Political Insanity

I used to read Bourque all the time–until I realized it was just recycled Drudge with Canadian headlines.

What’s more, the headlines range from the irritating to the bizarre. Check out this one, linking to an AP story “A Look at U.S. Daily Deaths in Iraq”, from the AP News online service of TBO.com:

IRAQ: 422 DEAD US SOLDIERS BUT NO SADDAM NO OSAMA & NO WMD

Hey, Bourkey: how about this instead. “422 dead U.S. soldiers. Afghanistan terrorist government ousted. Mass murdering genocidal rapist Saddam Hussein forced into hiding. Botulinum and other bioweapons discovered in Iraq. Osama dead or injured too severely to appear on video.”

Anti-war a**holes really piss me off.

In their editorial this morning, the National Post suggests that our long national nightmare is almost over.

Just 23 more days of limbo

At long last, Canadians have been given a timetable for the transition of power in our country’s highest office. Sadly, it has come months — if not years — too late, and only after some of the most childish political gamesmanship Ottawa has ever seen. We hope the governing Liberals put all this behind them quickly: Canadians deserve a government that is focused on sound policy, not internal struggles. [...]

With yesterday’s announcement, and the two men’s apparent willingness to tolerate each other for as long as the transition will take, we hope this ugly chapter is behind us. In coming months, Mr. Martin must waste no time shifting his caucus’s focus from petty gamesmanship to weightier matters.

I came across a new website today, The Truth Laid Bear, with a helpful auto-counter to keep people apprised of the TRUE effect of the war in Iraq:

Iraqis Tortured to Death Today By Saddam Hussein: 0

I scrolled down the archive page featuring this counter, and looked into the comments section. “Brendan” flatulated that the USA shouldn’t have gone into Iraq because it is morally inconsistent: Western help, according to him, assists other “monster” nations in their “careers of rape and torture,” and therefore (one supposes) we ought not stop Saddam’s sons from raping and torturing Iraqi children. Thankfully, a “Shannon Love” responded to this non-sequitur with the following:

Brendan: I think you’re right. The U.S. does support brutal regimes around the world. This all started in WWII when we gave material and moral support to the megacide [sic] Joseph Stalin in support of his war [against] Hitler even though at time he had already murder[ed] more of his own people than Hitler ever would.

A very moving piece in the LA Times, by David Gelernter.

I can add nothing of value to what Gelernter says. Please read it.

I’m intrigued by the media reports concerning Jessica Lynch, the US soldier rescued after being held as a POW in Iraq. According to CNN (the same reports are also widely published elsewhere),

Iraqi doctors who treated former prisoner of war Jessica Lynch dismissed on Friday claims made in her biography that she was raped by her Iraqi captors.

[...]

Dr. Mahdi Khafazji, an orthopedic surgeon at Nasiriyah’s main hospital performed surgery on Lynch to repair a fractured femur and said he found no signs that she was raped or sodomized.

Khafazji, speaking at his private clinic in Nasiriyah, said he examined her extensively and would have detected signs of sexual assault. He said the examination turned up no trace of semen.

This has to be read to be believed.

According to the National Post, the Canadian government–in the person of Immigration Minister Dennis Coderre–won’t release the names and photographs of known war criminals who have become fugitives from Canadian justice. Evidently the war criminals’ RIGHT TO PRIVACY supersedes the rights of Canadians not to be threatened by assorted serial rapists and genocidal maniacs.

War criminals.

I can’t really get my mind around this. Is this meant to represent some nascent Liberal voting bloc? Are the Grits worried about offending the many War Criminal lobby groups out there? Is there NO-ONE whom the Liberals view as a security threat to Canada? Apart from Westerners and Alliance voters, I mean.

There are still people today who claim Iraq was better off under Saddam than under Bush. These people are cretins.

From yesterday’s New York Times:

Um Haydar was a 25-year-old Iraqi woman whose husband displeased Saddam Hussein’s government. After he fled the country in 2000, some members of the Fedayeen Saddam grabbed her from her home and brought her out on the street. There, in front of her children and mother-in-law, two men grabbed her arms while another pulled her head back and beheaded her. Baath Party officials watched the murder, put her head in a plastic bag and took away her children.

I just noticed this, from the article about Sasky voting I cite below:

Calvert said this election will be a “pivitol” event for the province.

Man, I hope that’s not a direct quote from a Calvert press release. Cuz if it is, hes a sooper smart guy who shud definertly be the preemer.

… which sounds like the opening to a VERY interesting article indeed.

Instead, it’s about this:

All socialists are either dictators or sheep.

Socialism is about forcing people to do what’s in Their Best Interest (or, in a variant form, Society’s Best Interest). People who support socialist parties must only think one of two things:

(1) I know what’s best for other people, so they should be made to do what I tell them. Government is the way I will force them. I am a happy benevolent dictator.

(2) I don’t know what’s best for me, so I should be told what to do. Government is the way to make me do the right thing. I am a sheep, and I need a benevolent dictator.

This headline is irritating.

Calvert sees vote as being ‘pivotal’

Lorne Calvert is the leader of Saskatchewan’s socialist party (which sounds like the beginning of the insomniac’s favorite sleepytime story…). As far as he is concerned, today’s provincial election is pivotal. Which, of course, it is–because if the voters in Saskabush have at least the sense God gave fetal mice, he’ll be out of a job by tomorrow.

But for the rest of us, including Sasky voters, it’s hard to see why this election is so pivotal. Frankly, like all Canadian elections in recent years (with the possible exception of the usual Quebec “we’re leaving” “we’re not leaving” B.S.), you couldn’t tell the policy platforms of the major parties apart. Right-wing party? Left-wing party? Give me a break. They all support the same g**d*** things (socialized medicine, handouts to favoured businesses, professional lying, etc etc), so ultimately it’s fair to say “who gives a poop?”