Archive for the ‘SILLY EDITORIALS’ Tag

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: AN EDITORIAL PRAISES SOME WORDS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN CANADA BY MICHAEL IGNATIEFF AS WISE – WISE? IGNATIEFF? – AND PRAISE FROM THE GLOBE THESE DAYS IS DAMNING INDEED   Leave a comment

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSES TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

When a Globe and Mail editorial of the Stackhouse Era bestows the word “wise’” upon anything or anyone, it must be taken as prima facie evidence of nonsense being praised.

Of course, in the case of Ignatieff, the more thoughtful and critical have long known him as a rather foolish man.

His record of supporting America’s war and torture made nonsense of his supposed position as a defender of human rights.

But that kind of thing is common enough: great wealthy American institutions often bestow titles and awards and positions – dressed up to sound meaningful in terms of human rights and democratic values – to those who really serve the imperial interest, as Ignatieff very much did.

And Ignatieff’s “political career” is one long painful episode of arrogance and poor judgment, an effort which left the country far worse off than it had been when he returned.

It truly is ridiculous to attribute wisdom to a man like this.

But then so is it to call Tony Blair a man of honor or peace, as the huge stream of awards and sinecures flowing to him all claim.

Ignatieff were best not heard from again and left forgotten, but the man’s bulging ego will not let that be so.

And it is the job of Globe editorials in almost all things these days to make a silk purse of a sow’s ear.
______________________________________________

As to the decline in democracy in the country, what can you say of a man who accepted being parachuted into a riding and refused even to live there?

And a man who was parachuted into the leadership itself by the efforts of a group of party insiders?

Of a man who didn’t face the democratic test in either case?

But I’m not arguing that Ignatieff is worse than Harper.

Harper is an instinctive petty tyrant with no genuine respect for democratic values, as he has demonstrated time and time again.

He is, simply, the nastiest piece of work we’ve had as prime minister.

And he sits there as “majority” prime minister owing to Ignatieff’s inept leadership and Ignatieff’s elevated idea of himself and his abilities.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: EDITORIAL ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ASSERTS A NEW ROMNEY AND A HESITANT OBAMA MEAN A NEW START TO THE RACE   Leave a comment

 

 

 

JOHN CHUCKMAN

POSTED RESPONSE TO AN EDITORIAL IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

A “new” Romney?

A “hesitant” Obama?

Yes, perhaps for one hour on a particular night in one year.

God knows Romney had nothing to lose: he could go for broke – that is, “broke” for him, which isn’t much.

And God knows what was running through Obama’s mind – maybe, a deeply concerning fact on national security or some other matter he had just been advised of.

But we all know that performance is not Obama in full campaign mode.

And we equally know that Romney offers no special promise of performance: he’s been running for president for at least five years (he spent $20 million of his own money in a desperate dash for the nomination in 2008), so we know Romney’s attitudes and behaviors, and they are not attractive nor are they even interesting.

Romney is a man who has never done anything but pursue wealth, and he has done so ruthlessly and without principle (as in keeping money offshore) – a mighty dull and unpromising individual to do anything else and a man the majority of people can no more identify and sympathize with than those in Canada can identify with that icy ideologue, Stephen Harper (whose “majority” represents only 39% of voters and is only an artifact of the democratic deficit in our voting system ).

Only a foolish person would draw definitive conclusions from that brief time on the stage and assert that the campaign was “beginning.”

But, as readers know, Globe editorials under John Stackhouse have reached an all-time record for juvenile, narrow thinking.