KAHAR'S TANGENTS » Blogroll

Michael Ignatieff’s slippery habits

arkahar — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:59:31 +0000

Michael Ignatieff has some slippery habits. And they seem to make many people uncomfortable, even angry.

Michael Ignatieff has some habits that unsettle and upset people.

______________

Okay, those opening lines were sort of self-referential. [1] It was a self-amusing play on the opening bit for an article about Michael Ignatieff that I wrote six and a half years ago.

Who is Michael Ignatieff? Iggy is an international academic-cum-Canuck politician.

Back when I wrote my first piece about Iggy, the more complimentary word “surprising” stood in the stead of “slippery.”

So, what happened to Ignatieff in the meantime? I mean, what was it that spurred me to rewrite such a deathless and finely-executed lead?

Well, a few things, I suppose. Not least of them: the Iraq War debate.

Michael Ignatieff, you see, took a rather pro-war position on Iraq back in 2003, when the US-led war was launched. He’s been something of an interventionist hawk. Ignatieff has stuck to his virtual guns since then.

Up until now.

Today, in The New York Times Magazine, Michael Ignatieff retracted. Iggy performed a mea culpa for all of America to read. Ignatieff writes that the Iraq War “condemned the political judgment of a president,” but also condemned the judgement of Iggy and other sideliners who cheered for war in Mesopotamia.

Not a pretty sight. Nor was Iggy’s mea culpa.

Yet, this much should be said: Ignatieff’s pro-war arguments were not quite the unequivocal and fervent ones that you’d hear from the likes of other pro-war pundits, like, say, Christopher Hitchens. Ignatieff seemed to hedge and qualify on some fine points.

But Iggy has expressed himself in true Ignatieffian fashion elsewhere. So there’s no point in me reiterating here, because Ignatieff is much better at imitating his own style than I’d ever be.

I will say this also: there remains much to recommend Michael Ignatieff. The cat can write. The cat thinks big. And the cat’s written some fine and interesting tomes. [2] Despite my pre-move library purge, I kept a few Iggy books, and still crack them open on occasion, to refresh an idea or look up a factoid.

Ignatieff scribbles his mea culpa in comparably fine style.

I mean — WOW! Ignatieff pulls no punches.

Iggy mentions (more than once) that he’s a former “denizen of Harvard.” So only a brave man or fool would dare question his judgement! He’s a bloody professor for gods’ sake!

Iggy uses phrases like “distant hoofbeats of the horse of history” and “in charmed lives warning bells do not sound.” Which tells me that Iggy is one smart and fancy fellow who could clobber most of us in any staged debate. He also uses the word “ruefully.” Which tells me Iggy spent some time around Cambridge or Oxford — and those guys can debate the pants off any North American chap! (And if they couldn’t debate our pants off, I’m sure they’d like to try!)

In his NYT piece, Iggy also invokes Machiavelli, Burke and Beckett. So I know we’re dealing with a guy who’s read a bunch of smart books. And Iggy invokes his intellectual godfather, Isaiah Berlin (more than once). [3] In fact, Iggy goes so far as to call his philosopher idol Isaiah a “prophet” — which slapped me as really over-the-top and desperate. [4]

POP QUIZ: What is the difference between a philosopher and a prophet?

______________

So, once again: what happened to Michael Ignatieff, the man who was once an intrepid journalist and human rights scholar at Harvard??

My modest and tangential guess:

The impulse for reelection as Liberal MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (a Toronto, Ontario electoral riding) has trumped the academic impulse for intellectual integrity.

Read: the Iraq War has become increasingly unpopular round the world, and it was never too popular here in Canada. When he entered politics a couple years ago, Ignatieff took some heat for his hawkish arguments about Iraq. Now, between Canadian electoral cycles and during the silly summer season, was probably a safe time to repent and sneak to moral high ground. [5]

The trouble with such late mea culpas is this: Michael Ignatieff is making virtue out of his apparent (political) necessity. He’s staking a moral high ground that was already staked long ago, by academic/journalistic/political colleagues, many of whom can claim inconvenient foresight dating back to the early part of this decade, before the Iraq War was started. [6]

When I read that New York Times piece by Ignatieff, one word came to mind: Slippery.

Actually, another ‘S’ word came first: Sleazy.

But I didn’t want to be too hard on Iggy, because I do admire him for some earlier works.

All of this somehow calls to mind Jack Black’s timeless lines from the flick High Fidelity:


BARRY
 
[…]  Subquestion - is it in fact unfair to criticize
 
a formerly great artist for his latter-day sins? 
 
“Is it better to burn out than to fade away?”

So, is Michael Ignatieff burning out or fading away?

Probably neither. My guess: he’s posturing for his next big move.

After all, Ignatieff is a leading member of parliament (deputy House leader) representing the Liberal Party, Canada’s so-called ‘natural governing party.’ He’s still a comparatively young, and seemingly vigorous, man. He was a contender for the Liberal party leadership last year, and there’s still a fair chance he will one day be a prime minister or foreign minister (or both) in the not-too-distant future.

Iggy thinks academics are too theoretical.

______________

And Ignatieff must be planning to stay in politics for a while longer, because he does a good job of pissing on academia. In his NYT piece, Iggy writes:

I’ve learned that good judgment in politics looks different from good judgment in intellectual life. Among intellectuals, judgment is about generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea.

In politics, everything is what it is and not another thing. Specifics matter more than generalities. Theory gets in the way [...]

[…] Having taught political science myself, I have to say the discipline promises more than it can deliver. In practical politics, there is no science of decision-making.

Let me get this straight:

Ignatieff needed to hold a seat in Canada’s House of Commons to learn this basic lesson????!!!!

WTF?

Ignatieff’s a far brighter fella than me, and even I deduced there to be oceans separating the lecture hall from the policymaker’s roundtable from the warzone.

Okay, that said, I will assume this much:

After such a transparent flip-flop, Iggy must have a foul taste in his mouth. And he won’t get rid of that taste with mere mouthwash or breath mints. That is, if Ignatieff is indeed the honest intellectual I thought him to be… and not just another calculating incumbent pol.

Yes, okay: fine and perhaps even good of him to do an about-face.

But, forgive me for being unimpressed, and even nauseated, by Ignatieff’s turnaround for American readers.

After all, I personally believe that some of the uncomfortable seats in hell — presuming the thought experiment that hell actually exists — ought to be reserved for armchair warriors.

Armchair warriors: those talking-heads and egg-heads who, with safe distance and paradigm-induced abstraction, cheered for a war they’d never be fighting themselves. Other humans would be doing the dying for intellectual and political arguments that the armchair warriors so fervently endorsed.

Armchair warriors are also called chickenhawks. Never count on them in a bar fight.

______________

Reprehensible.

So, what should Michael Ignatieff do now?

As one Canadian journo, Paul Wells (no liberal, no Liberal), pointed up in his blog: Ignatieff has held some positions that put him out of step with his own party, and more in-step with the governing Conservatives. (The Liberals opposed the war from the get-go, with the exception of some backbench MPs.)

That could portend more tough politicking for Ignatieff in the media, and in parliament, when things resume in the autumn.

So, what should Ignatieff do?

I humbly propose he strike a deal with TV journalist Keith Morrison.

Why?

Simply because Michael Ignatieff and Keith Morrison look vaguely alike.

(I noticed this long ago, but I always thought it’d be rude to say so in civilized company.)

POP QUIZ: Have you ever seen Iggy and Keith Morrison in Tel Aviv at the same time?

______________

Morrison is Canadian, like Ignatieff. The two men share a vague facial resemblance. Both are lean, fit. Some of their mannerisms during deep conservation are similar. They squint and do thoughtful gestures with their hands and fingers. Their voices are similarly resonant. Both men are bright. Even their hair looks similar, if only different in colour. (And that’s why the gods created L’Oréal products).

Heck, come to think of it, these two guys were separated at birth!

But…

And this is an important But…

Morrison has the distinct advantage and pleasure of not being a Canadian politician who took a pro-Iraq War position.

So…

Michael Ignatieff should request a meeting with Keith Morrison. Ignatieff should propose a ‘Trading Places’ scenario, if only for the fall session of parliament.

Morrison knows politics, and he could fake it. Ignatieff knows film and culture, and he’s worked in television before. All it would take is two dye-jobs and a few sealed lips.

Thus, Michael Ignatieff could have a much-needed vacation from prying questions and intellectual scrutiny.

Of course, the matter of wife-swapping would prove sticky, and potentially disagreeable to some. (I think it would be in poor taste, Iggy.)

Would the better halves of Iggy and Keith go for it?

But, hold up — would the wives even need to know???

I mean, August is a silly and quiet month in politics and journalism. Iggy and Keith could contrive to take a couple of vacations together, mano-a-mano. They could study one another, close up.

Iggy could become Keith; Keith could become Iggy!

It’s the perfect plan. And the plan was concocted here, among Kahar’s Tangents. (Mister Ignatieff: my consultancy fees are reasonable, and possibly within your MP’s budget.)

Y’know, I’m astonished that Michael Ignatieff’s handlers didn’t think of this before now.

Oh, but hold on…

Maybe Ignatieff’s people did think of this already.

Maybe Ignatieff’s people have already executed the plan.

Maybe Iggy and Keith have already changed places!

Ah, that would explain Ignatieff’s flip-flop on Iraq.

In Ignatieff’s NYT Magazine piece, he even declares, without apparent fear of cliché, that “politics is theater.”

Oh, gods, how did I miss that hint?!

Iggy’s already made the switch, and he’s been playing us all for suckers for who-knows-how-long.

That NYT Magazine piece was probably penned by “Michael Ignatieff” — not Michael Ignatieff. (Read: Keith Morrison has already perfected Ignatieff’s writing style.)

Damn, this Michael Ignatieff fella is playing postmodern politics at a high — and slippery — level.

At this rate, Iggy will be President of Canada one day soon.

I hereby concede:

Well played, Iggy, well played.

[1] This is the blogosphere, so why can’t I be self-referential, too? If those who came of age in the 1970s were dubbed the “Me Generation,” then the 2000s — the Triple Bagels — should be dubbed “Me Generation².”

[2] Tangent: My long-time comrade Claudius — a feline from Latvia — has been peering over my shoulder, with characteristic curiosity. Claudius insists that I stop calling Ignatieff a ‘cat.’ Claudius: “Ignatieff is not Cat. Ignatieff never be Cat. Do not call Ignatieff Cat ever.”

[3] Ignatieff’s biography of philosopher Isaiah Berlin is among the books on my shelves. It was given to me by my parents a few years ago. It’s a damned fine biography, if a bit hagiographic.

[4] Isaiah Berlin was born in Riga, Latvia. Riga is a great city. I’ve lived, worked, loved and suffered in Riga. Mark my words: Riga produces many kinds of different things, but “prophets” are not among those products. Profits, maybe.

[5] In my Dad’s day, and perhaps more recently, “safe” was slang for condom. I wonder if Michael Ignatieff ever referred to condoms as “safes.”

[6] Even historian Niall Ferguson, who was also pro-Iraq intervention, can point to early doomsaying statements that might be summarized as follows: ‘The Brits couldn’t handle Iraq in the early 20^th century, and they had stick-to-it-ness. Can the Americans really pull this off?’

______________

The ‘HillDog’ juggernaut

arkahar — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:02:03 +0000

Barack Obama’s in trouble — desperately so, it seems. How can he possibly stop the campaign juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton?

‘HillDog’ has money. She has experience, at least by osmosis. (‘Two for the price of one’ — remember?) And, to many, she seems the perfect GOP-Dem hybrid for uncertain times.

What’s an Obama to do?

QUERY: How soon is too soon to publish an autobiography?

______________

Perhaps he ought to hire Trey Parker and Matt Stone as advisers…

After all, there’s nothing like a nuke in ye ole snatch of yore to trip up a campaign…

______________

Jon Stewart blitzes Wolf

arkahar — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:59:42 +0000

Jon Stewart and his Daily Show crew have made delightful sport of media types and pundits in the non-fake newsscape.

Jon Stewart wasn’t playing monkey for Fucker Carlson in October 2004.

______________

Most memorably, a couple years ago: that’s when JS tore a strip off bow-tied dink Tucker Carlson and the latter’s CNN show, Crossfire.

Well, JS did it — again — last night. This time the bull’s eye was Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s sensory overload, The Situation Room.

During a postmortem of Larry King’s CNN interview with US Vice President Dick Cheney,* Wolf Blitzer let on:

“I didn’t know that he actually gets his pay cheque from the legislative branch of the US government, from the US Senate.”

Wolf Blitzer didn’t know about Cheney’s pay. Wolf isn’t even a real wolf.

______________

Oh, blast the invention of video archives! Because, next up, JS introduces a clip of Blitzer reciting that very same Cheney-fact on CNN, almost verbatim.

Of course, picking on media types can be — with refreshing and remarkable exceptions — like shooting fish in a barrel.

While they may be valuable transmitters and echo chambers for information, that doesn’t necessarily mean they absorb the facts or concepts at hand, nor does it mean they’re wise to the world.

Canuck TV genius Ken Finkleman understood this, and he pulled back the media curtain in his brilliant series, The Newsroom.

One of Finkleman’s finest comedic creations is “Toronto News” anchor Jim Walcott. Here’s Jim Walcott explaining his coverage of 9/11:

* Did you know? If Dick Cheney lived in Latvia, he’d have to spell his name like this: “Diks Čenijs.”

______________

Ingmar Bergman — RIP

arkahar — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:07:50 +0000

Ingmar Bergman 1918 — 2007

R I P

______________

There’s something about Alberto

arkahar — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:14:27 +0000

Alberto, indeed.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, that is.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales does not have semen in his hair. Well, probably not.

______________

I don’t recall seeing a high-level public official stonewall like that, in the way Gonzales does. Alberto doesn’t recall a goddam thing. Man, he’s been grilled hard. And the likes of Feinstein, Leahy, Specter, Schumer and Schumer’s hair plugs show no signs of letting up.

Gonzales’ performance probably ought to fall into my “HISTORICAL CHUTZPAH” file.

Gall, Gonzales, gall.

But the politics of the DoJ scandal and Gonzales Senate roast have been well-covered elsewhere.

My comment on the matter is, predictably enough, more superficial — like one New York senator’s plugs.

Senator Biden’s plugs allegedly gave him presidental confidence. His character is not based on Ruprecht.

______________

There’s something either cruelly hilarious about Gonzales — or downright creepy.

You see…

There’s something decidedly vacant about his look and manner as he fields questions. I’m not usually one for binary distinctions, but the conundrum that is Alberto Gonzales has to be explained in one of two ways. Or, perhaps, three.

First, he just might be a complete retard. When I first saw Gonzales recite his memorized answers for senators, the look in his eye oddly reminded me of something, but I couldn’t put my finger on exactly what. Then it came to me last night. When I was very young, there was a boy named Hugo who lived down the street. He would sit in the sandbox and try to eat rocks. For hours. He was determined to eat those rocks. Happily, imperviously. Gonzales looks determined in that very same way.

Second, Gonzales just might be a sociopath. Meaning: Alberto feels nothing. No conscience. If that’s the case, what else is there to say?

Actually, I shouldn’t be so glib, because Gonzales does matter.

Okay, maybe not to a Canuck like myself. After all, what Americans get up to politically is their business, and naturally has no bearing on Canada whatsoever. Americans impacting Canada? Perish the thought.

My principal concern is that Alberto Gonzales’ sociopathy, sneakiness and stupidity is going to give mainstream credence to certain vile prejudicial epithets that should’ve remained buried decades ago:

Prejudicial epithets like ‘Republicans are fucking morons.’ Just when Reagan and Ford were safely dead, thereby giving loyal GOP members another chance at intellectual cred, the Bushies arrive…

Cometh the hour, cometh the man, cometh The Rapture…

______________

The third possible explanation is the classic George Costanza counsel for beating a lie detector: ‘It’s not a lie if you believe it.’

What cracked me up tonight was a goof on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, one of the network’s flagship shows.

Anderson Cooper ‘keeps them honest’ — and suffers Erica Hill.

______________

As they teased two upcoming stories after commercials — one on anesethesia victims and the other about Gonzales being roasted by senators — they had a technical screw-up:

The image of Gonzales answering senatorial questions came up, but the caption for the anesthesia story ran across the screen: “Waking nightmare” (as opposed to “Gonzales under fire”).

Gorgeous transposition, eh?

Oh, gods bless you CNN.

Y’know…

For ‘keeping them honest.’

______________

HISTORICAL CHUTZPAH #1,882:Vladimir Putin and ‘colonial thinking’

arkahar — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:04:55 +0000

chutz·pah also hutz·pah n. Utter nerve; effrontery: “has the chutzpah to claim a lock on God and morality”—New York Times.[Yiddish khutspe, from Mishnaic Hebrew u pâ, from ap, to be insolent; see p in Semitic roots.]

______________

Oh, when it comes to chutzpah, Russian autocrats do exceedingly well.

This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to British calls for the extradition of ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi, the chief suspect in the murder of Aleksandr Litvenenko.

Was Putin being ironic when he dressed like this for his presidential address?

______________

And how does Putin respond to this demand?

Here’s Putin, on Russian state television:

“What they propose is an obvious vestige of colonial thinking. They must have clearly forgotten that Britain is no longer a colonial power, there are no colonies left and, thank God, Russia has never been a British colony.”

Um, right.

This coming from Putin, the increasingly dictatorial leader of Russia.

This coming from Putin, a former high-ranking officer of the KGB and former head of the FSB.

What I’m getting at is this:

One might expect the leader of Russia, an imperialist power, to comport himself with a bit more — hmm, let’s say — subtlety or modesty on matters colonial. If for no other reason than PR — to avoid drawing attention to Russia’s colonial crimes.

What can one possibly say?

When Vladimir Putin says this, it presents many of us with a Lehrer-Kissinger moment.

Indeed, there’s that old saw about persons in glass houses not chucking stones.

Of course, numerous Russians I’ve known possess that lovely sense of dark humour one encounters in the Near East. It’s sort of like irony, but with a gallows after-taste.

But, alas, Putin hasn’t displayed much in the way of humour — unless the topic is rape. In fact, Putin comes across as an astoundingly irony-deficient man.

So, again, what can one say?

Since the wannabe-tsar invokes history, I’ll respond in kind — with a suggested reading list historical in theme.

For head-spinning examinations of “colonial thinking,” here are a few mighty tomes (below) that are always worth reading or re-reading.

(Unless, of course, one distrusts books and facts; instead plumping for gut-checks and “truthiness”… like one fictional “Stephen Colbert” and one real-life Russian president who shall remain nameless in this last paragraph.)

Nadezhda Mandelstam, Hope Against Hope: A Memoir (1970; 1999)
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (1972)
Czeslaw Milosz, The Captive Mind (1956)
Robert Conquest, The Great Terror (1968; 1990; 2008)
David Remnick, Lenin’s Tomb: the Last Days of the Soviet Empire (1994)
Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History (2003)
Anna Politkovskaya, A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya (2003)

______________

TRAUMA STUDIES #213: The Butters Accident

arkahar — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:38:59 +0000

Leopold ‘Butters’ Stotch always means well. (Except, perhaps, in his guise as super-villain ‘Professor Chaos.’) But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Behold Butters:

______________

Gore’d out of our skulls: Live Earth

arkahar — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:16:16 +0000

So, Al Gore and some of the most bankrollable pop stars of the world joined forces on July 7, 2007 to raise our awareness about climate change.

Oh, and also spew pious platitudes for 24 hours, on TV and streaming video no less.

Al Gore makes us all feel good with his inconvenient truths.

______________

And why Live Earth? Because not all hipsters read newspapers. And folks like David Suzuki and Tad Homer Dixon just ain’t hip enough to take seriously, probably because they are too serious.

Okay, at the outset I should say this much:

It’s a most worthy cause, no bloody doubt. And, yes Virginia, there is such a thing as climate change.

There, I said it.

But, forgive me for cringing, and feeling a mite embarrassed, when such luminaries as Madonna, Duran Duran and Phil Collins come to the fore as spokespersons for a such a vital global cause.

Duran Duran’s frontman Simon Le Bon didn’t travel by jet to Wembley.

______________

Thus, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas rappeth unto you: “The world is dying. If people say it’s all right, they’re lying.”

Okay, okay. I know I’m coming off quite cynical, and maybe killing the feel-good buzz.

But I can’t help recalling writer David Rieff’s characterization of Bob Geldof’s Live 8, a couple years ago:

“A grotesque waste of hope.”

Rieff’s qualm with Geldof’s lofty aim and slogan — “End poverty now” — was that it oversimplified very complicated political issues. As if famine and debt relief were problems that could be solved by the stroke of G8 pens.

To my knowledge, the Gore-inspired Live Earth concerts — which took place around the world over the course of July 7 — aren’t prescriptive. The concerts and telecasts seem to be an appeal to hipsters everywhere, urging them to make pledges of a kind, like taking public transit at least once a week.

But, still…

More than once, I’ve wondered what someone from… say, outer Mongolia, Peshawar or [throat-clearing noise] Darfur… would make of our Western proclivity for appointing celebrities as our proxies in any guilt-weighted cause. The Western world, I guess, has the poorest conscience.

Pop concert attendance does not an environmental warrior make.

Indeed, there are celebrities who seem quite savvy, and use their celebrity quite effectively, and in good places. I’m thinking of the Bonos and Clooneys of the world.

But there are also the embarrassments, like that guy from Coldplay. That Coldplay guy described Live 8 as “the greatest thing that’s ever been organized in the history of the world.”

Um, yeah, right.

(Chris Martin. That’s his name. The Coldplay guy. I forgot. Not sure whether that’s due to the band’s surreptitiously sinister somnolence or a subconscious effort to forget Gweneth Paltrow.)

With these cause célèbre concerts, sentimentality always trumps politics. Perhaps because, in the main, politics just isn’t “cool” — at least in the world of mainstream pop music.

But here’s the thing:

Politics is what makes things happen in this world. Alas. And that fact, I’m sure, is something Bono and Clooney know too well.

But, here, in the West, we tend to live virtual lives, to an extent that really is foreign to many parts of this world.

Much is mediated. And we’re encouraged — all over the place — to aspire to the lifestyles of celebrities. We judge celebrities by their reputations, not their actions. So, naturally some might look to them for leadership on issues of the day.

It’s sad — and kind of absurd — that it takes flash, fantasy and bling to render Western publics widely interested in a cause.

And doesn’t it speak volumes that it took an Oscar award to rehabilitate Al Gore’s cred in the public imagination?

And isn’t it sad that people would want to actually want to listen to Al Gore for an extended period of time. I mean, he sounds so pedantic, almost condescending at times, and pompous to boot.

But that’s okay.

Chilli Peppers fans may know him as the all-knowing giant head on a screen — hero of the environment.

But, to me, Al Gore will always be the lonely, monomaniacal geek who visited South Park on a quest to destroy ManBearPig.

That’s precisely how I choose to remember him.

Al Gore: ‘Really, I’m being totally serial!’

______________

PS: Ah, that felt better. Incidentally, do you know what else happens over the course of 24 hours, and once a week, but with even more gore than Live Earth…?

______________

Do Canucks hate freedom?

arkahar — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:48:57 +0000

‘Support the troops.’

That’s a recurrent and deafening refrain south of the border, in the United States. It’s become increasingly shrill over recent years, what with Operation Enduring Freedom, the Iraq War and the subsequent Surge.

Alas, “Support Our Troops” has become something of a refrain and issue here in Canada as well.

Canadian PM Stephen Harper gets his war on.

______________

Traditionally, this kind of unquestioning rah-rah patriotism stoked by pro-war types in the US has helped Canadians differentiate themselves — culturally and politically — from their neighbours to the south.

(This differentiation game is sometimes a case of distinctions without much difference: to live in Toronto, as I do, is to live in a sometimes wannabe New York.)

This rah-rah American patriotism has been perceived by many Canadians — and not just those woolly types on the left — as akin to jingoism.

There are Canadians who revel in a series of self-comforting stories about how Canada is different — kinder, more tolerant, more European — than the US: healthcare, multiculturalism, secular-toned politics, political party choice, unions, public broadcasting, etc. Some of these stories have been worn thin, and even disputable.

But…

Historically, when it’s come to foreign and defence policies, Canada really has stood apart. Beyond its own borders, the Canadian government could not be accused of imperialism. In fact, we Canucks are still rather proud of our country’s peacekeeping record last century, post-World War Two.

And, right up to a few years ago, when the Bush administration was heading to war in Iraq, our leaders in Ottawa — then led by our Shawinigan tough-guy prime minister, Jean Chrétien — had the temerity to resist Washington’s pressure to join the pro-war march.

Ex-Canuck PM Jean Chrétien had backbone and cojones.

______________

There was a general feeling that Canadians were immune to that sort of patriotic siren song. When Dubya & Co. warbled their ‘With us or against us’ jingle to the US electorate (and the world), I think most Canadians shook their heads in condescending disbelief.

When Dubya pronounces that anyone who disagrees with his administration’s Iraq policy “hates freedom,” I’ve seen many Canadians frown with some apparent smugness. Canadians, you see, are more nuanced than that: we’re multicultural, tolerant, and we don’t deal in such black-and-white distinctions.

When our (then) opposition leader Stephen Harper criticized Chrétien’s decision to keep Canada out of Mess O’ Potamia — implicitly criticizing Chrétien on US TV, too — it slapped many of us as pathetic pandering to Washington. Canadians were above such saber-rattling.

Well, so much for that self-comforting myth.

These days, those on Canada’s right — our own ostensible patriots — are singing American-style hymns to the tune of ‘support the troops’ and ‘with us or against us.’

You see, while Canada may not be in Mess O’ Potamia (Iraq), Canada does have combat troops stationed in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, alongside other NATO forces. They are there as a contribution to the ‘Enduring Freedom’ fight against terrorism.

In Afghanistan, the ‘terrorists’ exist in the form of the predominantly homegrown Taliban — the fundamentalist Sunni Muslim movement that’s waging a guerilla war against the Afghan government and NATO troops.

Taliban warriors get their war on — with beards!

______________

For the past several months, Toronto fire trucks and ambulances have sported yellow-ribbon decals with a familiar pronouncement: “Support Our Troops.” The decals were to be removed by September. And Toronto Mayor David Miller — a generally progressive politician — was initially for the removal.

But news of the decal removal caused an outcry. ‘Toronto the good’ was decried as unpatriotic during a time of war. Right-leaning politicians pounced.

As Adam Vaughn, a Toronto councilor, put it:

“It’s being used in a political way to say that you’re either with us or against us. You either support the troops or you don’t support the troops and if you don’t put a yellow ribbon on your car, what does that say about you?”[1]

Then, as ever, events intervened:

Three Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan on June 20 — sadly, a recurrent news story on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and CTV.

Thus, Mayor Miller and other progressives backed off their decal-removal position: the decals would stay, stuck in place.

Miller said:

“I think it’s important that Toronto demonstrate its support for the troops given the perception that some how the city wasn’t supportive, which was never true.”[2]

The Afghanistan mission has also become a central issue for the Canadian government, which is now led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Polls show that most Canadians want the troops home by 2009, when the mission expires. But, when the parliament ended its session earlier this month, Harper spoke about seeking a consensus for extending the mission.

And, as Canadians received news reports about Canadian soldiers being killed in Afghanistan, we’ve also heard the odd grieving family member or friend saying or writing something eulogistic about the killed soldier’s dedication to democracy and freedom in Afghanistan.

Only an insensitive dick would pollute their grief with political disputation.

Yet, Canada’s right-leaning pundits — like their American counterparts — use this to mangle and muffle debate.

As Sun columnist Peter Worthington writes on June 26 about the death of those three Canadian soldiers by a roadside explosive device:

“The really ‘unfortunate’ thing, is that [description of the deaths by one Canadian general as no 'unfortunate accident'] will likely be used by those who dislike the military, or think we shouldn’t be there, or want us to immediately get out, to reinforce their argument.” [Emphasis added] [3]

For Canadians like myself — who treasure this country, care about Canada’s foreign/defence policies, mourn the unnecessary death of young soldiers — this muffling of debate is extremely distressing.

Of course, this is nothing new, as it’s been the patriotic impulse since time immemorial. And this is an impulse I do kind of understand: most of us want our country to do good; we don’t want our troops to die; and most of us dislike the prospect of our country’s policy being wrongheaded.

Yet, ’supporting the troops’ unquestioningly is equally wrongheaded. Canadians deserve a debate over the question: ‘Why are we in Afghanistan?’ The answer’s not a given. (And I’m not in the answer business — at least not during this blog.)

Yes, I can and do concur with those who point to the Taliban as an unsavoury and brutal movement that’s bad for human rights, women’s rights and security in that ravaged land. But that’s no plain reason for NATO to be there, propping up an Afghan government that governs but by the grace of Washington DC. There are many unsavoury regimes and movements around the world — but that does not mean that Canadian or NATO troops should be there.

Before the start of the Iraq War in 2003, I recall Eric Alterman — one of those woolly progressives from The Nation magazine — articulating his opposition to the democracy-building arguments of American hawks: He was blunt in saying that he cares more about the welfare of US democracy than democracy in Iraq. And that’s the point: An electorate deserves proper debate — not patriotic piffle. Fortunately for Canadians, democratic dissent is still in prospect: The NDP, our left-wing opposition party, has been unequivocal and vocal in demanding a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan.

NDP leader Jack Layton calls for withdrawal. He is not the Video Professor.

______________

And, recently, in Quebec, there were anti-war protests on the eve of Quebecois troops going to Kandahar.

(Quebec Premier Jean Charest channeled Bushismo in his encouragements for the troops: “You are the acting arm of Quebec pacifism. You are liberators.” [4] Of course, Quebeckers’ opposition to entanglement in Canadian military adventures has a long history, so I doubt Charest’s words resonated too widely in la belle province.)

All of this is a longwinded way of expressing my dismay over the resurgence of this unquestioning rah-rah patriotic sentiment in Canada, where it’s always felt out of context (to me and my ilk, anyway).

When I hear that imperative “Support the Troops,” it reminds me of an equally unthinking command recalled by a one-time cult member I knew: ’Minds, like shoes, must always be left at the doorstep.’

[1] “Toronto to keep ’support the troops’ decals,” CBC News, June 20, 2007. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/06/20/ribbon-toronto.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Peter Worthington, “Support never more important,” Edmonton Sun, June 26, 2007. Link: http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/06/26/4290894-sun.html

[4] “Protesters Rally as Soldiers March in Quebec City,” CBC News, June 22, 2007. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/22/scheffer-quebec-070622.html?ref=rss

______________

New Yorker cartoons

arkahar — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:18:11 +0000

In the main, I don’t get those ostensibly famous and clever cartoons from the New Yorker. I’m probably not sophisticated enough.

But, that said, I treasure the magazine. I believe editor David Remnick walks on journalistic water.

But when it comes to the cartoons, I suppose I’m in the minority with Elaine Benes, who didn’t get them either.

Case in point:

Okay, I “get” most of them.

They’re just rarely that funny.

I guess it’s one of those culturally divisive markers:

Beatles v Stones

Saving Private Ryan v Thin Red Line

New Yorker cartoons v Wondermark or Ted Rall.

I suppose humour is culpably subjective, and rather particular.

Case in point:

When Christopher Hitchens — who’s no slouch in the wit department himself (except when he’s on Islamic themes) — calls Sarah Silverman “a culpably unfunny person.”

I do find Sarah Silverman funny… most of the time. Perhaps she tries too hard at times, working the gross-out factor too hard… but she is funny. (Then again, my wife Lori doesn’t think Silverman’s funny either. Maybe she’s plotting with Hitchens? In that case, the battle lines are drawn…)

Okay, so, Hitchens might have been right about Sarah Silverman’s MTV crack about Paris Hilton/special treatment in jail/penis-shaped bars/chipping teeth. It was too easy — like kicking cripples. Gratuitous — and therefore less funny.

But she is good on other counts:

But, I digress…

About New Yorker cartoons…

And here’s a tie-in to Hitchens…

This one is somewhat amusing:

But, for those in the Elaine Benes minority, I can only commend you to the long-forgotten Neue Yolker cartoons, which also have a long — if neglected — tradition.

Search around or keep your eyes peeled. Neue Yolker cartoons were like New Yorker cartoons, only that the former had soul:

______________