before I slit my wrists for that awful offence) I'd tell Whyte, and the Alliance to take their hairbrained schemes and pound salt. Not that there is no utility in what Whyte says. Given the track record, I might just take note of what is said and do the opposite.

I can only guess that the real source of angst for Whyte, and the rest of the right wing, is the fact that the Liberals are really not so crafty and their best efforts could not unseat them. The right fumbled the ball, big time. In fact, their best efforts only seemed to strengthen the Liberal beast.

I mean, really. How embarrassing for them.

Perhaps, if Whyte is serious about unseating the Liberals, he and many others might give serious thought to switching allegiance to their hated foe, and do for them what they have done for the "Alliance."

Mr. Whyte vents: "Civil society is unelected, inchoate, and what leadership it possesses has shown an irresponsible tendency to countenance street violence and other thuggery."

I'll give Whyte credit for being well read and knowing the origins of the word thuggery. I see he's no different from the usual polemic prone columnists the right is so fond of using. The use of that word transcends the border between the hyperbolic and the slanderous.

So much for Whytes credibility.

........Next?

I'm embarassed to admit it, but I've subscribed to the National Post practically since it's inception. Why? Mostly because it's cheap (Although I recently subscribed to the Globe as well. Six dollars a month - what a deal!). The first place I flip to every morning is the editorial pages, where it never ceases to amaze me that they don't have a dissenting point of view ninety-nine percent of the time. It's incredible. Sure, the odd Mark Kingwell piece is included now and then, but the column is always focusing on some apolitical subject such as the arts or popular culture. Besides that, it's a constant cavalcade of conservatism: Steyn, Corcoran, Nickson, Coyne, and other like viewpoints parachuted in from guest writers, mostly wackos from the Tom Flanagan / Ted Morton school in Alberta or the Washington Post. Moreover, the reporters by and large are complete lapdogs. Reading the Post reportage regarding Conrad Black being denied his peerage, my retinas nearly detached due to copious rolling of the eyes. I mean, I'm not naive enough to think that they're going to go after their boss with an unsheathed sword, but the whole piece was unabashed "let's all thank our various Gods for St Conrad". The article planted this giddy image in my head of Black standing in a field on a cloudless day, meadowlarks perched atop each shoulder, deer eating lumps of sugar from his outstreched hands and various woodland creatures dancing around his Gucci shoes. It was just that transparent. It's too bad it's not archived so you guys could read it for yourselves.

I've developed a well-trained bullshit detector in my time, and it goes off so badly when I hit the National Post that I only blow the 50 cents on it when I think I can stand filtering out all the crap to get at the real news.

Tee Hee

It is refreshing to read a column like this, I must say.

It brings up a point though. With the demise of Stockwell Day, you can hear a cock crow thrice in the editorial meeting rooms of Canada's right wing papers.

It wasn't that long ago that the Post and the Sun Media was doing it's best, finding flattering photos of Stock to run with fawning articles that proclaimed his fiscal genius in Alberta, his dynamic youth and his charisma.

Yes, charisma, stop laughing.

They even tried to paint people like me with the bigotry brush who brought into question, not Stock's personal beliefs, but how they illustrated the man's wanton disregard for logic. It's fine to be a true believer. I love living in a place where people can believe as they wish. It's too bad Stockwell Day supporters, or former supporters, don't extend that tollerance to people who don't want to vote for a looney.

And, in the end, who was correct?

No, Coyne and the rest of them would like to disavow all knowledge of their political saviour with a little humour and more back peddling since that guy tried to kayak over Niagara Falls years ago, but it doesn't wash with me.

Coyne could go skinny dipping in a vat of Coty Musk for Men, but the smell of Stockwell Day on him would still come through.

Where did you hear the idea about user fees from first? The politicians, or their shills, the columnists?

I think it does tell you what is coming down the pipe.

I'm not sure that columnists, or newspapers for that matter have the ability to sway public opinion like they might have had in decades previous. I think they serve to alert grass roots idealogues on the right to the next policy push, and get them on side.

What the mainstream papers and media do accomplish is to set the public agenda for what is to be discussed. That's why the left seems to be on the deffensive so much.

So, perhaps in the big picture they do still have much influence on public opinion.

We've seen the damage that loss of credibility can do to a political party. Look at the drop in Alliance support. Astounding.

If, through reasoned debate (and not the vitriole and hyperbole I've allowed myself to enjoy throwing out) we can disolve the credibility of the messenger for the agenda setters, perhaps we can go back on the offensive again? After all, as articulate as some of these columnists are, they still ahere to fallacious arguments.

My perspective is the corporate media are useful mainly because of some of their columnists. Of course, some columnists are better than others.... in that they more clearly and succinctly express their (or their employers') opinions. Others, I believe, are more than a few bricks short of full load --- and rotten writers to boot!

Tubby's columnists are, I think, mostly second grade and as already noted, little more than mouthpieces for his Lordship. The Gloom & Doom crowd seem more literate and organized in their representations. I find the the Stir and the Sin columnists simply uninteresting.

Then there are the "other mass media columnists" --- in newspapers such as the Christian Science Monitor, the Indy Media, and even the NY Times --- many of whom are not only well informed but also stimulating.

But I don't consider the corporate mass media as reliable "news" sources or "reporters of fact" or even purveyors of considered, dispassionate opinion.

Be that as it may, Eric Margolis saw fit to illuminate us on the subject of War Crimes Hypocrisy:

Years Ago In Algiers

It is nice to see Mr. Margolis opine on the side of international justice. Yes, the French are rather hypocritical, if what Mr. Margolis says is accurate enough, and I don't have much reason to doubt it.

Okay, I have a bit, but I won't mention Mr. Margolis' rather fanciful column a while back that had the Italian Free Masons (or was it Rosicrucians? or the Knights Templar?) involved in a complicated plot with the Soviets to assassinate the Pope. I though perhaps it was a satire of Umberto Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum", but regretably I think he was serious at the time. Ooops. Seems I mentioned it. How catty of me.

No, I'll not waste my time fact checking on this one. That's not what I'd take issue with here. The issue is the use of the word "hypocricy" by Margolis.

Finally, and example of irony even Alanis Morrisette would understand.

Mr. Margolis, we must remember, was perhaps one of the few columnists that was aghast that the despoiler of democracy in Chile, Augusto Pinochet, was brought up on charges.

Of course, Pinochet was a fascist dictator, not a democratically elected socialist leader. Socialist, you might notice, seems to be a dirty word with Mr. Margolis. In Mr. Margolis' world, only socialists seem to be able to do wrong. The fascists like Pinochet only do what they have to do in order to restore good order. After all, wasn't Chile restored to democracy after only a few short decades of repression?

This enables Mr. Margolis to sit down and break bread with, according to him in previous name dropping columns, none other than the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Henry Kissenger. One wonders, if Mr. Margolis really got his wish and we saw an end to hypocricy in international justice, what would become of his friends?

I might be wise to deffer to Mr. Margolis on the subject of hypcricy, however. It seems to me he is an expert, and slinger par excellance.

His vitriolic and hyperbolic (you could actually see the little flecks of spittle from his foaming mouth in the text of his columns) attacks on then President Clinton, "The draft dodger" as Mr. Margolis liked to call him. Perhaps I missed his columns calling George W. Bush, and Dick Chenney "draft dodgers" too. After all, Chenney had more draft deferments than Clinton, if one wants to call that draft dodging. And what of George the Younger? Not only did he side step service in Nam, leaving poor saps like Margolis with the task of bringing American style democracy to villages like My Lai, he might have even been AWOL for a good part of his National Guard Service.

No attacks on this, Mr. Margolis?

But: the context! Not only have I never heard anyone on the left (here or in France) deny that these things happened, but: -- in the 60s and 70s the very great film The Battle of Algiers (which depicts torture practised systematically by the French) was almost required viewing on the left here, a classic of my education, anyway. I further seriously doubt that anyone in France is especially shocked at these revelations, or even considers them revelations at all.

What's scandalous there right now is the collapse of the reputations of many establishment figures who'd carefully covered up how close they were to well-known political crimes (first reputation to go: Mitterand's, but only after he'd safely died) -- but the crimes were certainly generally known.

Here's a column on the apparent lack of Canada's self knowledge.

I MIGHT BE Canadian

I'm going to mugwump on this one. While I don't think being able to memorize esoterica regarding dates, or long lists of forgettable Prime Ministers makes us a nation, I do tend to think there would be great utility in having us all on the same page on issues surrounding Quebec, or Native rights. This is where our ignorance on history imperils us; not losing at Trivial Pursuit because you don't remember Sir John A. MacDonald's birthday.

Be that as it may, the author brings up the comparison with the United States. True, the Americans are united behind one monolithic mythology, if not history. I'm not sure it serves them well though in a world that is shrinking. It creates a provincialism, and a narrowness of view that is starting to hurt them internationally.

And, Americans as bastions of critical thinking? Oh ho ho. Where is the evidence for that? With the Kansas city school board that, for a time, elevated "creationism" on the same level with Evolution? Or, is the critical thinking in those other school boards that would repress the tangible, actual evidence that proves "the big bang"?

Critical thinkers do not hold sway in the United States; and their myopic education system that the author would have us emulate is directly responsible for this.

The study of history might, as I mentioned before, be helpful in giving a common fact based grounding in the background of today's national issues.

But, more importantly, the study of history should be about developing sceptical skills; about spotting the lies of omission, and how to think for one's self. All things the print media would not like to see happen.

Admittedly, today's post modernist approach to school curriculum is not something I'd defend just because the author is wrong at the other end of the scale.

While his antideluvian attitude on history education might be wrong, there is little to support in the current model. It fails in the ways he points out; and it does little to impart the skills of critical thinking, sceptical analysis and the tools of reasoned debate.

quote:

---

Americans are united behind one monolithic mythology, if not history.

---

<Quote>The rationale for giving skills development higher priority than knowledge acquisition is specious. To understand a newspaper article or TV news broadcast, a citizen needs to be able to check the contents against the historical record. Likewise, to empathize with the aspirations of a fellow citizen in another part of the country requires first sharing a common body of factual knowledge. </Quote>

Yes yes yes! I find it unspeakably depressing that public high schools have become little more than job-training facilities. The knowledge absorbed in classes has become little more than means to an end (that "end" being a high-salaried career) rather than a reward in itself. That's also why I think that these new in-school television channels (where the school essentially sells it's soul to the advertisers) inaccurately represent the idea that the sky is falling. IMHO, said sky has already been cascading towards our little rock at breakneck speed for years. Of course it is pragmatic to teach students techniques to be utilized in their future employment, but at the end of the day, I think the ultimate duty of publically-funded educational facilities to impart some semblance of a shared general knowledge upon it's students. There's much more to this than merely "not losing at Trivial Pursuit because you don't remember Sir John A. MacDonald's birthday." I would argue that it's constructive on a larger scale then people realize. My late father, who was a high-school teacher, attempted to stress this to his students, who in turn looked at him like he was from the planet Zarkon. They were programmed to see differently.

Edited to note that I obviously do agree that Americans are drunk on mythology.

quote:

---

Be that as it may, the author brings up the comparison with the United States. True, the Americans are united behind one monolithic mythology, if not history. I'm not sure it serves them well though in a world that is shrinking. It creates a provincialism, and a narrowness of view that is starting to hurt them internationally.

---

I have always been amazed at the number of Americans who, even if they accept basic progressive principles, nevertheless have a blind eye to how parochial and provincial they seem. Anyone who points out that the USA is *not* seen as the Great Savior of the World is loudly shouted down as being merely jealous of the USA's might.

I seem to recall that very few Americans who travel anywhere go beyond the US's borders. I have marvelled that their country is declining in several important ways, and they continue to be incapable of seeing that a better way exists. Their roads are, in several cases, well beyond the "time-to-repave" point and they see absolutely nothing wrong with driving over a major highway where the concrete has been so worn that you can see the coarse aggregate. What idiot thought concrete was zero-maintenance, *I*'d like to know.

From the National Post:

Caligula's Horse Speaks

Michael Kirby isn't a regular columnist I gather. Although, serving in the Senate would surely provide him the time to be if that was his wont.

Don't get me wrong; Mr. Kirby, as private citizen, has every right in my mind to comment any way he sees fit on the subject of user fees, or any other subject for that matter.

However, my mind is rather closed to listening to a person speaking from a Senatorial podium. You see, I took rather serious the lessons I was taught about what constitutes a "responsible government". Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The Senate is no such body. It is not "of the people", being chosen from the ranks of Conservative and Liberal Party Partisans. It is not "by the people", being an appointed body. And, I see no evidence that it is in any consistant way "for the people."

It is, clearly, an irresponsible governing body. And, as such I will not entertain to listen to anything any of it's members have to say, and I will continue to regard them as enemies of democracy and liberty.

Let's hope political ideas like this don't operate the same way:

Salvation a la mode and a cup of tea.

The idea that the administration of social programs be handed over to the church is not a new one. It's the way things used to work.
Or, more correctly, not work. History nerds correct me, but wasn't that one of the major grievances of the French revolutionaries? Is our current system not as it is because in time of need during the great depression, the old church system was found lacking?

In fairness, Jonas points this out: "...faith-based charity and private philanthropy have existed for a long time in the West. Had they worked sufficiently, the social welfare state would never have come into being."

But, he quickly falls back to this dogma that the "cure was worse than the disease". What codswallop. Tell that to a single mom on welfare. "Gee, this welfare system has a few kinks in it. What we'd like to do, dear, is take your kids out of school, and put them and you in a work house. You did read Dickens, didn't you?" This system, for all it's problems at least works. Which is more than the church based system can boast.

Jonas thinks that critics who submit that this idea is just a taxpayer subsidized proselytization free for all by the churches are full of "poppycock." Well, I'll see his poppycock and raise him a malarky.

Of course the churches will use public funds to proselytize. Proselytizing is their reason for existing. It would violate the basic tennent of their faith not to. To assert otherwise is to display an astounding ignorance of the Christian faith.

Jonas doesn't explore another issue I think is central. At least with government run programs, there is administrative control over the disbursement of public funds. Would there be in the church based system? I mean, we are turning over public money to some pretty slippery characters. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Would you let Benny Hinn hold your wallet? And how much of this public money given to Jerry Falwell would, in the end, wind back up in Republican Party coffers? Or in financing more salacious and slanderous video lies about the Clintons?

"There's certainly some evidence (even if mainly anecdotal)..." My dear Mr. Jonas anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, much like "compassionate conservatism". Anecdotes do not constitue evidence. "...to show that spiritual renewal and reform are more likely to emanate from church programs."
This comes from the belief that the religious community has a monopoly on spiritualism. This is not so, and I wish people would stop perpetuating this particular big lie.

Finally, we are left with this precious little dogma at the end of Jonas' opinion: "This is splendid because bureaucracies tend to do more harm than good. The less the state can do, the better it is for the nation."

Okay. That is easy to say in a cosy office, getting a nice paycheck when it comes to taking away something from the very poor. Let's put Jonas' views to the real test. Let's take away from him the evil bureaucratic influences that do "harm" to him. Let's take away his roads. Let's take away his fire department. Let's take away his Police protection.

By the way:

"(Economists are) apostles of austerity, most of whom would not share in the sacrifices they recommend for others." - William Vickrey.

quote:

---

DrConway, did you know that they've studied charitable giving among the professions and consistently the lowest-ranked profession is economist?

---

I heard about that.

I think it's a combination of both factors, but the 'economics turns people into stingy bastards' probably predominates.

After all, you get loaded up with the "man is an atom, and if the government just butts out, everything will be juuuuuuuuuuuust fine" microeconomic crap before you hit Keynesian macro, and even then you can run into professors with their own ax to grind who will say "but monetarism and supply-side economics are much more valid!"

What's a nice girl like you doing at a place like the Sun?

A nice little column on Stock, it about says it all. Funny thing about her friend having the "hairs stand up on the back of her neck", I hate gut feelings, but you get them sometimes. I remember getting the heebie jeebies from Steve Forbes, because the man's face does not move from the jaw up when he's talking. Animatronics, I am sure. John McCain, on the other hand I find, if disagreeable, at least personable and charismatic to a point.

I read a Paglia column stating the exact opposite of my gut feelings. If gut feelings can be so right, how can two people have opposite ones?

I digress.

I wish there was an archive of back columns. Did Ms. Bird allert us back when Stock met with them about his "dime thin intellect"? If not, why not? Who got to you Ms. Bird? Was it that evil garden gnome come to life, Laurie Goldstien? Did Micheal Coren buy you off with one of his ear rings? Did Ted Byfield ride out from Edmonton to save the east from roaming bands of cougars and apply his hogtie rodeo techniques on you that day? Or, are you just a feminine Epimetheus? Better to play the part of Cassandra, at least you can say "I told you so", instead of "I should have told you so."

And, I'm sure I am getting too full of myself here, but didn't I just the day before yesterday wax Shakespearean on the plight of MACDAY in another thread here? Hmm.

Coincidence.

Before I get all ga ga over Ms. Bird, I should realize that if she truly was a lefty, she'd be singing Stock's praise, and doing her best to keep him in as head of the Alliance. This column shows she's neither left, nor in possession of a comedic soul.

But Charming none the less.

Edited for blasted typos.
And another one. Blast these fingers.

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Terrence Corcoran goes O for Two on the foul line though, with this nasty bit:

Wilting Analogy

Bear with me, I don't think this link will go direct to the column. The National Pest seems to want to make you walk through it's pages. Wear shoes, and wipe them on the mat before you come back. Better yet, burn them.

Again, the subject is user fees. Corcoran starts by trying to de-bunk Michael Rachlis' assertions that user fees have been shown empirically to be a failure.

Corcoran slips to the ad-hominem, but never uses data to bolster his claim. He throws around the word "intellectual" like it's a bad thing to be smart. Clearly, in Corcoran's mind "intellectual" is defined as "anyone who has a better argument than me, but must be dismissed because I'm too much of a cement head ever to change my tiny tory mind."

Corcoran says no empirical data including user fees exists in Canada. There is no shortage of such data from the States, a nation whose health care is imprisoned under the jack boot of the medical industrial complex. User fees discourage people from seeking treatment. In some cases, it would actively bar them.

Empirically, it does not work--- except for a select few for which it works very, very well indeed.

Corcoran goes on to illustrate why it's perhaps a good thing to be an intellectual, because it prevents one from using silly analogies like the Wilt Chamberlain drivel he tries to run up the flag pole.

Yes, Terry, we're going to change our health care system based on a sports analogy. Good god, Terry, we're not as stupid as you, you know.

It's not even a good analogy for his side of the argument. Aren't modern sporting events pretty much priced out of the hands of ordinary folk like you and me? Isn't that the main concern of opponents of the user fee scam?

The anti-globalization spoilers are going global

Flora Lewis always manages to tell you things you knew three to five years before her. And shameless little tricks of rhetoric like this one don't impress me:

quote:

---

"sovereignists" (the new name for nationalists opposed to removing barriers to movement of people and goods)

---

Wow, rasmus. I've read columns like that before that just leave your head spinning because there are so many falsehoods you don't know where to begin.

From the Grey Lady:

How about all of the above?

I'll take issue with Wente's statement that the CAS is religious too. There's an effort afoot from the religious community to brand everything a religion, in an attempt to drag it down to the same irrational footing as religion stands on.

The CAS is not a religion. Period. End of story. Saying that the CAS believes the Grebers are "sinners" is patently false. The CAS is trying to ensure that the children are not in danger. The fact a scald went untreated is cause enough for investigation, if not charges.

Not satisfied with the straw man argument, Wente goes on to commit the foulest offence to logic; the non-sequitor. Bringing in a completely different issue of teenage single moms not only does not follow, but it surely alerts the reader to Wente's agenda.

It's a developing story, so perhaps Wente did not have this view of the Pastor, which seems missing from her opinion:

Eye of the Beholder, Indeed Ms. Wente.

The Toronto Sun is the official organ of Mike Harris's tories, and Christina Bizzard has been dutifully preforming the job of sphincter, spewing out whatever the tories send down the digestive tract.

Bizzard takes issue with Judy Rebick deffending John Clarke:

The "Terror"

How has the word "terror" been used in the past? Well, we refer to that period in the French Revolution when the Aristocracy stubbornly refused to do the the right thing and liquidate themselves as the "reign of terror". In the infamous John Clarke act of "terror" how many people's heads were removed? None you say? If it was a "terror" then the perpetrators were, by extention, "terrorists". How else can it be? Now, how do we use the word "terrorist"? Is it not used for people who blow things up? Who shoot and kill innocent people? How many buildings did John Clarke blow up? None you say? How many people were shot? None again.

Clearly, the use of the word "terror" by Blizzard is way over the top and is actually an egregious slander and an attempt to float a great big lie.

I have to wonder, reaching to the extreme like Blizzard has, what word would she use to describe the following little experience?

My daughter has epilepsy. Sometimes it gets out of control. Her body out grows the medication once or twice a year. And, although we are very careful to avoid the triggers we have come to know might bring on seizures, sometimes things beyond our control make that impossible.

Of course, we need the advice of a pediatric nuerologist.

But, gee whiz, the Tories, for the longest time left Southwestern Ontario with only one. And, for a period of time, that doctor was ill.

Not having expert medical advice when you need it for your daughter, what's that Blizzard? You've already used the word terror. There's no where to go from there is there?

Except, perhaps to say that since my daughter and I aren't friends with a tory minister, we don't merit the benifit of your hyperbole.

And, speaking of persons with special needs, I have to ask what was a girl so fragile doing working in a constituency office? We all know that from time to time, every constituency office is visited by the local crank, and has it's constituency of loose cannons. You don't have to tell Londoners this. A constituency office was recently doused with gasoline and set ablaze by one such as that. Contituency offices are magnets for protest, and for the marginally balanced.

If what Clarke did was an act of terror, then clearly putting a person with special needs into that situation in the first place was reckless endangerment.

For example, what if a pro-life group decided to come into an abortion clinic and start walking out with files, medical equipment, chairs, etc... A couple of their activists get a bit over-excited - one tosses a microwave and another takes a pen and writes the ten commandments on the wallpaper in the waiting room, while clinic staff and patients mill about confused and perhaps a bit frightened. Would this really be an acceptable thing for them to do?

Throwing a microwave oven around is not on the same level as blowing up the world trade center.

The word "terror" here is being used deliberately to demonize. John Clarke may be a lot of things, but he's no Timothy McViegh or Bin Laden.

Geesh.

Acts of terror might be fire bombing abortion clinics, or sitting in the bushes and snipping at doctors though.

Although it's rare that we see such a pejoritive word as "terror" used to describe that in the conservative press.

I come not to praise Day, but to bury him

It's a pretty good summation of things, as far as I can tell. And what's rarer, there's an admission of error. Not often one sees that in a column:

"Friends who singled out Day's lack of a university education and the simple-mindedness of his religious fundamentalism at first seemed unfair and arrogant. Now it seems that they had a point. Day seems to have a severely limited view of the world around him."

I'd take issue with the lack of university education being a big deal; but then I would not having one myself. I've no way of knowing what Bliss' response to the "simple mindedness of his religious fundamentalism" was back then. I wonder if it was the deffence used by other Day supporters, that such attacks were anti-Christian bigotry? If so, one sees how misusing the bigotry label stiffles debate; and how self defeating this is in the end.

I'm not sure I would use the word "simple" as much as I'd use the word "single" in that phrase. If I had to point to one single character flaw in Day, it's his obvious ability to ignore facts he doesn't want to deal with. This single mindedness escaped the bounds of his religious belief, and was very much a part of his political life.

One would hope this is what lead Day on his protracted law suit. Bliss doesn't explore the fact that the legal firm Day employed had financial links with the Alliance Party. One could view the protracted law suit as a mechanism to funnel Alberta taxpayer's money into the pockets of his political friends. However, one should never attribute maliciousness to what could be attributed to incompetence. Particularly when there is such a sterling reputation for incompetence already firmly established. I might see Day as a dupe in a scheme like that, but certainly not a ringleader.

As Bliss looks forward as a sympathetic observer of the Alliance, I see little has changed. He was intially blind to Day's leadership problems, and now as he casts his political eye around for leadership hopefulls, we see the cataracts are still in place by the name he leaves out. The one we on the left have cause to fear.

Shtoom! Let's not give any help.

And, what does this mean to the Alliance? Day was at one time the popular choice of the grass roots. One would think there will be a certain amount of alienation there. Will the Christian right drop it's interest with Days departure? While that might make the party more digestible for some Canadians, it's the idealogues who person the phone banks and knock on the doors at election time. I'm sure the loss will be felt.

And what of the Day loyalists in caucus? There were 2/3rds of them behind Day enough not to deffect. And, stridency in the Alliance seems a common thread. I doubt the Day loyalists will forgive and forget. It isn't in them.

"Now we will see what The King's Men Salvage Co. Ltd. can do."

I caught the Greenspon column:

What are you going to do, bleed on me?

It's funny, but the ten point list of Day's errors is devastating. There was stuff there I had forgotten about, and a few items that the on going comedy had obscured. The column got decidedly less jocular with that.

Patients aren't patsies

David Horowitz is a curious person. In the 60's he was heavily involved with the civil rights movement. He seems at some point to have had a conversion, however. He's now one of the U.S.'s predominant right wing polemicists.

He's certainly not without intelligence, but it's tainted with hyperbole, straw man arguments and pejoratives. He likes to paint himself a victim of liberal oppression quite often, and many less than cerebral opponents often allow themselves to be goaded into taking the bait.

Without further verbosity, Ladies and Gentleman, I give you

David Horowitz

Quite a long column. Solon has it as "news", but it's obviously commentary.

As we see in the very first paragraph, Horowitz reaches for the ad-hominem, implying the "liberal media" isn't part of the real world. I've no comment on that. Perhaps when I find a "liberal media" outlet in the United States, I can judge for myself.

Perhaps by "liberal media" Horowitz means outlets that won't pass irresponsible spin and polemics off as "news"? If so, that bolsters an hypothesis of mine: that sticking to facts and evidence will garner one the "liberal" label. Whatever does this say about "conservatives"?

Horrowitz would like to gloss over the underlying problem here. While he complains that police have been denied due process, and goes on to say that police have gone out of their way to provide, (through rote recitation of Miranda) due process to the criminals they protect.

The riot was touched off by a culminating incident, where the police denied, in a permanent fashion, access to due process by the person they shot and killed. And, the riot itself was more about the apparent lack of due process in cases of police shootings. To many, it appears the police operate very much above the law in this reguard; and that there is no such thing as "due process".

Horowitz offers up proof that, when the police are wrong, they end up being prosecuted. To bolster this flimsy position, he points to the Abner Louima case. A case so disturbing and extreme, not even the New York Police had stomach enough to ignore it.

Far more convincing would be a long list of less grotesque crimes police have been held accountable for. But then, perhaps they don't exist because police never break the law.... with the sole exception of the Louima assault.

Not satisfied, Horowitz brings up the case of Amadou Diallo, and fingers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as being responsible for leaving a trail of civic damage in their wake.

Clearly, the civic damage was caused by a system that put scared cops into an unfamiliar neighborhood where the situation became ripe for manslaughter. And, manslaughter it would and should have been, if the venue for the trial had not be moved to fix the outcome. This was the civic damage: not the demagogues that parachuted in much later.

One must listen to the pejoratives Horowitz sprinkles through his polemic. I think one could say a lot of critical things about Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson resting on the facts, without having to stoop to obvious slander by calling them "arsonists".

And, there's a whopper of the straw man argument. Who called Rudolph Guiliani a genocidal racist?

For all this, Horowitz is a rather convincing polemicist. He is astute enough to pick a few facts and weave his invective and his fanciful interpretations carefully through them.

quote:

---

What I celebrate most as a new U.S. citizen is that American politics have become beautifully banal.

[...]

A South African judge recently addressed a group of students at a major American university. She began by noting that American newspapers seemed full of trivia. Then she explained her fervent hope that one day the newspapers in her country would also have nothing serious to report.

---

Surely, we are all tired of the Stockwell Day saga; particularly when it keeps reaching logical places to conclude and then keeps rolling on. Sort of like the movie "Beaches": too many epilogues.

But there's little else afoot in today's press, but Paul Wells in today's National Pest touches on another subject while delivering his mea culpa on Day.
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20010711/615514.html

Scan through the first bit of this one, not too much there on the subject of Day that hasn't been said a few times before.

I love this quote:

quote:

---

Certainly the political and media elites' success at leading the country around by the nose is limited. It's almost as though the voters were smarter than the experts give them credit for.

---

Why is that? Well, let's take a look at the media in general, and what has happened over the last decade or more. The media has changed over to "infotainment". While newspapers have moved towards the scandal sheet kind of format, the scandal sheets have moved towards the newspaper format. Tabloid T.V. hit and stuck. Mosses Znaimer gave us T.V. news for people that hate T.V. news. Disco News.

And, columnists and editors relaxed the rules on hyperbole and shilling. Now, it's cool to be a columnist that is in the pocket of a political party. It's cool to write polemics soley to stir up the ire of the readership. The Toronto Sun even pushes the idea that being clueless is cool.

There's no arguing about the financial success of such moves. But, there is a price for that in the end. Credibility.

That's why in the old days newspapers didn't like hyperbole so much. They didn't involve themselves in the salacious details of public figures sex lives. (NEWS FLASH! CONGRESSMAN CONDIT HAD KNOTTED NECK TIES TIED TO HIS BED POSTS!!!!) This was the job of the National Enquirer. The media had it's political bias in the old days, every bit as much as today. But they were much less naked, much less in your face with it.

In the old days, they had credibility. Maybe in the end the new media style has inadvertantly done us all a great favour. The scales are certainly off our eyes.

I guess the lesson for us on the left is to stay boring. Stick to the facts. Eschew the rhetoric and dogma, and leave the hyperbole and polemics to those who do it best in the media.

quote:

---

It's almost as though the voters were smarter than the experts give them credit for.

---

Credibility is one of the hardest things to earn -- and the easiest thing to squander. But in the end, credibility is the only quality that will actually persuade people.

I sent the following letter to the editor at the Pest"

Re:"For that matter what were we thinking?" Paul Wells says: "It's almost as though the voters were smarter than the experts give them credit for."

.....Almost?

Dissapointing. The rounds at the Sun Media and the Globe don't seem to have anything that irks me this morning, and the Pest had it's take on Social workers and the intervention of the CAS in Aylmer, not far from me.

I think Coyne has a great sense of humour, to be honest. But, I wonder how much more can be milked from the Stockwell Day fiasco. Reading a bit between the lines, it's scary what must be going on behind closed doors.

I think we're whistling by the graveyard on this. Given that people generally un-elect governments instead of electing them, and that Liberal support is,( my guess, I've seen no polls) pretty soft then as now, I wonder how close we came to having the current Alliance crew running the country? If Day had had just a little better handling team......

And Coyne and crew would be telling us every day what a splendid job the wise, vibrant Stockwell Day was doing, too.

I found it pretty convincing, although I am one of the converted. Bottom line with me is that states have used capital punishment as a weapon of terror against the populace. On that basis alone I am aghast that there are those who would turn the clock back here. Particularly from the right, who we should normally think are against state intervention in most things: why would they be for state intervention in the ultimate thing?

I particularly liked the bit about "closure". I've come to grimace every time I hear this word now. I know I can't put myself in the place of grieving next of kin of crime victims, but I can't believe for a moment that punishment of the criminal makes the loss, or the pain go away.

What it does do, and what I think we look for in sentencing is a validation by the state, a statement that the victim was a person of worth; that the state acknowledges our loss. When we see a rapist, or a murderer get a "light" sentence isn't that what outrages us the most? That the state is saying, "we don't find your suffering of much merit, because we don't find you or your loved ones of much value"? I think that is what a lot of people are looking for and what they probably mean by "closure". And I think we can find ways to satisfy that without resorting to capital punishment.

I also liked how Wills called the deterence idea a superstition. It is exactly that. My favorite story on that is from 19th century England. While crowds gathered to watch men being hung for being pick pockets, the city's pick pockets used the occasion as an excellent opportunity to ply their trade.

It's nice and refreshing to read an opinion so well laid out. I might make one change. I don't think, when talking about murder rates I would have brought up, even paranthetically, the issue of gun control. It's too big an issue to make an aside to, and as a piece of work trying to persuade, it would probably close the minds of the intended audience. That subject would be better given the full treatment Wills gives capital punishment, in a separate opinion.

Now, is that a non-sequitor? It doesn't really follow that anyone who likes Noam Chomsky is a neo-Marxist leftist crank, and in my situation, I think it's just coincidence. (laugh here if you wish) Or, is it an ad-hominem attack? It certainly seems to be directed at "the man" instead of the ideas. I'm opting for the non-sequitor.

And musing about what Chomsky might or might not be for or against, with implications that he is in fact *for* all the leftist dictatorships, and Communist China without attributal statements confirming this from Chomsky is without question the straw man argument.

We see the straw man argument a lot from the right. In the old days calvalry used to train by making straw dummies to charge into and destroy with their swords. Looks impressive on the training ground, but the straw men don't fight back. It's an intellectually cowardly way to argue; to invent your oponents position and then take it apart. It's kind of like playing yourself in chess, or masterbating: Okay for practice but you shouldn't let anyone catch you at it.

Is there anything to take issue with here? Perhaps. It's a little funny now the Liberals are fully entrenched in power, and the right wing in Canada is having such a hard time fund raising/shaking down corporations (yes, it's a two edged sword) the subject that the left has been clamoring about for so long now strikes them as an original idea.

But that's a little petulant of me, I suppose.

The main idea is the idea.

This marks the first time I've seen a columnist bring up the non democratic nature of how a union's membership dues are used in politics (which is arguable, actually) and at the same time point out that shareholders of corporations are not asked about it either.

Hmm. Balance-- of a sort.

What I find missing in the column is what to do about 3rd party spending? Surely, the corporate world can, and would do an end run around the rules with this-- not that the left would not try either. I'm not sure how we address this problem and hold to our desire for freedom of expression.

I see Simpson handles the problem by ignoring it.

EWW! Sorry about the side scroll; I don't know what happened there. Url too long?

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

It's been this way for years -- the Liberals raise more money from the corporate sector than from individuals, just as the NDP takes in its largest donations from the trade unions.

---

It was that fact that first lead me to think that campaign finance that eliminated Corporate and Union contributions was not just a good idea for democracy; it wasn't bad for us strategically.

quote:

---

Actually, his phraseology is just highly, and probably deliberately, misleading.

---

Merriam Webster's on line

Here's a fun one:Origins of words and Frazoologies.

quote:

---

Canada's Kyoto policy chaos

Terence Corcoran
National Post
You could draw a pretty solid line linking the street-level thuggery in Genoa to the sophisticated bureaucratic mob role that emerged in Bonn over the weekend. While protestors and demonstrators mounted their campaign against free-market globalization in Genoa, the political gang in Bonn rammed through their version of anti-market globalization, the Kyoto Protocol.

Street violence has its distinct styles and approaches: Taunt police, create theatre, use violence and keep in sight of the cameras. Different skills are needed to pull off a Kyoto agreement on global warming. When politicians and bureaucrats meet to roll the public, they do it quietly and behind closed doors. Keep the cameras away, avoid all public scrutiny, set short-term artificial deadlines and stage secret all-night meetings that force a fake "consensus" that gets announced as a breakthrough.

In an era of anti-globalization fervour, the Bonn meeting passed the world's greatest globalization compact without a peep of protest. "We have delivered the most comprehensive and difficult agreement in human history," said a jubilant New Zealand official. Jan Pronk, the Dutch environment minister and climate change extremist who chaired the conference, captured the essence of Bonn. "Now that globalization is meeting so much criticism, it is extremely important to show that global developments ... can be met and addressed by global responsible decision-making." In other words, we're going to fight globalization's critics by giving them a dose of globalization.

The official consensus on the new, improved Kyoto is that the United States -- the only nation to make an attempt at a principled stand in Bonn -- has been "isolated." It's a spin that might not last long. To paraphrase another famous isolationist joke: United States isolated -- rest of world cut off. Especially, one might add, Canada.

As a result of the Bonn pact on Kyoto, moreover, the rest of us are now united in an agreement that has the backing of such centres of global freedom as Iran, China and Russia. "This represents the triumph of multi-nationalism over unilateralism," said Iran's ambassador to the United Nations.

In Canada's case, the message is one of distinct policy chaos. The Chrétien government, playing a dangerous multilateral game of economic chicken, apparently helped save the Kyoto Protocol by working out a tricky compromise with the Europeans over carbon sinks. Street thugs batter down barricades; multilateral negotiators pummel their principles. On four issues, Canada scored hollow victories by agreeing to compromises that will do Canada no long-term good.

Carbon sinks: In the original 1997 version of Kyoto, Prime Minister Chrétien committed the Canadian people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to unattainably low levels by the year 2012. The latest projection is that Canadian emissions will hit 770 million tons of carbon by the year 2012, about 30% above the 570 tons set under Kyoto. Ottawa had claimed it would insist on the right to offset the carbon emissions by deducting carbon absorbed by so-called carbon sinks, such as forestry and agriculture.

The Europeans, who have no sinks, had insisted they would never accept sinks. The compromise is that sinks are now part of the agreement, but at such reduced levels that Canada has given up a major advantage. In Bonn, Canada agreed to limit its sink claim to 12 million tons a year, a fraction of total emissions.

Emissions trading: The amount of emissions trading possible under Bonn is severely restricted. Less trading would mean higher prices for emissions, which means Canadian taxpayers will end up paying high prices for emissions rights that will be used to subsidize economic development in Russia.

Clean energy agreement: Canada had sought the right to deduct the emission reductions that might occur when Canadian gas is exported to the United States. If that gas were used to reduce U.S. emissions for dirtier coal, Ottawa claimed Canada should get the benefit. That didn't happen in Bonn, and may never happen. Herb Gray, deputy prime minister and Bonn negotiator, said yesterday he hopes to get these ideas incorporated through later negotiations. Good luck.

Penalties for non-compliance: Somehow, Canada has agreed that there would be severe penalties for countries that fail to meet their 2012 targets. For every ton of carbon above target by 2012, Canada will have to pay an additional penalty of 1.3 tons in the period that begins in 2013. Under current projections, Canada would have to shut down its economy to meet post-2013 penalties.

So Canada is now prepared to sign a major global commitment to curb economic activity and meet unattainable carbon emissions targets -- while our major trading partner does not. While it's nice to see our Prime Minister locked in policy agreement with Vladimir Putin over global warming, exactly how much bilateral energy trade can Canada expect with Russia compared to the United States?

Over the longer run, of course, Kyoto is not quite a sure thing. As more than a few enthusiasts noted in comments yesterday, the Bonn version of Kyoto is an important "first step" on the road to global control over the world market for energy. The push is now on to ratify by 2002. Can Canada afford to be isolated from the United States?

---

I've come late to the fray and the link no longer works.

However, I wonder if this study is true why no one has been able to harness it? I tend to think there's a defficiency on our part, not on the accuracy of the study.

Trinitty;

Interesting that the only person killed at Genoa was a protester, yet Corcoran labels the protestors "thugs".

I see the right wing throwing this word around. My understanding is that Thugs or Thugee was a cult of ritual murderers in India in the days of the Raj and previous.

One entry found for thug.

I think that Karen Selick's column in today's Financial Post highlights one of the most important political developments in Canada --

quote:

---

... regulations were supposed to be subordinate to the statutes that authorized their creation. Regulations were intended to allow bureaucrats to fill in minor legal details, such as the appearance of a form, so that parliamentarians wouldn't have to waste their time on such trivia.

Somewhere over the past few decades, a transformation has occurred. Statutes, it seems, are now subordinate to regulations. Statutes merely sketch out the territory that regulations can romp through; regulations lay down the actual law. The power that Canadians believe is vested in the people and exercised through their elected representatives is instead being delegated by those representatives to a small clique of the ruling party. This elite group has perpetual carte blanche to amend or even nullify the provisions passed by the houses of parliament. Parliament's words are mere default provisions in case Cabinet neglects to countermand them.

---

She has this exactly right. Leave aside the fact that she focuses on the federal Liberals, and ignores the government that has really embraced this development wholeheartedly: Mike Harris's PCs. (Actually, Bob Rae was almost just as guilty of this.)

Relative to Harris and co., is this the sort of manoeuvre that is allowing premier and cabinet to slip out of responsibility for, eg, Walkerton, or nursing home scandals, where loosening or lowering of oversight permits disasters? As I say, this is a new thought to moi.

I don't think the Walkerton/nursing homes scandals are really relevant here. More to the point is something like the amalgamation bill, or anything having to do with welfare/social services. The bills they pass are almost completely devoid of anything practical -- but the devil (and I mean that almost literally) is in the details. These details are worked out by unelected Harris cronies, with no public debate, out of the uncomfortable glare of publicity.

People recognize this, I think, instinctively. But what I would love to see is a multipart special report on the transformation of Canadian democracy. It could be written from any political viewpoint -- though libertarians and leftists are the most likely.

quote:

---

For example, Harris recently tried to sneak in a venal regulation allowing Craig Bromell and the Police Association to solicit funds from the public for political purposes...luckily, Bromell and company are sufficiently discredited that it went nowhere.

---

1) Elizabeth Nickson, who is normally very reactionary, but is actually quite insightful today;

2) Jonathan Kay, who is normally intelligent, but really misses the point entirely whenever he talks about Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians, or the anti-globalization movement

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: sean s. ]

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: sean s. ]
Nickson article

It was about Dan Rather not considering the Chandra Levy disapearance a news story. While I don't agree with Rather, my view is much closer to his than the rest of the media.

There is a local news story about a missing girl; this is always news.

There is a national news story about Condit obstructing justice when he asked a former lover to keep quiet about their affair under FBI questioning.

The rest is gossip and rank speculation.

Worthington, I'm sorry I have to paraphrase, at one point said something like 'It's got all a news story should have, sex, a missing intern, intrigue, people behaving badly in private....' it goes on.

Nowhere did he mention things like "facts" or "evidence" playing any kind of role in a news story.

Of course, this shouldn't surprise us. The Sun isn't actually a "newspaper".

Tommy, do you know Worthington's interesting political-family connections? He is married to journalist Yvonne Crittenden (whose byline I never see any more), who is mother of backlash-promoter Danielle Crittenden, who is married to David Frum ...

Tommy, you might get going this a.m. with a silly column in the current Saturday Night

by Peter White,

There's two Peter Whites on the right and I can't tell them apart. One hails from London, Ontario and has never had the respect of the local Tories here. As a tribute to their constance, they regard him as somewhat of a loser because he took his father's profitable company and ran it into the ground. I know not the particulars; and they very well could be wrong. It's just the perception of the some of the old Tories here.

We see the usual hand wringing over the "health care mess". I take it the "mess" is that profit off of desperately ill people is not maximized here as it is in the States. It works well enough for me. But then, I'm not poised to be a shareholder in "BloodmoneyRus".

My first chuckle came from this:

quote:

---

the lack of political accountability that leads to favouritism, patronage, corruption, and misappropriation of tax dollars.

---

Translation: "It's our turn at the trough!!!! The liberals are hogging all the lack of political accountability that leads to favouritism, patronage, corruption, and misappropriation of tax dollars, and we demand our fair share!"

quote:

---

why can't the two parties resolve their impasse?

---

Well, it's quite simple. Why would the Tories want to reconcile with a bunch of people that stormed off and nearly killed the Tory party in the first place? Why would the Tories even consider taking on a bunch that cannot even keep their faction from fracturing? Why would the Tories want to include a team that brought Stockwell Day to the fore as leader?

Seems to me the Tories are smart to look at the Reform/Alliance not as a renegade bunch anymore, but a purge of the silly, the intellectually lame and politically obnoxious.

In short, the impasse exists because the Tories, bless their black little hearts, didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They noticed that there wasn't near as much talk of "unite the right" before the fall of the Alliance under Day than the desperate tones we now hear from those in the Alliance.

Sounds like the muntineers are now begging for a life preserver. It's hardly partizan politics Clark and the Tories are engaged in; it's political prudence.

And, I had to chuckle over White's invokement of the name of Mulroney: Truly, White is desperate.

White leaves us with an example of Liberal arrogance. White, I am sure, yearns for the days of Tory arrogance.

-------

I knew that Frum had married Worthington's daughter, but I didn't know her mother also was a columnist. Explains a lot, you know. Blood is thicker than writting ability; hence Frum's appearance on the scene.

Frum is a speach writer for the child Presidenté, George the Second.

There's a certain poetry in that. A man who can't write, writing for a man who can't speak.

They seemed to have been the glue between the various Celtic tribes, and probably played a roll in keeping them knit into one culture.

I was in Angelsey, the site of the last stand of the Druids years ago. I think Angelsey was called Ynys Mon when they were slaughtered there by the Roman Governor Paulinus Suetonius. (not the historian Suetonius of the "Twelve Ceasars" fame) Supposedly, Suetonius extracted all the Druid lore from one surviving priest but, if true, that document has been lost to us. I think that was around 200 AD, and occurred close to the time of the Boudican revolt, although I don't think there was a political connection between Boudica and the Druids at the time. I'm going by memory here and might be wrong.

The modern Druids described in the article seem rather more thoughtful than other religions that have sprung up lately. There seems to be a commitment to learning and knowledge that seems to be quite the opposite of other religious movements today that seem to require a denial of knowledge from their followers.

Sorry, I'm having trouble inserting the URL.

Holly crap, that's some url. No wonder it won't work.

It is amazing, you know, the non-challance of the public in regards to the nefarious actions of police at not only protests but in other areas too.

As for Counterpunch itself, again, outside the frame, Cockburn's (and others') books are advertised. I do not blame them one bit for having to earn money to keep Counterpunch alive.

quote:

---

The normalization of the leadership issues cycle in the Canadian Alliance to a more classic pre-convention status and the winding up of a cycle of Alliance-Tory meetings on possible co-operation or more begs two serious questions very much in the broad public interest.

---

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: sean s. ]

Sorry, having trouble posting the URL, which is very long.