some people think his column was the most morally reprehensible thing to happen since, say, 9/11. im not one to side with religious fundamentalists or violent revolutionaries - really, im too much of a pussy for either ideology. is he morally unfit to govern?
he claims he was applauding the aesthetic side of the attack, given the symbolic importance of the targets. too bad theyre full of people. yeah, even though theyre full of hawks and commerce majors, i still dont accept that killing them is laudable.
then, he made the lone decent point about the tv value of seeing 'people like us' suffering, and the callousness with which we receive foreign death tolls.
terrorism is then presented as the only feasible way to counter the military capabilities of the united states. do states have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force? well, it's certainly a cornerstone of liberal democracy. i dont accept that non-state actors are always less justified in using force. i dont think the usa is off the ethical hook as far as civilian deaths are concerned simply because they hire a lot of scientists and technicians to improve aiming devices. everyone who is this firmly committed to any ideology supports some kind of just war theory in which their values are worth a bunch of other people's lives.
how committed are you to liberal democracy? what the hell is someone who isnt doing running for office in a liberal democracy? is dissent important in the house of commons? these are all interesting questions that we will cover in east van marxists 101.
why am i defending him? because its been a while since ive been able to do something blatantly partisan, ok. this is a fucking politics blog, people. everyone in the green party is the awesomest person in the election!!! IN YOUR FACE, OTHER PARTIES!
personally, i wouldnt have picked someone from the republic as a candidate. the mainstream media just loves to chew marxists to bits, and im doubting the revolution is going to start on the house floor... but what are the damn odds of taking kingsway, anyway?
how do you know he's a marxist? i'd say he's an aesthete, however dubious, with a taste for voyeurism of grand scale vandalism.
if i had the chance, i'd probably vote for him to--just for the drama. im tired of the politics of purity. on and on with morals and ethics.
potvin on a parliamentary platform--too good to be true.
it would only be a matter of time till he purchased his first $500 suit, which would immediately lead to some very lucrative ideological revisionism.
but i think im putting the bomb before the igniter here.
i can't help it.
think of the political aethetics of this guy reading a column like that into the hansard.
the conservatives would have to challenge him to a fight on the floor just to keep up their self-respect and the speaker would have to give actual thought to swinging the Mase.
Posted by: harry salmon | 23.04.2007 at 09:50