In an era where Bush = Hitler, Ashcroft = Hitler (Rumsfeld would equal Rommel, if the left had any clue who Rommel was), I suppose it should come as a relief that there are still some individuals who are denied the right to invoke Nazi Germany, even in ill-considered "fun". The entire media kerfuffle over Prince Harry should seem bizarre in today's atmosphere of rampant "Nazi-ism", if it weren't so completely predictable.
Doesn't CS Lewis somewhere have an observation that it's a trick of the devil's to persuade an age to go rushing to the gunwhales away from the sin to which they are in no danger of succumbing - tipping the boat into the sin from which they are in danger? (If anybody has the actual quote, please send it along so I can replace the unwieldy sentence above.) Europe in general and the UK in particular are in ZERO danger of succumbing to the menace of German Nazism. Meanwhile, genuine fascists dressed in keffiyehs are engaged in thuggery, subversion, assassination, and terrorism on European soil. Can't we persuade the journalists busy inveighing against poor Harry to take on that cause instead?Frankly, I personally find it much less disturbing that Harry wore a swastika to a party that his father, the future King Charles III, is reported to enjoy relaxing in Islamic bedouin robes at home.
Poor Harry might have saved himself a lot of trouble by adding a George W. Bush mask to the costume.
Kate, try The Scewtape Letters. Can't find my copy or I'd find the page for you.
The Nazis did bomb the bangers and mash out of Britain, though...
holy crap. prince charles as a muslim? oh man. the implications!
i don't really see anything wrong with the costume. it was after all, just a costume. would anyone have objected to a mongol outfit?
Hitler was a maniac who started by attacking weaker nations and no one stopped him because no one was militarily prepared to stop such an overwhelming force. So the Geneva convention nations folded and let him roll over most of a disjointed region of the world until finally someone (the Brittish and her allies without the U.S.A.) said enough is enough and the greatest war in history was started. That being said, I don't think you can compare anyone in the world today to Hitler and it gets a little tired. It was a different time in a different world and comparing Donald Rumsfeld, or George Bush, or Saddam Hussein (or Prince Harry for that matter) to Hitler is ridiculous. The Americans attacked Iraq not because of weapons of mass destruction (as some would have you believe) and not because of oil (as others would have you believe) but because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to America at some level. I believe that the decision to invade was incorrect, not because of the usual Michael Moore-esque reasons but because there are legitimate threats in the world and the most powerful military in the world is engaged in keeping a bunch of hooligans at bey and watching elections that aren't going to matter, instead of being engaged where there is a legitimate threat.
Some truly good men tried to be president of the United States and it pains me to see our neighbour making such bad choices for their leader (i'll get to us later) they had war heros and captains of indistry, honourable men, as choices to lead their country to start with, and the choice on the ballot was between two spoiled brats, one who avoided service when he should have served, and one who bemoaned the fact that he did serve.
Our country now has a chance to help lead the world but we have yet another millionaire Montreal lawyer (think back you'll find that except for Flora, Joe, and John who collectively didn't run the country for a year, a millionare montreal lawyer has been prime minister since the 60's) who's more concerned what's happening in Ottawa and what a few idiot MP's are doing than the state of the nation or the world.
I still belive we live in the greatest country in the world. I wish you did too. You shouldn't concentrate so much on what happens south of the border and concentrate on what happens in your own back yard (after all you do live and VOTE here). I read your blog from time to time on a lunch break or when I'm sitting waiting for something to happen on my computer (Windows) and you seem to be single minded in your attention to American politics. You're like a pary hack towing the Republican party line. Politics isn't black and white. Just because I don't believe in capital punishment doesn't mean I don't think our taxes are too high or that privatizing medicare is a bad thing. These things are not mutually exculsive. I think Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. I thik Al Franken is a short thin idiot. Machael Moore is just a guy tryin' to make a buck off of his movies and books so a divided America is his bounty (gotta love capitalism and lexus liberals).
We have government here too, and a person with your zeal would be welcomed in participating in the process, not just as a critic but as a participant (think of yourself in a debate against the NDP candidate in your riding. You'd shred him). We have enough pundits. It's obvious you are intelligent and informed and we sure could use your help on this side of the border before the puppies and kitties party runs the whole place. The Chinese just bought Noranda and Husky, and more software develpment is being done in India than anywhere else on the planet. We'd better start looking at real threats before we're eating curry with chopsticks.
Just a guy with some time on his hands
Ken
P.S. Condolences on the loss of your mother. My prayers for you and your family.
Thanks Ken,
But if you check the posts, you'll find that they cover a range of topics, and are international in nature. I probably write on the media in general, more than any other single issue.
Also, I write for my own entertainment, so it makes no sense to try to craft my blog to suit anyone's else's political agenda. (And I'm temperamentally unsuitable for formal politics). Take it or leave it, eh?
That said, one of the largest hurdles for Canadian conservatives to overcome is anti-Americanism. This is largely fueled by Liberal governments looking to exploit US-bashing, and supported by a Liberal media that is only too happy to report half truths, popular myth and outright misrepresentations.
Remember the Liberals' "Choose Your Canada" ads?
If you watch closely, you'll find that most of my US topics fall into the category of refuting myths or rebutting criticisms or factual inaccuracy surrounding US conservativism/Republicanism. Not because I want to convince Americans to vote Republican, but because the left in Canada exploits anti-Americanism (and misreporting in the US and Canadian media) to place Canadian conservatives on the defensive.
I wish Harper et al wouldn't fall for it, but they do.
I've always felt that the first step to altering Canadians attitudes towards a host of policy issues is to deny them the American bogeyman. If I can place a little bit of information before my readers to make them wonder if they really are getting the "whole story" when it comes to current events and US politics, then I've done my small part for Canadian conservativism.
Hi Ken, I kind of think of Kate as one of a new breed of transnational commentators who have risen to fill a new need.
Although we are different countries, we are increasingly becoming one people as the world grows smaller, technology expands, and the global economy demands old barriers shrink.
This is disturbing to all of us in some ways.
I vaguely remember a world with no TV, no passenger jet aircraft, no computers, when America would shortly think that Sgt. Preston of the Yukon and his dog King was the face of Canada.
In the computer world we need hosts like Kate to advance conversation on the level of Ideas about our rapidly integrating cultures.
Canada just got Fox -- think of what another 30 years will bring. How much difference will kids in elementary school find in North American by the time they are 50?
And let's face it, we've got big enemies and big challenges. We need to come to modern agreements in respect to the levels of mutual cooperation and shared values required to protect us all and advance the needs of our trading block.
Governments alone are not going to help us to reach each other on the level of our humanity as people. And neither is TV.
My view is that people like Kate are facilitators for a new and needed connection, who are helping us describe who we are to each other outside the arena of hype and spin.
North America is becoming a new world, and there is a need for those who help us talk about it.
Comparing Rumsfeld to Rommel is like comparing Aurthur Eggletonn to George Patton.
There is no point. They are unrelated.
Plus, I don't think Rumsfeld is about leave a bomb in his boss' office.
Josh
As opposed to the comparison of Bush to Hitler.... etc?
Well, I figured the first one I don't need to bother with.
But, being an amateur historian who happens to like studying armed conflict, I find Rommel a facinating character. His exploits show an amazing personal courage and a comprehension of battlefield tactics that among the best of his day.
His political and social values can be debated, but his later involvement in an attempt to kill Hitler and stop the war highlight interesting parts of his character.
Rumsfeld does have the distinction of serving for 4 years as an aviator and flight instructor for the U.S. Navy, and not once trying to defer being drafted to serve his country's military.
Josh
Ken's post suggested something that might be worth mentioning.
One will notice that most of our recents Presidents have been state governors -- Bush of Texas, Clinton of Arkansas, Reagan of California, Carter of Georgia. In addition, only Clinton was a lawyer, and of course Bush won running against a lawyer.
In the US, governors are generally perceived to be closer to the people and therefore more in touch with average people's lives and issues. Governors have to be found acceptable to a state population where their warts are more easily perceived. So while it is true that both Bush and Kerry were born to successful families, only one of them had to measure up to the grassroots brand of scrutiny that a state office entails.
The reason governors keep winning is because we like our Presidents to come from outside the Beltway. This can be seen as an echo of the argument between Hobbes and Locke. It is often thought that Hobbes's view of government has been more influential in Europe, and Locke's influence has been more profoundly felt in the US.
According to author Ronald E. Merrill, "Hobbes says that government is inherently good, and thus just, because it benefits the people. The approach of Locke says that government may or may not be good; it is just only when it is the choice of the people."