“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure
about the former.” — Albert Einstein
One hopes that one of these days the Canadian media are going to smarten up and start headlining these stories with Carolyn Parrish Furiously Seeking Attention.
(Sure, I just did the same. However, I figure that she’s likely to hang around in the news for a few days, so it’s worthwhile to provide a Parrish bashing comments thread to corral the inevitable discussion.)
@The Terminator
“BTW, Noel, do you think PMPM is honorable or not? This is no trick question. Just answer truthfully.”
Paul Martin is probably the MOST dishonourable, despicable and dishonest person to ever sit in the House of Commons, which makes Gurmants actions all the more idiotic and/or unbelievable.
What was he hoping to do?
Prove PM was sleazy? Hardly necessary, he was already pegged with the Adscam crap. The CPC had the perfect issue to carry them through the election campaign, regardless of the timeframe.
Catch him contravening the law? While I admit PM is a sleazy politician, he’s not stupid when it comes to covering his ass, so this was a poor reason.
So what has Gurmant accomplished? He’s given the Grits one more “non issue” on which to focus everyone’s attention and Grewal just keeps on feedin’ them in his attempts to save his own hide. He’s implicated Harper in the hasty “editing” of the tapes and shown him to have no control over his MPs. And his continuing to say one thing one day, only to “correct” it when it comes under scrutiny the next day, has undermined his credibility to point that he’s a major liability to a party that’s trying to get the message out that they’re better than the morally corrupt Liberals.
PM couldn’t have asked for a better scenario… watch for an early election.
The RCMP’s behaviour over the last few years bothers me too, EBD. As I wrote in my web log on 2004-02-12:
Section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867 states, in regard to the “Powers of the Parliament”, that “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada.”
Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s report shows conclusively that the Government of Canada, consisting primarily of the Liberal Party and the Permanent Civil Service, has deliberately and with malice aforethought corrupted the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
There is no way in which is it good government to have the party in power and the trough bureaucrats corrupting the state police. By every lesson of history, such behaviour is the standard of bad government.
The RCMP were once the pride of this nation; they were a standard by which the modern world judged the quality of a national police force. Anyone who was within a ten-foot pole’s distance from this egregious violation of our trust should resign in disgrace, and hang their head in shame.
Anyone who was complicit should go to jail, per section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada: “Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars.”
Before I close, my heart goes out to those honest hard-working police officers who are simply trying to do their very best at a very hard public-service job. The mess in the bureaucracy is not your fault.
Hey, Random, you heard the professor:
“It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941, when government and people alike were reluctant to get involved in European political squabbles, in part because of lingering disillusionment over the First World War.”
Not to be smug, but, there you go!
A fair pike beats a good belly flop, EBD. It’s not just the perfection of the result that matters, it’s the degree of difficulty too. Putting out a difficult fire imperfectly is better than putting out a trivial fire perfectly.
If you have to get into a pike position to put out a difficult fire, that’s one peculiar fire.
Exactly.
EBD: “Does the RCMP’s behaviour in the last few years bother you?” Beyond the political aspects, consider Mr Loeppky’s economy with the truth in his testimony during the Arar enquiry.
Mark
Ottawaq
Collection from http://www.news.google.ca tonight:
Parrish not welcome back in caucus, PMO says
CTV, Canada – 7 hours ago
TORONTO — The federal Liberals slammed the door shut Friday on any notion that Independent MP Carolyn Parrish would be welcomed back into the party fold. …
Parrish, Liberals still on outs
Globe and Mail, Canada – 7 hours ago
By TIM LAI. A maverick MP will not be returning to the Liberal caucus, an aide to the Prime Minister said Friday. “He’s not even …
EDITORIAL: Parrish the thought
Edmonton Sun, Canada – 16 hours ago
The Martin Liberals’ path of moral degeneration appears to have come full circle with reports that maverick Grit Carolyn Parrish is in negotiations to get back …
Parrish continues attack on Hillier
Globe and Mail, Canada – 28 Jul 2005
By OLIVER MOORE. Amid rumoured talks about rejoining the government, Independent MP Carolyn Parrish has released a letter calling …
‘Muzzle the beast,’ says MP Parrish
Edmonton Sun, Canada – 28 Jul 2005
Outspoken Independent MP Carolyn Parrish issued an open letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham yesterday, blasting his chief of defence staff as “truly barbaric …
Liberals Don’t Want Parrish
580 CFRA Radio, Canada – 8 hours ago
It appears outspoken independent MP Carolyn Parrish is is not welcome back in the Liberal caucus. An aide to the prime minister …
Parrish calls Hillier ‘truly barbaric’
24 Hours Vancouver, Canada – 27 Jul 2005
By 24 hours news services. Outspoken independent MP Carolyn Parrish issued an open letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham yesterday …
Canadian Government Pondering Reinstating MP Canned for Anti …
Lifesite, Canada – 27 Jul 2005
OTTAWA, July 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Liberal Party of Canada may be reconsidering their decision to throw out Carolyn Parrish, the MP for Mississauga …
Anti-American MP slams Defence Chief
Canada Free Press, Canada – 27 Jul 2005
By Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor,. Well, not officially, but if Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish wants to get back into the Liberal …
Top Canuck general rebuffs MP’s criticisms
Ottawa Sun, Canada – 26 Jul 2005
By CP. EDMONTON — Canada’s top general is brushing off criticism from Independent MP Carolyn Parrish over his blunt language. The …
What a Good thread! lol
You people make me proud!
Looks like there is a vacant seat up for grabs in Missisaga…
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=25ed93dc-9ccf-4ba3-be94-9f2936ea868d
…your definition of Isolationism is completely off-base regarding how that term is used and understood below the 49th Parallel.
It is most often applied to American sentiments and foreign policy formulations in the period between 1920 and 1941…
Ah, okay. I’m now sitting here with ‘A Dictionary of Politics’ (‘Penguin Reference Books,’ c. 1957), my bible for these sorts of things. You’re spot on, of course…
…but that’s for 1957, and it wasn’t my definition of isolationism. I still think — given what a Google search turns up — that the term no longer means what it used to, to too many people. I ran into a slushpile of write-ups arguing that the US was or was not ~ , too many of which were ‘correct’ because they’d mushed the term to fit.
(Not entirely unlike what I did with the reference I used, I know.)
So long as I’ve got the book out, I note that the definition of ‘western democracy’ seems to have slipped in the US somewhat since 1957; post-11-Sept problems are enough to give me pause over whether or not “democracy,” as defined by the US in the first part of this century, is beyond reproach. Which may sound a bit radicalised, but who here has never looked towards the Hill and thought: a benevolent dictator would be better than this — ?
Though if I’m going to seek new definitions, I might want to pitch the 1957 book: terrorists are not necessarily suicidal, homicidal, lithium-deficient examples of the worst humanity has to offer, but, possibly, ‘resistance workers.’ (Yes, it did hit me to wonder if the CBC’s library and trusted doctrine is as dated as mine.)
President Bush’s foreign policy is anything but reluctant to engage in affairs outside America’s borders, as surely even you would admit.
Yes. Though it can be a bit…odd. Making too much noise about ‘moral obligations’ to intervene given the evil of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban makes a lack of intervention in Zimbabwe, among other hell-holes, look amoral rather than simply uninvolved. Viz:
Putting out a difficult fire imperfectly is better than putting out a trivial fire perfectly.
Yes. Yet Israel… Darfur… And… Oh, dear!
I am commenting on a weblog on a Friday evening because I’m polishing off a cold and it’s busy polishing me off, so I’m going to — for the moment — avoid trying to answer reasonable questions above right now since they’re unlikely to come out reasonably, if that follows. But:
…Government of Canada, consisting primarily of the Liberal Party and the Permanent Civil Service…
This makes it sounds like everyone who sneezes at the PCO is a capital-l Liberal. Bah! I live with a senior civil servant whose (fiscal, primarily) conservatism makes me seem quite the little Trotskyite. Civil servant friends manage to separate their politics from their jobs, too; perhaps they’re the exceptions.
A stint in DC did not offer similarly positive experiences with gov’t employees.
Finally — as far as Paul Martin Liberals go — I think he’s dealt reasonably well with a raw deal. There’s something to be said for ‘adscam’ $ being something he should have been aware of at the time, though I doubt anybody was whistleblowing around the Dept of Finance. Anybody waiting for his downfall won’t have to wait long; post-Gomery seems a fair electoral shake for citizenry and gov’t alike. Currying favour with Stronach et al is hardly laudable, but he could have clung to power (i) via obscure parliamentary procedural rules that would have been even worse, and (ii) done nothing by way of calling for an inquiry and an election to follow.
Bleary-eyed but:
Hey, you also insulted this ordinary Canadian who yells back at the TV during Question Period…
Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix.
The reason for an apology was you crapped all over a good, innocent person due to your failure to ensure that the badly-written passage was hers, which it wasn’t. That’s the faux pas you made.
I answer only in case you’re confusing others along with yourself: I “crapped all over” a weblog, not a person, and did so because the regular linguistic “faux pas” made it open for cheap shots, while it was taking the piss out of somebody for a poor tip, an extremely cheap shot. The objection, again: if you make cheap shots, don’t leave yourself open to same. Which had no reference to the “badly written passage” other than that it was a cheap shot, in a weblog with more than a couple of spelling errors &c. Does that follow, finally?
Oh: David Frum –> “exile” –> well, perhaps not entirely, but he’s awfully Americanised. Dramatically so for the son of a famous Canuck, really.
A comment on The Terminater:
“Make the bad man with a gopher in his head go away!”
Random Bytowner: If I take it right, you’re making an interesting proposition – that a new meme is developing regarding the usage and meaning of the term “Isolationism.” Certainly such things can and do happen; for example, the manner in which media here in the States have altered the meaning of the term “Populist” over time to something far different from its original connotation.
In my own narrow reach of historical specialization, I can only assert that “Isolationism” still continues to retain the meaning I alluded to above, reflected in everything from the name of academic conferences and symposia to titles of books and dissertations. Media usage here tends to reflect this as well, in the general sense of an American reluctance to seek involvement in the affairs of other nations, especially in regard to the attitudes and sentiments displayed in the interwar years of the early twentieth century.
The meaning is so circumscribed in academic and popular usage, in other words, that your reference above to “Bush’s isolationist foreign policy” set off several alarm bells. The data you cite later form the Chrisitan Science Monitor could be said to be accurate descriptions of the attitudes and preconceptions of Isolationist thinking at various points in our nation’s history, but you’re missing the central point nonetheless:
Isolationism as a philosophy, an ideology, or a foreign policy, depends first and foremost upon remaining isolated from foreign entanglements. Bush’s foreign policy, whether you love it or hate it, is manifestly not isolationist either in its actions or its guiding principles.
I see Don’s back. He want a sequel? Shit, I thought I could take a vacation. The tranny just can’t take a hint.
Don, or Warren or Michael Moore, you spelled “Terminator” wrong. This is not even up to the standard of either Kinsella or Moore.
I’m starting to think that you’re really nobody. Probably a fat, white, unwashed-bum preop shemale. Your words bounce off of our shields of truth and honor (ok, except for our calling you names, admittedly, but beside the big point, that you’re a poohead).
Note: have switched back from being Terminator to being Steve Mc. as I see that cockroach really isn’t squished.
“Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix.”
Ah, a cheap shot. You open yourself to being shat upon, Random.
Lighten up, dude/dudette. Why so afraid to divulge your gender? Perhaps confused, like “Don”?
“who here has never looked towards the Hill and thought: a benevolent dictator would be better than this — ?”
I take it you were saying PMPM is better than Dubya? Now, THAT’S delusional. How many have you had to drink?
Random wrote:
“Yes. Yet Israel… Darfur… And… Oh, dear!”
Are you anti-Israel? Go ahead, make my day. I would love to debate an anti-semite anytime! Moonies are so predictable. Always against Israel and favoring “Palestine”. ‘Cause they’re indoctrinated thusly, after all.
“Civil servant friends manage to separate their politics from their jobs, too; perhaps they’re the exceptions.”
Nonsense. I have been a fed before. I can say that most civil servants are lefties. Their pcness is always apparent. There are admittedly exceptions, yes, like myself and some others. I felt persecuted as my political beliefs obviosly weren’t going to be tolerated. I could sense it as I began to express myself on issues, so I naturally shut my yap.
“he could have clung to power (i) via obscure parliamentary procedural rules that would have been even worse”
It was worse. He clung to power illegally. Simply said “bah” and “kiss my billionaire bum” and continued to impose his own values on the country. This behavior historically led to revolutions. The ’93 thing? Small potatoes compared to the incipient firestorm. I anxiously await such.
Still can’t admit you made a mistake, eh? You crapped on a blog, yes, but also by extension, automatically, upon its owner. Typical lefty. Guess we won’t get an apology after all. No big deal, as I believe Kate can handle harmless little trolls as well as anyone. Yes, Kate kicks ass!
RS writes:
“Isolationism as a philosophy, an ideology, or a foreign policy, depends first and foremost upon remaining isolated from foreign entanglements. Bush’s foreign policy, whether you love it or hate it, is manifestly not isolationist either in its actions or its guiding principles.”
There you go again, Random. From someone who understands this sort of thing. Understand?
Ann, That was a nice package you put together there. For a minute it lets you think there is something correct happening in the world. Thank you Ann, and please Carolyn, don’t say another word. 73s TG
Random Bytowner! LOL! Isolationism!??
If only we had the luxury of isolationism! We would love it! My god, think of it, a United States without the entire world at us to do something for them 24 hours a day! What a utopian ideal!
Well try being an isolationist when you have the massive responsibility of being the world’s only remaining superpower, whose largest city has been viciously attacked by some insane murder-suicide cult with staging areas all over the world. What on earth are we supposed to do? Let Carolyn Parrish take care of it?
Are lefites in Canada so disassociated that they regard attempts to blow up their 2 greatest friends as an abstraction simply because no one’s blown up a Canadian city… yet?
Lefties are big on trying to fix the “root of the problem.” Well that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. We have a systemic problem of terrorism for which police action is insuffcient. Like going after low-level drug dealers doesn’t shut down a powerful organized crime syndicate that replaces drug dealers a dime a dozen. As a Canadian, you should particularly realize that.
What we’re about is changing hearts and minds. We change them by sentiment when we can and we change them permanently when we must.
Right you are, Greg(outside Dallas), with no pun intended.
Patrick Buchanan is one so-called paleo-con (don’t you love them labels) who is arguably the most high profile “isolationist conservative” in the U.S. at the moment.
Among other things, he accuses the Bush administration of Wilsonian interventionism.
What many Canadians don’t realize is that there is both reasoned and passionate debate on all sides of this and other issues in the U.S., a societal attribute that some of us think Canada could use a little more of.
An afterthought…
Here’s a link to Patrick Buchanan’s columns:
http://www.wnd.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=185
Just as an example of his “paleo-con” isolationist thinking, read his columns of July 4 and 13.
“Are lefites in Canada so disassociated that they regard attempts to blow up their 2 greatest friends as an abstraction simply because no one’s blown up a Canadian city… yet?”
Greg, the answer is “yes”.
Random Bytowner: If I take it right, you’re making an interesting proposition – that a new meme is developing regarding the usage and meaning of the term “Isolationism.” Certainly such things can and do happen; for example, the manner in which media here in the States have altered the meaning of the term “Populist” over time to something far different from its original connotation.
Sort of… I mean, it does seem to have shifted in some public spheres. The posted definition above from RS is, again, spot on — though not everybody sits around in poli sci classes indefinitely (probably wise), so the original/correct meaning might not have the clarity it used to (again, a web search made it weirdly clear that there really is a lot of confusion). My 1957 Penguin Dictionary of Politics makes a wee suggestion of things to come in its definition of ‘isolationists’ —
“…They were succeeded by those who felt that the prime object of American economic and military commitments should be Asia, but admitted the necessity for European commitments.”
(following a definition which matches RS’ so closely that it’s not worth repeating)
(And I did say wee.)
Comparatively, ‘federalism’ jumps to mind, if only given how much trouble I had when I moved to the States and encountered US definitions of, and affiliations with, same. Admittedly fairly consistent, but my problem was with not finding a cogent explanation of why and how it had changed from its historical meaning — at least in the circles I encountered it.
Though I think ‘inflammable’ may be the better analogy. Means: can’t catch fire, but sounds like can catch fire, and — wait, I can’t believe I found this so easily. From dictionary.com:
Usage Note: Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means �not flammable� or �noncombustible.� The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity’s sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.
I do think there’s something to the notion that people look at “the coalition of the willing” and “the axis of evil” and think “isolationist,” because of their exclusionary nature. Same with “the world’s only superpower.” Oh, okay; they’re “isolated.” So…
Does that follow? I don’t hold up the ‘Christian Science Monitor’ bit as gospel; just as an example that — well, new-meme-developing, perhaps. Gov’t is filled with often deliberately obfuscatory terminology, so even though this is somewhat pedantic, I think it’s useful to take note of shifts in meaning. I don’t think people are being wilfully ignorant; I think it’s a response to shifts in international politicking — as per the previous paragraph. The cover of today’s ‘Globe and Mail’ features a scorched victim of “ground zero.” New York City? No — Hiroshima.
“…survivors of the first nuclear attack on civilians, hope to reassert the site of the blast as the true ground zero.”
I doubt that’s out of malice or ignorance, though also sort of doubt it will be a success; these things, for better or worse, rarely remain static.
One other thing that does beg a response, the rest having been bizarrely misinterpreted or answered elsewhere:
“Beg pardon. Though televised politics and alcohol are almost always a bad mix.”
Ah, a cheap shot…
That was, and I apologise if it wasn’t taken as such by the original poster, a friendly jest. Pubs might consider putting CPAC on in lieu of sports, given how much the former is likely to lead one to drink. Though it would make for one hell of a rowdy crowd. Swilling a beer while swearing at politicians is quite the Canadian pastime. Viz:
Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
“what Canadians think”.
In all that time they
never once asked.
This is just the voice
of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio –
“You don’t speak for me.”
Okay, so she yells at the radio, not the teevee, but you see what I mean. A friend of mine at the Dept of Finance, who, best I can tell, spends 9-5 writing “Dear Mr Goodale: Do not give $75m to bad idea X,” has a beer fridge in his office (and a window ledge littered with whisky). I don’t think many people have questioned the need/desire for the booze there.
Which reminds me of, well, the subject of this thread. I don’t find Parrish all that heinous if only because she doesn’t strike me as any great threat compared to MPs doing extremely stupid things extremely quietly. Ken Dryden, for one. Wealthy people tend to have dreadful judgement when it comes to funding charitable what-not, never having been on the other end.
“uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage”
I’m starting to think that you’re really nobody. Probably a fat, white, unwashed-bum preop shemale. Your words bounce off of our shields of truth and honor (ok, except for our calling you names, admittedly, but beside the big point, that you’re a poohead).
that cockroach really isn’t squished.
Moonies are so predictable.
illegally. Simply said “bah” andI “kiss my billionaire bum”
harmless little trolls
Problem is we first have to terminate those bloody fecking moonie Libranos! Grab yer shootin’ irons and join me pronto!
a dangerous example of what happens when estrogen and marijuana are mixed
you leftist moonies are soooooo predictable!
that piece of weasel dung
Another stupid error
the bastard Mikey Mooreon’s piss-poor
have they been proven soooo wrong!
the guy in his pretty white panties
Get your head out of your ass you scared pathetic chickenshit.
By Allahs grace let the next terrorist strike happen on the very point of your muddled cowardly head.
Here’s to hoping that the next fuse lit by a terrorist is hanging out of her keester at the time…
Your post is probably the most moonbatty awkward piece of garbage I’ve ever read
Bulldoze them off the road; road-kill they are.
Why don’t you just send your house keys over to the Jihaddis right now.
Thirtythree Canadians were killed on Sept. 11 you numbskull.Here’s a news flash for you,… they’ve already noticed your feet sticking out from under your racing car bed in your parents basement.
Is there any question any more of the lefty moonbats willingness to fall on their sword.
Your black belaclava you hide behind like a child behind your mothers dress is a burka in the new globalized world you so despise.
I hate grubby liberal cowards masquarading as intellects!
And an anti-semetic beeatch
maybe we should think of burning Canada’s now infamous ghetto of Mississauga.
just a drug-peddling nation that doesn’t deserve our attention anymore.
has made herself the nation’s number one international buffoon
is,and will remain,a piece of crap in the real world.
speak the truth,she is a traitor,a commie slut,and I defy any Liberal asshole to come and refute that.But guess what,Liberal asshole,you can’t and won’t.Piece of crud!
Does anyone here really object to a plea for a higher level of discussion? Not after-you-Alphonse sugary stuff; I realise this isn’t a forum for organic gardening chit-chat, but…
All I can think of is the recent ‘The Economist’ with its cover illustration of a human head with ‘hate’ written all through it. It’s not somehow noble just because you don’t have a bomb strapped to you.
Random Bytowner, you have no perspective, nor a sense of humor. You do not understand us. You provided passages without context, Michael Moore style, and made no argument whatsoever. Yet you accuse us of a low level of debate. You apparently focus on the asides, the humor, the expressions of disgust at leftist extremism, etc.
“It’s not somehow noble just because you don’t have a bomb strapped to you.”
What the feck is so damn noble about having a bomb on your person and detonating it in a public place, taking innocent lives along with one’s own, including men, women, the elderly, handicapped, and babies? What will that accomplish? What is there to recommend it? What makes it necessary?
If you don’t like it around here, Random Bytowner, as Kate has indicated before, you’re free to leave. No one’s forcing you to stay. Perhaps you’d find yourself more at home at Judy Rebick’s or Robert McClelland’s sites.
It’s a free country (at least in theory).
Noel M.: If, as you believe, Mr. Grewal is allegedly a liability to the CPC, then isn’t Paul Martin a liability to the Libranos?
He should be, but, you see, the MSM is protecting PMPM. The MSM is trying to chop down Good Mr. Iron Man, on the other hand. I don’t see how you cannot see that Gurmant was just trying to get the evasive “smoking gun” that Canada needs to convince Canadians to erase the Liberal Party of Canada from existence to save the country. Without the smoking gun, we’ll continue to be dictated to by those billionaire elitist bastards.
I agree with Bytowner on the matter of the generally poor level of dialectics, rhetoric, and wit shown by all sides in most politically oriented web discussions. I’d rather talk to him, even if we disagree, than to the authors of the quotes he extracted, even if we agree.
It’s sort of like citizens band radio. Much as I defend the rights of citizens to speak freely as long as they’re paying for their own radio, it turns out in practice to sometimes be a difficult place to carry out a carefully considered conversation.
My general suggestion is to simply avoid interacting with people you don’t want to interact with: skip messages that are below your standards, and interact only with those you find interesting. Since the invention of web log comments, I’ve found that my mouse wheel finger now has some of my strongest muscles, other than the one between my ears of course 😉
Finally, don’t forget that, unlike CB radio, SDA is the private property of K. McMillan, so her rules trump.
What about a discussion on this?
As far as I can see there is not one story in the major Canadian media today on the sending of surplus aroured vehicles and Canadian troops to Senegal, for the benefit of African Union troops who will eventually use the vehicles in Darfur.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1706
Yet in the middle of May the issue of Canadian military aid for Darfur was all over the media.
CTV News May 14:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115906977933_111316177/?hub=Canada
‘Canadian military personnel and equipment are headed to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan, as part of a $170-milllion military and humanitarian assistance package announced today…
As part of his government’s two-year, $170-million pledge, the prime minister said Canada will provide airlift capabilities, humanitarian aid and diplomatic support.
Up to 100 military personnel will also be dispatched to train local forces, he said…’
Yet now Canada is sending no personnel or airlift capacity to Darfur. And the vehicles (and training on them) are going via Senegal–hardly what was promised by the PM in May.
I would think in most other countries these glaring discrepancies would be the subject of considerable media comment. I would also think that at the very least the announcement of the Senegal operation itself would be widely reported.
What’s up? Why are Canadian troops not going to Darfur? I guess the Sudanese goverment refused its permission. Then on what basis, other than trying to get the vote of David Kilgour, M.P, did Martin make the pledge in the first place?
Why do the media in Canada only pay attention to an issue when it is politcally hot, and rarely deal with the substance of things? I have some suggested answers. What are yours?
Mark
Ottawa
The media’s job is to sell advertisements (with the exception of state media like the CBC, whose job it is to kow-tow to the state).
The principal devices they have to do that are variations of the deadly sins: pride, greed, jealousy, avarice, fear-mongering, fraud, and other forms of irresponsibility.
Remember, every day, the ink must run to the bottom of the page.
Random,
You make me cry…tears of pity….hate….you plead…it’s all you see…except at the mirror…the reflection is pale…but it is true to form…blurry….puzzled…and surreal….
Random Bytowner, Looks like you would like to combine debate with a barroom brawl.
Well, debate is welcome, but the language you use will show up in referenced searches all over the Blogosphere. Those search results can show up for years.
I noticed that you can debate and reason, but that language suggests frustration and lack of ability.
It can come back and bite. Hope you are not in too deep already. 73s TG
[…]
Yet in the middle of May the issue of Canadian military aid for Darfur was all over the media.
This might come off as a bit too flip, but the first thing that popped to mind was that that ‘Live 8’ business was not a great idea.
Along with a headline in a relatively flip magazine over I-don’t-remember-what-humanitarian-crisis in Africa, which was, roughly, “World shrugs, says ‘Who cares? It’s just Africa.'”
So, the idea that Bono has somehow wrapped up the problems of a continent, crossed with compassion fatigue.
The ‘compassion fatigue’ might also be linked to some nascent post-colonial ideas that colonialism was a better deal. A violent-looking throng in the Ivory Coast with signs asking France to get lost vis-a-vis matters Ivorian sends — unfortunately — some less than positive ideas. British Somaliland might have been a fun jaunt for the nabob type, not the greatest for the area, but, distressingly, better. It’s nice to wax poetic about Mandela, but when Qaddafi pops back up in the news in response to ‘Live 8’ to tell people that Africa is looked down upon for good reason and they should stop begging, etc, there is some temptation to throw one’s hands up in despair and hope the ravages of colonialism and post-colonial corruption will eventually sort themselves out, ideally with a minimum of dreadful images in the news.
I think it might be marginally reasonable to think people figure we’re doing something, which is nice, thank you, but let’s not hear about it (unless some Canadians run into problems). Or…
I would think in most other countries these glaring discrepancies would be the subject of considerable media comment.
Ideally. $170m is not a great amount to begin with, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find unpleasant changes hushed up. No network is going to interest people with “Canadians not so benevolent as previously thought; Darfur strategy in flux,” never mind “Latest hell-hole in Africa: death toll/warlord update.” It’s also not a particularly slow news period, and a period when people want slow news.
And it’s complicated, relatively speaking. “Karla Homolka: new hairstyle?” doesn’t ask much of the media; explaining Senegalese anything, not so. I’m a documentary junky (not for the prisoner-of-the-month variety), and it no longer surprises me to find myself spending two hours finding out about something I should’ve been told about two years prior.
Compassion fatigue revisited: the worst thing about ‘Live 8,’ for me, was seeing a teevee advert for it — as though the details of a possible ‘Spice Girls’ reunion et al were not being adequately reported — brought to me by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Why do the media in Canada only pay attention to an issue when it is politcally hot, and rarely deal with the substance of things?
We can’t possibly be all that bad, comparatively, or else ‘The Economist’ wouldn’t cost so much, and would be more popular reading than dross like ‘Time.’
Also: “World shrugs, says ‘Who cares? It’s just Canada.'” Our wobbling on a bit of promised aid is rarely, if ever, enough aid in the first place to attract media attention (and deserved criticism) outside the country.
Mark Collins writes:
“What’s up? Why are Canadian troops not going to Darfur? I guess the Sudanese goverment refused its permission. Then on what basis, other than trying to get the vote of David Kilgour, M.P, did Martin make the pledge in the first place?”
Ah, there Paul goes again. He’ll do anything, probably, to stay in power, won’t he? Absent a valid explanation on his part for not carrying out his declaration, we can only assume he was trying to manipulate MP Kilgour into supporting his bloody kleptocracy.
Random Bytowner: The Canadian media have a journalistic obligation to report this significant foreign action by the government–an obligation the media have failed, with a dismal but familiar lack of professionalism, to meet. One would think the media would further note that Prime Minister Martin said in May that Canadian troops were going to Darfur, and now are ending up in Senegal–and ask why the change.
Stephen McAllister: You’re not saying that the Liberals are unprincipled? Surely not.
Mark
Ottawa
Now kids. What is the lesson here. A thread count of 135… National Enquirer qualities of scandalous utterences? Immature behaviour? Offensive language? Outrageous declarations.
The making of a public spectacle of oneself seems to win pres… media attention. But, what then?
Hello sewer, here we come.
That was entertainment… now the real story. London Police Nab 7 more in Bomb Probe.
AP story, Canada.com.
Gotta love those plucky Brits! 73s TG
The Iron Lady is very fond of the Brits and wonders why, if they can nab these bastards in a matter of a week, and with such finesse, I might add, other countries who have suffered equally, have not been so lucky? Any bets there will be a Canadian link in this sorry mess somewhere?
Mark wrote: “Stephen McAllister: You’re not saying that the Liberals are unprincipled? Surely not.”
Hell, yes. Of course I am. You’ve not become suddenly daft, have you, old bean?
I confess T. Guitar makes a good point. Perhaps Kate could write up a “Guidelines for Commenting” document to help us stay more or less in line. ‘Course, we don’t wish some kind of PCness, but, surely, a bit more brevity isn’t beyond even us prolific thinker-posters?
On the other hand, the huge participation speaks positively for the popularity of SDA, doesn’t it?
I can see why Iron Lady admires the Brits. They’re a hardy people, proven over many more centuries than us N. Americans. We shld learn more from them. Not sure about yellow raincoats for the police, though. Does it really rain that much over there?!
Long live the Queen!
Oh!! I just figured this one out.
Random Bytowner, Looks like you would like to combine debate with a barroom brawl.
That spew of filth was taken, at random, in no order, from a variety of posts in this thread. Including the “uncivil buffoonery and blindly stupid rage” pseudo-title to it.
I noticed that you can debate and reason, but that language suggests frustration and lack of ability.
Thank you, and yes it does, doesn’t it? Hence my plea for an end to it.
Random, I agree we should lay this thread to rest. I didn’t know whether to be flattered or insulted when I saw that most of the copy-and-past passages were of stuff I wrote. Just try to keep everything in context in the future, ok? You don’t want to sound like a left-wing extremist, after all.