Trying to orient my life more towards God. I'll probably post more on that topic as well, since there's not as much keeping me interested in Canadian politics now that there are no real options left for a former Conservative other than join the Liberals or the Canadian Alliance Redux.
They don't serve breakfast in hell.
A good friend of mine has diabetes. My uncle has diabetes, and my grandfather had diabetes. The only thing I know about the disease is that there are a lot of things you can't eat, you have to prick yourself several times a day (yikes), and you have to take something called insulin for some reason.
All very strange and mysterious.
Scott Hanselman explains diabetes in a way even an idiot like me can understand.
All very strange and mysterious.
Scott Hanselman explains diabetes in a way even an idiot like me can understand.
A NEW DEFINITION OF TERRORISM?
Terrorism on the rise.
This week, Prime minister Paul Martin spoke to a group in Montreal, stating that terrorism is on the rise since the invasion of Iraq.
"But I think that if we look at the situation today in comparison with even two, three years ago, that the problems of terrorism are probably even more serious,"
According to the Globe and Mail, Claude Bachand, an MP from the Bloc Quebecois, took issue with Prime Minister Martin's assertion that terrorism is not caused by poverty, but by hatred.
But isn't that essentially the current definition of terrorism, at least as the term terrorism has been used in the past 4 years? If you are a rich country and you have a beef with a smaller country, you invade. If you are a poor country, without the massive resources that the US can draw from, then any action you might take is defined as terrorism.
I'm not talking about the acts of individuals, the sort of acts that resulted in 9/11, or the suicide bombings in Israel. Rather I'm referring to what are lately being referred to by GW Bush and his handful of remaining supporters as "terrorist regimes".
These include the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These are examples of governments which might not be palatable to those of us in the west, but which are (were) nonetheless perfectly valid and legal governments.
Neither government is suspected of taking part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in the wake of those attacks, both of these governments had the scarlet letter of terrorism hung around their necks by the Bush Administration.
In the case of the Taliban, their country was invaded by the US because they did not turn over Osama bin Laden, and in the fury that swept the western world after 9/11, certain facts like the detail that Afghanistan was a sovereign country were temporarily overlooked. Has there ever been another war in history that was started over extradition issues? Anyway, now the word Taliban has unfairly become synonymous with terrorism. When I say unfairly, I should point out that the Taliban was certainly guilty of many civil-rights abuses in their own country of Afghanistan, but so far no evidence has been provided that the government of Afghanistan took part in 9/11.
However there has been a trend lately that whichever third-world country the Bush Administration has a beef with, is labelled as a terrorist state. And any attempts that country makes to defend itself are pointed to as evidence of terrorism. Take for instance the current civil war in Iraq. It's just so much neater and cleaner for the Yanks to define those opposed to the occupation as terrorists, rather than try to accept that their occupation is not going as smoothly as they had planned.
I can't help thinking that if the Vietnam war was going on right now, we'd be hearing in the news about actions by the "terrorist Viet Cong".
Terrorism on the rise.
This week, Prime minister Paul Martin spoke to a group in Montreal, stating that terrorism is on the rise since the invasion of Iraq.
"But I think that if we look at the situation today in comparison with even two, three years ago, that the problems of terrorism are probably even more serious,"
According to the Globe and Mail, Claude Bachand, an MP from the Bloc Quebecois, took issue with Prime Minister Martin's assertion that terrorism is not caused by poverty, but by hatred.
But isn't that essentially the current definition of terrorism, at least as the term terrorism has been used in the past 4 years? If you are a rich country and you have a beef with a smaller country, you invade. If you are a poor country, without the massive resources that the US can draw from, then any action you might take is defined as terrorism.
I'm not talking about the acts of individuals, the sort of acts that resulted in 9/11, or the suicide bombings in Israel. Rather I'm referring to what are lately being referred to by GW Bush and his handful of remaining supporters as "terrorist regimes".
These include the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. These are examples of governments which might not be palatable to those of us in the west, but which are (were) nonetheless perfectly valid and legal governments.
Neither government is suspected of taking part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but in the wake of those attacks, both of these governments had the scarlet letter of terrorism hung around their necks by the Bush Administration.
In the case of the Taliban, their country was invaded by the US because they did not turn over Osama bin Laden, and in the fury that swept the western world after 9/11, certain facts like the detail that Afghanistan was a sovereign country were temporarily overlooked. Has there ever been another war in history that was started over extradition issues? Anyway, now the word Taliban has unfairly become synonymous with terrorism. When I say unfairly, I should point out that the Taliban was certainly guilty of many civil-rights abuses in their own country of Afghanistan, but so far no evidence has been provided that the government of Afghanistan took part in 9/11.
However there has been a trend lately that whichever third-world country the Bush Administration has a beef with, is labelled as a terrorist state. And any attempts that country makes to defend itself are pointed to as evidence of terrorism. Take for instance the current civil war in Iraq. It's just so much neater and cleaner for the Yanks to define those opposed to the occupation as terrorists, rather than try to accept that their occupation is not going as smoothly as they had planned.
I can't help thinking that if the Vietnam war was going on right now, we'd be hearing in the news about actions by the "terrorist Viet Cong".
Iraqi blogs and the prison pictures
Thought I'd take a brief survey of the Iraqi blogs to see what they have to say about the pics that have come out of Abu Ghraib prison over the past few weeks. But for some reason most of the Iraqi blogs stopped posting around April 10. Maybe a problem with the phone or power lines, or just coincidence, either way it's damned inconvenient for my purposes.
So I'll make do with what I can find. This one is from a female Iraqi's perspective:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
"People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison."
***
I will post other Iraqi comments on this issue as I find them.
Thought I'd take a brief survey of the Iraqi blogs to see what they have to say about the pics that have come out of Abu Ghraib prison over the past few weeks. But for some reason most of the Iraqi blogs stopped posting around April 10. Maybe a problem with the phone or power lines, or just coincidence, either way it's damned inconvenient for my purposes.
So I'll make do with what I can find. This one is from a female Iraqi's perspective:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
"People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison."
***
I will post other Iraqi comments on this issue as I find them.
Here's some lyrics to a song i used to like. BTW, has anyone noticed that the sponsorship scandal has disappeared from the news?
So like, what's up with that, anyway?...
SPECIALS
A MESSAGE TO YOU RUDY
Stop your messing around,
Better think of your future.
Time you straighten right out,
Creating problems in town.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you.
Stop your fooling around.
Time you straighten right out.
Better think of your future,
As you wind up in jail.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you.
Stop your messing around.
Better think of your future.
Time you straighten right out,
Creating problems in town.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you Rudy.
Oh, its a message to you Rudy.
Yeah, its a message to you Rudy.
its a message to you Rudy...
So like, what's up with that, anyway?...
SPECIALS
A MESSAGE TO YOU RUDY
Stop your messing around,
Better think of your future.
Time you straighten right out,
Creating problems in town.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you.
Stop your fooling around.
Time you straighten right out.
Better think of your future,
As you wind up in jail.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you.
Stop your messing around.
Better think of your future.
Time you straighten right out,
Creating problems in town.
Rudy, a message to you Rudy.
A message to you Rudy.
Oh, its a message to you Rudy.
Yeah, its a message to you Rudy.
its a message to you Rudy...
Great website: Doonesbury. Might take a while to load (see previous post), but has amazing graphics.
Latest from Doonesbury, BD lost a leg in the gulf.
Latest from Doonesbury, BD lost a leg in the gulf.
Sasser Worm help
As some readers know, I work for Sony. We build, among some other things, computers. Today, a new worm came out that doesn't look too dangerous, yet, but acts a lot like the Blaster virus. It's called the Sasser worm, God knows why.
I've spent my day researching it and basically becoming mind-numbingly bored by reading anything virus-related, and I thought I'd share some of the tools I've found with my loyal reader(s).
windows update for the wormy here
Norton Antivirus info on it here
I was going to post the link to the fix as well, but if you're reading this, you don't need the fix.
In a nutshell, our reports at Sony were that when it triggers a clock thing or timer may pop up and count 60 seconds. After that, your internet connection will work fine, but you won't be able to use it, meaning that although you're connected you still can't surf. You'll get an error like "unable to find server" on every website.
If you want to really p**s off Microsoft, which hates having to provide support for it's products (and will direct you back to the manufacturer of your PC, ie Sony or Dell), contact them with one of the options listed on this page (note the first option under the line "What support option should you select?". Bastards.)
As some readers know, I work for Sony. We build, among some other things, computers. Today, a new worm came out that doesn't look too dangerous, yet, but acts a lot like the Blaster virus. It's called the Sasser worm, God knows why.
I've spent my day researching it and basically becoming mind-numbingly bored by reading anything virus-related, and I thought I'd share some of the tools I've found with my loyal reader(s).
windows update for the wormy here
Norton Antivirus info on it here
I was going to post the link to the fix as well, but if you're reading this, you don't need the fix.
In a nutshell, our reports at Sony were that when it triggers a clock thing or timer may pop up and count 60 seconds. After that, your internet connection will work fine, but you won't be able to use it, meaning that although you're connected you still can't surf. You'll get an error like "unable to find server" on every website.
If you want to really p**s off Microsoft, which hates having to provide support for it's products (and will direct you back to the manufacturer of your PC, ie Sony or Dell), contact them with one of the options listed on this page (note the first option under the line "What support option should you select?". Bastards.)
I'm not a big fan of reading celebrity websites and blogs. Most of them are incredibly unbearable, take Gene Simmons for example: "The crew was great. The girls were beautiful. And I looked like a slut. Wait till you see it.".
But I found something today, a message from Weird Al, thanking his friends and fans for their support during the last few weeks, since his parents died April 9 as a result of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning. Very touching, the message brings up a lot of feelings for those of us who have recently lost someone. Here it is.
But I found something today, a message from Weird Al, thanking his friends and fans for their support during the last few weeks, since his parents died April 9 as a result of accidental carbon monoxide poisoning. Very touching, the message brings up a lot of feelings for those of us who have recently lost someone. Here it is.
An interesting editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, discussing the reasons behind the hostile reaction by the CA alumni to Joe Clark's statements this week regarding Stephen Harper.
Clark's remarks reasonable
Anger focused more on his right to speak than substance of words
Fri Apr 30 2004
JOE Clark said this week that although neither Paul Martin nor Stephen Harper are ideal candidates for prime minister, Martin represents less of a danger to Canada than would Harper.
Some people will regard Clark's assessment as exactly right, while others will -- and, indeed, have --disagreed with him.
Whichever the case, however, Clark's comments were neither unreasonable nor intemperate. That can hardly be said of many of those who responded to him, in ways that can only be described as venomous.
Leading members of Harper's party, the Reformed Conservative Alliance, and many newspapers including the Globe and Mail, the National Post (which is, effectively, the house organ of Harper's party) and the Free Press, indulged in similar invective. The Free Press, for example, described Clark as "hapless," "bitter," "a has been," "pathetic" and "washed up."
Responses
Let's mark the Free Press down as 'undecided' but others were equally personal in their responses. Tony Clement, for example, a defeated former minister in the former Ontario government and an overwhelmingly defeated candidate for the leadership of the new Conservative Alliance, offered what was clearly intended to be the most cutting comment. The saddest thing, Clement said, is that Clark's views just don't matter any more, which seems to be belied by the fury of the responses. John Reynolds, MP, described Clark as a "bitter old man;" and "a traitor to the cause." Reynolds, who is himself as old or older than Clark (but, presumably, not bitter despite his bitter remarks) is, as it happens, a man with a history.
He was once a Progressive Conservative MP; then a Reform MP, then a Canadian Alliance MP and now an MP of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party. His emergence as a Reformer entailed rejecting the old Tory Party -- a traitor to its cause, one might say -- but this man has embraced almost as many political positions as the Vicar of Bray and could give lessons on political transmogrification.
This is classic do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do stuff and Reynolds' colleague, Peter MacKay, daily offers an even more extraordinary demonstration of this let's-forget-my-past approach to politics: he preaches the virtues of honesty and integrity to his opponents even though his own conduct renders him probably the most unqualified member of the House to do so.
What the Reynolds and the MacKays of the world are counting on is the probability that most voters will have short memories; as, apparently, does Brian Mulroney.
Clark's comments have been played out against the backdrop of Mulroney, last weekend, conferring his blessing on Harper and the new alliance. In news terms, this remarkable event has been somewhat eclipsed by the anger over Clark, though the anger might more appropriately be directed elsewhere.
Here we have Mulroney, effectively driven from office and treated as a pariah for a decade, now embracing, and being embraced, by a party overwhelmingly drawn from the Reform/Alliance movement which helped drive him from office, which reduced his party to shambles and excoriated Mulroney and the very idea of any more 'leaders from Quebec.' They embrace now, not out of an outpouring of Christian charity or simple goodness, but because each wants something: Mulroney wants vindication and rehabilitation; the Reformers and Alliance folk who dominate the Conservative party want power. Those with somewhat longer memories than these folks are counting on, may well recall Mulroney's comment when Bryce Mackasey, a former Liberal cabinet minister and hanger-on, was named an ambassador: "There is no whore," quoth Mulroney, "like an old whore." Little did one suppose that in 1984 he might be offering his own epitaph.
The anger directed at Clark has focused much more on his right to speak than on the substance of what he said (in fairness, one notes that the Free Press editorial also addressed the substance of Clark's criticisms of Harper) which was focused on why he regards Harper & Co. as a danger to Canada. Their record -- that is Harper's and the Reform/Alliance's -- invites such concern.
Are they still a neo-conservative party wedded to cutting taxes for the wealthy, reducing public services, and imposing fees and surcharges on the services that remain for the least well- off members of society? Are they committed to two-tiered health care? Are they still committed to weakening the national government in favour of the provinces, including those in Atlantic Canada with its "culture of defeat" and Alberta behind its firewall?
Are they still committed to imposing Christian notions of morality on Canadians, of whose values they disapprove? Do they remain committed to eroding the distinctions Canadians have long recognized as demarcating the roles of the state and religion?
Are they still committed to sending Canadians into any war that George Bush sets his heart on? Will they recognize that Canadian and American values and priorities have diverged significantly in recent years and will they continue trying to impose American values on Canada? Is, Harper, a-la-Bush, about to declare himself a "compassionate conservative?"
Concerns
These concerns underlie Clark's warning. After all, though numerous PC members and supporters have declined to join the new party, apart from one rather idiosyncratic MP, we hear nothing of unhappy Reformers or Alliance members refusing to join.
Could that be because they do not see the merger as posing any serious challenge to any of their cherished positions? Their apparent happiness gives credence to the notion that the merger has been a takeover of the smaller party by the larger one. To know the larger one's history and values is to understand quite clearly the danger of which Joe Clark warned this week.
Clark's remarks reasonable
Anger focused more on his right to speak than substance of words
Fri Apr 30 2004
JOE Clark said this week that although neither Paul Martin nor Stephen Harper are ideal candidates for prime minister, Martin represents less of a danger to Canada than would Harper.
Some people will regard Clark's assessment as exactly right, while others will -- and, indeed, have --disagreed with him.
Whichever the case, however, Clark's comments were neither unreasonable nor intemperate. That can hardly be said of many of those who responded to him, in ways that can only be described as venomous.
Leading members of Harper's party, the Reformed Conservative Alliance, and many newspapers including the Globe and Mail, the National Post (which is, effectively, the house organ of Harper's party) and the Free Press, indulged in similar invective. The Free Press, for example, described Clark as "hapless," "bitter," "a has been," "pathetic" and "washed up."
Responses
Let's mark the Free Press down as 'undecided' but others were equally personal in their responses. Tony Clement, for example, a defeated former minister in the former Ontario government and an overwhelmingly defeated candidate for the leadership of the new Conservative Alliance, offered what was clearly intended to be the most cutting comment. The saddest thing, Clement said, is that Clark's views just don't matter any more, which seems to be belied by the fury of the responses. John Reynolds, MP, described Clark as a "bitter old man;" and "a traitor to the cause." Reynolds, who is himself as old or older than Clark (but, presumably, not bitter despite his bitter remarks) is, as it happens, a man with a history.
He was once a Progressive Conservative MP; then a Reform MP, then a Canadian Alliance MP and now an MP of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party. His emergence as a Reformer entailed rejecting the old Tory Party -- a traitor to its cause, one might say -- but this man has embraced almost as many political positions as the Vicar of Bray and could give lessons on political transmogrification.
This is classic do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do stuff and Reynolds' colleague, Peter MacKay, daily offers an even more extraordinary demonstration of this let's-forget-my-past approach to politics: he preaches the virtues of honesty and integrity to his opponents even though his own conduct renders him probably the most unqualified member of the House to do so.
What the Reynolds and the MacKays of the world are counting on is the probability that most voters will have short memories; as, apparently, does Brian Mulroney.
Clark's comments have been played out against the backdrop of Mulroney, last weekend, conferring his blessing on Harper and the new alliance. In news terms, this remarkable event has been somewhat eclipsed by the anger over Clark, though the anger might more appropriately be directed elsewhere.
Here we have Mulroney, effectively driven from office and treated as a pariah for a decade, now embracing, and being embraced, by a party overwhelmingly drawn from the Reform/Alliance movement which helped drive him from office, which reduced his party to shambles and excoriated Mulroney and the very idea of any more 'leaders from Quebec.' They embrace now, not out of an outpouring of Christian charity or simple goodness, but because each wants something: Mulroney wants vindication and rehabilitation; the Reformers and Alliance folk who dominate the Conservative party want power. Those with somewhat longer memories than these folks are counting on, may well recall Mulroney's comment when Bryce Mackasey, a former Liberal cabinet minister and hanger-on, was named an ambassador: "There is no whore," quoth Mulroney, "like an old whore." Little did one suppose that in 1984 he might be offering his own epitaph.
The anger directed at Clark has focused much more on his right to speak than on the substance of what he said (in fairness, one notes that the Free Press editorial also addressed the substance of Clark's criticisms of Harper) which was focused on why he regards Harper & Co. as a danger to Canada. Their record -- that is Harper's and the Reform/Alliance's -- invites such concern.
Are they still a neo-conservative party wedded to cutting taxes for the wealthy, reducing public services, and imposing fees and surcharges on the services that remain for the least well- off members of society? Are they committed to two-tiered health care? Are they still committed to weakening the national government in favour of the provinces, including those in Atlantic Canada with its "culture of defeat" and Alberta behind its firewall?
Are they still committed to imposing Christian notions of morality on Canadians, of whose values they disapprove? Do they remain committed to eroding the distinctions Canadians have long recognized as demarcating the roles of the state and religion?
Are they still committed to sending Canadians into any war that George Bush sets his heart on? Will they recognize that Canadian and American values and priorities have diverged significantly in recent years and will they continue trying to impose American values on Canada? Is, Harper, a-la-Bush, about to declare himself a "compassionate conservative?"
Concerns
These concerns underlie Clark's warning. After all, though numerous PC members and supporters have declined to join the new party, apart from one rather idiosyncratic MP, we hear nothing of unhappy Reformers or Alliance members refusing to join.
Could that be because they do not see the merger as posing any serious challenge to any of their cherished positions? Their apparent happiness gives credence to the notion that the merger has been a takeover of the smaller party by the larger one. To know the larger one's history and values is to understand quite clearly the danger of which Joe Clark warned this week.
Guess who the kid with the cake is and win a all-expenses-paid trip to BlogsCanada, where you and as many guests as you can squeeze in front of your computer monitor can enjoy thousands of links to websites like mine, where you'll spend 3 fun-filled hours that you will never ever get back reading boring stories about getting your haircut and what the blogster had for supper!
Play now, Play often.
(hint: click on the picture)
Respect
Regarding Andrew Coyne's posts today on his Blog. Mr. Coyne apparently disagrees with Joe Clark's statements regarding Stephen Harper. Mr. Coyne is a far superior writer in comparison to me, but that doesn't make him right.
In fact both the National Post and the Globe and Mail ran polls on the topic of Clark's statemets this week. In the case of the Globe poll, 65% agreed with Clark. In the National Post poll, the last time I checked the percentage of respondents agreeing with Clark was at 66%.
So I'll take a moment and critique a few of Coyne's comments regarding Clark and Harper:
1) Coyne "Harper now says he would not have sent troops to Iraq, but would only have offered "moral" support."
You'd think that there was an election coming up or something. Harper is saying that he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq, but at the time he was standing up every day in the House of Commons, fist raised in the air and body shaking with indignation, demanding that the Prime Minister send troops to Iraq.
Hansard, Jan 29, 2003
(Stephen Harper):"We have called for participation in the predeployment exercises."
(Stephen Harper): "Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation on our part will be interpreted as incitement.... We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment.... Canada will be counted."
Is it just me, or does it sound like Harper wanted to send Canadian troops to Iraq? Now I'm all confused.
***
2) Coyne "Mr. Clark led the Progressive Conservatives to their worst-ever popular vote showing in 2000, just barely over 10%, where they remained, more or less, ever since. When the time came he was repudiated by 90% of his party in the vote to merge with the Canadian Alliance. So Clarkism represents, at a rough estimate, somewhere between 1% and 2% of the population."
Is this voodoo math? 12% of Canadians voted for non-Canadian Alliance, moderate conservatism (aka non-Liberal, moderation) in the last election, a small percentage admittedly.
But Mr. Coyne makes a giant leap in his conclusion that since a large number of PC Party members voted to join the Alliance (and don't even get me started on the number of Tories I know, including me, who were not contacted once regarding becoming involved in this vote), that that means more than 10 percent of Canadians have instantaneously decided they aren't interested in either moderate conservatism or non-Liberal moderate, pluralistic government.
Which is what Mr. Clark represents, of course, more than any other politician in the country.
***
Coyne "UPDATE: Now he's endorsing Ed Broadbent. Question: How was this man allowed to pass himself off as a Conservative all these years? Should we now conclude he was in fact a double agent?"
I'm not sure how long Mr. Coyne has been a political reporter. Obviously not long enough to remember the days before the 1993 election, when people and politicians from different political parties could have enormous respect for each other despite their differing political opinions.
I could give any number of examples, but instead I will use just one, the story of when Pierre Trudeau introduced his son Justin to Joe Clark and his daughter Catherine, from Justin's lovely eulogy at Pierre Trudeau's funeral.
"But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.
Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him -- a generic, silly little grade school thing.
My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: "Justin, never attack the individual. One can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating him as a consequence."
Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.
My father's adversary spoke to me in a friendly manner and it was then that I understood that having different opinions from those of another person in no way precluded holding this person in the highest respect."
Full Text of the Justin Trudeau Eulogy
With those words in mind, I think it's fitting that Mr. Clark, at the end of his career, has decided to show respect to one of his old adversaries by campaigning at his side.
Regarding Andrew Coyne's posts today on his Blog. Mr. Coyne apparently disagrees with Joe Clark's statements regarding Stephen Harper. Mr. Coyne is a far superior writer in comparison to me, but that doesn't make him right.
In fact both the National Post and the Globe and Mail ran polls on the topic of Clark's statemets this week. In the case of the Globe poll, 65% agreed with Clark. In the National Post poll, the last time I checked the percentage of respondents agreeing with Clark was at 66%.
So I'll take a moment and critique a few of Coyne's comments regarding Clark and Harper:
1) Coyne "Harper now says he would not have sent troops to Iraq, but would only have offered "moral" support."
You'd think that there was an election coming up or something. Harper is saying that he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq, but at the time he was standing up every day in the House of Commons, fist raised in the air and body shaking with indignation, demanding that the Prime Minister send troops to Iraq.
Hansard, Jan 29, 2003
(Stephen Harper):"We have called for participation in the predeployment exercises."
(Stephen Harper): "Make no mistake, Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention. The least sign of weakness or hesitation on our part will be interpreted as incitement.... We believe that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in such a moment.... Canada will be counted."
Is it just me, or does it sound like Harper wanted to send Canadian troops to Iraq? Now I'm all confused.
***
2) Coyne "Mr. Clark led the Progressive Conservatives to their worst-ever popular vote showing in 2000, just barely over 10%, where they remained, more or less, ever since. When the time came he was repudiated by 90% of his party in the vote to merge with the Canadian Alliance. So Clarkism represents, at a rough estimate, somewhere between 1% and 2% of the population."
Is this voodoo math? 12% of Canadians voted for non-Canadian Alliance, moderate conservatism (aka non-Liberal, moderation) in the last election, a small percentage admittedly.
But Mr. Coyne makes a giant leap in his conclusion that since a large number of PC Party members voted to join the Alliance (and don't even get me started on the number of Tories I know, including me, who were not contacted once regarding becoming involved in this vote), that that means more than 10 percent of Canadians have instantaneously decided they aren't interested in either moderate conservatism or non-Liberal moderate, pluralistic government.
Which is what Mr. Clark represents, of course, more than any other politician in the country.
***
Coyne "UPDATE: Now he's endorsing Ed Broadbent. Question: How was this man allowed to pass himself off as a Conservative all these years? Should we now conclude he was in fact a double agent?"
I'm not sure how long Mr. Coyne has been a political reporter. Obviously not long enough to remember the days before the 1993 election, when people and politicians from different political parties could have enormous respect for each other despite their differing political opinions.
I could give any number of examples, but instead I will use just one, the story of when Pierre Trudeau introduced his son Justin to Joe Clark and his daughter Catherine, from Justin's lovely eulogy at Pierre Trudeau's funeral.
"But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.
Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him -- a generic, silly little grade school thing.
My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: "Justin, never attack the individual. One can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating him as a consequence."
Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.
My father's adversary spoke to me in a friendly manner and it was then that I understood that having different opinions from those of another person in no way precluded holding this person in the highest respect."
Full Text of the Justin Trudeau Eulogy
With those words in mind, I think it's fitting that Mr. Clark, at the end of his career, has decided to show respect to one of his old adversaries by campaigning at his side.
Joe
Throughout Joe Clark's career, people have tried to paint him as a "Joe Who", a mitten-wearing clown, irrelevant. But he has always taken it in stride, and as this week's events have shown, he is neither a "Joe Who", nor is he irrelevant.
I'd be proud to be a member of a party led by Joe Clark again.
Throughout Joe Clark's career, people have tried to paint him as a "Joe Who", a mitten-wearing clown, irrelevant. But he has always taken it in stride, and as this week's events have shown, he is neither a "Joe Who", nor is he irrelevant.
I'd be proud to be a member of a party led by Joe Clark again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
