Tuesday digest
- With Michael Richards making John Rocker look like a suitable candidate for the post of next secretary general of the UN (and that's saying a lot), his "apology" just doesn't cut it. Anybody who snaps like that and says "that's what you get for interrupting a white man" is not a believer in equality. What makes it even worse in my opinion is that he apologized to "the blacks, the Hispanics, whites" ... and to me, any time someone refers to a minority group as "the (insert group here)", you can pretty much bet that they harbor some pretty negative views towards them.
Is there a silver lining in this cloud? I think so. What it does is demonstrate what real racism is. It's not opposing racial preferences in hiring or university admissions, pointing out the problems with inner-city culture (fatherlessness, to mention one example), or suggesting that hyphenated citizenship is a bad idea. The term "racism" is thrown around by the far Left with way too much frequency and way too much ease to shut down debate on these issues, when it's plain to see that holding those perfectly legitimate opinions is not even close to being in the same league as the hatred, rage and bile that flows through the veins of people like Michael Richards.
- As CTV Newsnet runs Islamofascist apologist and British MP George Galloway, who has been travelling through Canada this week offering his opinions on our anti-Taliban foreign policy, here's a must-read article on the dynamics of media coverage of the war on terror. (Tell me that the "takin' on the man" orientation of the press isn't not largely responsible for the preference for ignorance that a too-large part of the American population has demonstrated during a war where the casualty rate is so low that it makes the last three-year war the US was involved in, Korea, look like Armageddon.) The big picture, here, while Hitch asks why we should listen to a guy who didn't finish the job when he had the chance. It's time to go big because if this is any indication, the way forward is suicide.
- I can't believe the health police prevented Daniel Craig from lighting up a stogie in the latest Bond flick. Heresy.
- Thumbs up to the NDP for leading the charge on this very worthwhile initiative.
- Finally, only the most idealistic of both prisoners' rights and mental health advocates would suggest that this is a good move.
posted by Road Hammer @ 10:28 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
If you look at the anti-war movement, it is basically the same anti-America movement that has existed since the end of WWII.
The same people who march against the war, are: the same people who said the US brought 9/11 on themselves, are the same people who said the US should not have gone into Kosovo/Bosnia, are the same people who opposed going into Somalia, are the same people who opposed the first Gulf War, are the same people who sympathized with the Soviets in the 1980s, are the same people who thought Reagan would blow up the world, are the same people who opposed the Vietnam War, are the same people who argued the Rosenberg's were innocent.
While the Iraq war may be going wrong, who has been more consistenly on the wrong side of history?
you are a Beverly Hills Ninja, ya got no cred.
The Vision of the Anointed, perhaps?
Outside of the usual run-of-the-mill Western guilt complex buttressed by wild conspiracy theories, I'm not sure what Galloway, and for that matter and his sponsor, the Syrian-Canadian Association, offer as explanation as to why the current effort in Afghanistan is an unecessary war.
Are you suggesting that Afghanistan isn't a worthy effort, or simply stooping down and picking it up as a partisan baton by which to bash the establishment (in keeping with true Lennonist fashion)?
Regardless of whether or not one goes to sleep with "blood on their hands" or not, it still doesn't explain why the Galloway crowd is so fervent in their belief that the Taliban should still be in power.
All wars cost lives.
There is no rational discussion with those who qualify the war in Afghanistan, much less argue against it.
I don't think one can call themselves pro-troop and then second guess what it is they are out there doing every day - fighting Islamofascists in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why not just state unequivocally "I don't agree with what the troops are doing and I think that their presence abroad is immoral and unjust" instead of getting worked up about support vs. non-support of the troops?
Hell, one doesn't even have to use the word "warmongers", "bloodlust", or "Halliburton" to get their point across if done so clearly.
Hey bobby,
transport yourself back to 1939, do you find you are against involvement in WWII? Before you get into Hitler's atrocites realize that little was known about Nazi internment camps in the late 30's and early forties. How about 1917. Are you against involvement in WWI? You would be thinking, "why get involved in someone else's war over the assasination of some barely recognized royal figure."
Those wars were much more costly in the way of human lives and even though you will admit that those wars were necessary, back in the day you would've been anti-war, because war kills people.
"War kills people"
We are in a room with a Master.
Now, now. I know most of the jokers who frequent this place personally, and to a man, they are all great fellas. Let's keep it to edgy yet good-natured jaw-jacking rather than taking cheap shots about each other's level of brain matter.
So, you are against Canadian troops in Afghanistan because there aren't enough troops?
Isn't that like saying don't give them one bag of wheat because they are starving because they really need 5, so we are just giving them false hope?
Yes I do. The reasons I supported it in the first place are still valid. It would be easy and dishonest to say "on second thought I was wrong". I can't run away from my original position like that.
Hindsight is always easy.
That's right, baby. Git 'R Dun.
It is easy to say I was wrong. With the value of hindsight it easy to say we should have done this or should have done that.
You can only base your decisions on the information you have at hand.
Is it? I don't think so. I think it is intellectual honesty.
You can admit mistakes, make changes and move on, but you can't reverse yourself or pretend the context and reasons for decisions you made previously don't exist.
I believed it was in the US and Western insterest to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
What I am arguing is that at the time I felt it would be better for the West to have Saddam gone.
I believed he had the capacity for WMD. He at least had the will to both seek them out and use them without hesitation. Enough for me.
Are we better off now? That is a larger question I think. I think we are in the sense that we have removed a very real threat. I don't think the situation in Iraq now is as big a "threat" as Saddam in power was.
But, it has created something very close to a failed state and we who supported the invasion have to wear that. We can't suddenly say it was wrong and that we should pull out in some kind of Robert MacNamara bout of intestinal weakness. That is the easy way out.
Post a Comment
<< Home