The NDP has single handedly propped up the Harper government by voting against the Liberals' Afghanistan withdrawal bill. Layton says that he has another date in mind that would get the troops even sooner. He's awfully ballsy to think that he can get this passed before 2009. Ballsy or stupid.
It would have been much safer for Layton to take an incrementalist approach to vote in favour of the 2009 withdrawal and then pushed for an earlier withdrawal date. In fact, this seems pretty obvious. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but to put who knows how many more Canadian lives at stake to gamble on getting a sooner withdrawal date is careless and irresponsible.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Why Didn't They Think of This Before Hand?
The Democrats should have seen it as obvious that Bush would veto their war funding bill if it contained any kind of stipulation requiring the troops to come home any time soon, but it seems like it's just now that they're getting together to come up with some kind of strategy that would allow them to show that they are taking a stand against the war (which is what they were elected to do) without denying the troops of funds.
So what are they gonna do? I don't think they have the balls to send another bill to Bush that would require a pull-out, but they can't just say, "ok, here's the money" with no strings attached. Are they gonna pass another useless non-binding resolution? The Democrats have never struck me as a particularly imaginative or creative bunch, so I can't wait to see how they'll deal with this.
So what are they gonna do? I don't think they have the balls to send another bill to Bush that would require a pull-out, but they can't just say, "ok, here's the money" with no strings attached. Are they gonna pass another useless non-binding resolution? The Democrats have never struck me as a particularly imaginative or creative bunch, so I can't wait to see how they'll deal with this.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Those Pesky Liberals
Overblown much?
Why is it that American conservatives, who for 13 years controlled Congress, still control the White House, and who have appointed 7 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court are always whining about how powerful "liberals" are, and how they "control everything." How can liberals, who have such little actual power control so much?
It reminds me of that joke about the two Jews in the Weimar Republic. One of them is reading a Jewish run paper and the other is reading the Volkischer Beobachter. The guy reading the Jewish paper says to the other, "How can you read that right-wing garbage?" The second guy says, "Well, if I read the Jewish papers all they talk about is how many Jews have been killed in the progroms, all the synagogues that have been burned down, and all the Jewish businesses that have been vandalized. But according to the right-wing papers we all rule the world!"
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Even the Soldiers Know the Military Is full of Shit
During the early part of the Iraq War, there was a girl named Jessica Lynch who we were told was taken as a POW by the Iraqis and rescued by US troops. We heard all of these heroic stories about how she valiantly fought off her captors.
Not long after the story came out, everyone not in a delusional state of denial could see it wasn't true. She was rescued, but not by the Americans. Not long after the Iraqi military picked her up, she was left at a hospital in Nasiriya where the staff protected her from the Iraqi military and even tried to return her to the Americans, but couldn't because the US troops kept firing on her ambulance. Some Iraqis told the Americans that she was being tortured, but even Lynch herself says that was all horseshit. In fact she was treated quite well, and the "daring rescue" that was conducted when the Americans finally got her out of the Iraqi hospital was an overblown fabrication.
Today there was a hearing in front of Congress in which Jessica Lynch herself told us that the military is full of shit and just wanted to use her as a propaganda tool.
Of course, the The Crazy People are pretty silent about the whole story.
Not long after the story came out, everyone not in a delusional state of denial could see it wasn't true. She was rescued, but not by the Americans. Not long after the Iraqi military picked her up, she was left at a hospital in Nasiriya where the staff protected her from the Iraqi military and even tried to return her to the Americans, but couldn't because the US troops kept firing on her ambulance. Some Iraqis told the Americans that she was being tortured, but even Lynch herself says that was all horseshit. In fact she was treated quite well, and the "daring rescue" that was conducted when the Americans finally got her out of the Iraqi hospital was an overblown fabrication.
Today there was a hearing in front of Congress in which Jessica Lynch herself told us that the military is full of shit and just wanted to use her as a propaganda tool.
Of course, the The Crazy People are pretty silent about the whole story.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The French Election
As predicted it has been narrowed down to a runoff election between Royal and Sarkozy. As much as I think the Gaullists are potentially a danger to France in the long run, I think that given the violence that has become almost routine in France's poorer neighbourhoods, a new approach to immigration must be taken.
It is interesting to note the the American "guest worker program" is remarkably similar to the program that brought so many poor people into France to be exploited and alienated by French society.
Limiting immigration should not be solely a right-wing issue, especially considering most of the poorer people brought into Western countries are brought there to do shit jobs and not only have to put up with the racism of the West, but also their contempt for the poor. Obviously these are problems that need to be addressed as well, but given the immediate danger that mixing poor people of colour with class contemptuous racists necessitates a more radical approach. Allowing poor, unskilled immigrants into the West is as bad for them as it is for us.
It is interesting to note the the American "guest worker program" is remarkably similar to the program that brought so many poor people into France to be exploited and alienated by French society.
Limiting immigration should not be solely a right-wing issue, especially considering most of the poorer people brought into Western countries are brought there to do shit jobs and not only have to put up with the racism of the West, but also their contempt for the poor. Obviously these are problems that need to be addressed as well, but given the immediate danger that mixing poor people of colour with class contemptuous racists necessitates a more radical approach. Allowing poor, unskilled immigrants into the West is as bad for them as it is for us.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Someone Takes Auster to Task
Someone at Vanity Fair has discovered Lawrence Auster and wrote an article about him that sounds about right.
The Vanity Fair Article quotes a passage from Auster's website about an exchange between Auster and a reader named Mark E. about how black homophobes are the only homophobes not afraid to express their views, and should be embraced by prejudiced whites because they share a hatred of gays:
"I want to add [writes Auster to Mark] that if you are implying that blacks in general can be our ally against the left in saving the west, I think that is folly. The tiny number of blacks who are Western patriots--that is, blacks who love the West and who, as part of that love of the West, at least implicitly accept the West's historic white majority character--will join us without our having to make some special appeal to them of the type that 'conservatives' are always making to 'conservative' blacks and 'conservative' Hispanics, making that appeal to nonwhites the cornerstone of their politics."
That's pretty indicative of Auster's hilariously pig-headed rantings, but my favourite quote from that passage comes from Mark E. himself:
Most blacks I meet are "normal" people (I live in the "inner city") with normal views about things; but the white middle- and upper-middle class suburban educated types are really whacked, especially the women.
White women are the most destructive force in America. The feminizing of America, not what you miscall "liberalism," is the root of all rot.
The Vanity Fair Article quotes a passage from Auster's website about an exchange between Auster and a reader named Mark E. about how black homophobes are the only homophobes not afraid to express their views, and should be embraced by prejudiced whites because they share a hatred of gays:
"I want to add [writes Auster to Mark] that if you are implying that blacks in general can be our ally against the left in saving the west, I think that is folly. The tiny number of blacks who are Western patriots--that is, blacks who love the West and who, as part of that love of the West, at least implicitly accept the West's historic white majority character--will join us without our having to make some special appeal to them of the type that 'conservatives' are always making to 'conservative' blacks and 'conservative' Hispanics, making that appeal to nonwhites the cornerstone of their politics."
That's pretty indicative of Auster's hilariously pig-headed rantings, but my favourite quote from that passage comes from Mark E. himself:
Most blacks I meet are "normal" people (I live in the "inner city") with normal views about things; but the white middle- and upper-middle class suburban educated types are really whacked, especially the women.
White women are the most destructive force in America. The feminizing of America, not what you miscall "liberalism," is the root of all rot.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Even the Righties Know Wolfowitz Is Indefensible
I hardly ever agree with Lawrence Auster as he is a lunatic, but even he sees how corrupt Wolfowitz is.
He quotes Alex Spillius from the New York Sun:
"It has often been said that Mr. Wolfowitz is a brilliant thinker and a terrible manager. His defenders say the current crisis smacks not of nepotism but poor administration and trying too hard to ensure someone he cared for was properly compensated."
To which Auster responds:
"Got that? That’s like saying that John Dillinger’s behavior did not smack of bank robbery but of trying too hard to get his hands on some cash."
He quotes Alex Spillius from the New York Sun:
"It has often been said that Mr. Wolfowitz is a brilliant thinker and a terrible manager. His defenders say the current crisis smacks not of nepotism but poor administration and trying too hard to ensure someone he cared for was properly compensated."
To which Auster responds:
"Got that? That’s like saying that John Dillinger’s behavior did not smack of bank robbery but of trying too hard to get his hands on some cash."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)