ok, fine, ill hate on each of them for a few lines, only because i know
that liberal partisans are fond of this corner of the intarwebs:
if bob rae's last name was not rae (a longtime liberal surname), and if
his brother was not that guy with all the money, what are the odds that
this ndp premier would be a front-runner in a liberal leadership race?
old boys club = very sucks.
ignatieff. ok, im not one to agree with the pope (aka ratzinger...)
but when he went on that diatribe against relativism, i really hope he
meant ignatieff on human rights. the liberals are running a guy who
thinks it is intellectually and morally impossible to take a strong
stance in matters of human rights. see people who put effort into their writing for details.
need a shorter version? here is aguirre's take: in
much of his work he begins by describing what is wrong with his subject
(the war, imperialism, violations of human rights, the lack of
universal health coverage in the US … ) and then pauses to say “and
yet, and yet”. With that he turns to a counter-argument which lifts us
up from puny thoughts into the heaven of higher values ... This technique of “and yet, and yet”, with
its challenging headlines and robust beginnings, is a useful way of
capturing the attention of readers, particularly the liberal ones. You
do not expect to find yourself reading the sort of article that might
be written by neocons such as William Kristol and Richard Perle.
Similar rhetorical methods are used by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, another liberal conservative who likes to play the enfant terrible. Ignatieff seems to be at once “thoughtful” and “provocative”, but what he does is trickery, the smuggling of concepts.
ignatieff is all about the propaganda-spitting.
as a pseudo-academic-in-training, i should be helping his academically
unrigorous ass out the door of the ivory tower, shoving it into 'dirty
political whore land' where it belongs. unfortunately, despite my lack
of trust in the present electoral system, i feel morally queasy
endorsing any role he may take in the public sphere.
now, ill add that i went to a ken dryden event (those who know me will
know why). he has brilliant interpersonal skills. absent from any
meeting with the man is the saccharine braying typical of so many
politicos. dryden is calm and talks to one person/group at a time, by
virtue of his mindfulness in employing the inside voice. he is also a
very thoughtful speaker (perhaps too thoughtful in that he can add a
few more examples to a point than a speech should accommodate) and
confronted the typical bc questions of "what are you going to do about
draconian marijuana legislation" and "what exactly does the liberal
party stand for, anyway" in a satisfying enough way that im pissed off
that more liberals arent taking a fucking chance for once in their
lives and picking someone who isnt pseudo-martin (rae's old money and
old family) or pseudo-trudeau (ignatieff's many degrees + being an
entitled little rich douche). it would be nice if you could at least
make him somewhat of a front-runner, it will bring some substance to
your little convention.
