Thursday, June 10, 2004
Election Content of this Post Exceeds 80%
For some reason, after (relatively) ignoring election talk for the past few weeks in this space, today's paper inspired me. Go!
Much Ado About Judaism
Future political opponents of mine, take note. Save the content of this blog, lest it not be up in ten years' time. Brand me with the Black Mark (er, so to speak), worthy adversaries, for I am about to agree with Malcom Azania.
(Disclosure: I was supposed to be campaigning for Mr. Azania last night for ten bucks and hour, but that fell through when my mother passed along a relevant phone message while I was sleeping. She really should have known better - just because I'm replying, doesn't mean I'm awake, as I am quite capable of making conversation while asleep. Which is more than you can say about me when I'm awake. I digress.)
Azania, for the unenlightened, is the NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona whose 1994 comments on Jews and whitesupremacy (I have no idea why it's one word - must be a leftist thing) have caused a furor since being identified on Colby Cosh's website (which regular readers of this space will recall as a key component of my link bridge with the incomparable Paul Wells. The most oft-quoted portion of Azania's comments is "The group that is defined as "Jews" in the USA is most notable for their relations to us, IMHO, in that they are WHITE."
Now, I do not know Malcolm Azania per se, but I've certainly met him. Hell, give that I've been following the advocacy efforts of the U of A Students' Union over the past years, I sometimes think I've heard his voice more than me own mammy's. And never once have I been given reason to believe that he was anti-semetic - a prima dona, sure, and a little too given to pseudo-intellectual rhetoricizing (though I trust that none of you, oh regular readers of this space, object to that?), but no anti-semite. So, responsible and underemployed pundit that I am, I elected to read his entire 1994 post. The entire thing - once you get past the too abundant (and characteristically pompous) poli sci-speak - boils down to the following chain of logic.
1. Whites are supreme in our society.
2. Most White people, consciously or unconsciously, propogate this system out of self-interest.
3. Most Jews are White people.
4. Therefore, most Jews propogate White supremacy.
That's it. That's all there was. Even the above comment (re: Jews being WHITE) was immediately preceded by "Anyone who asserts that ALL Jews at ALL times are either our friends or our enemies in ALL THAT THEY DO is obviously wrong.", which frames it in rather a more reasonable context.
The post *is* stupid, of course, its "us vs. them" tone hardly conducive to the racial harmony that its author purports to seek, but anti-semitic? I've read Leon Uris books that were more so.
And, as long as I'm heaping scorn and derision in random directions, let's save a heaping for those who have suggested that Azania "resign" - resign from what? The man does not hold any office. Surely people aren't suggesting that he should "resign" (or, more correctly, "withdraw") his candidacy on the basis of this? A squeaky-clean past is not a requirement to present one's self for election in a democracy.
The CBC's Al Ray on the NDP: "We've got Ed Broadbent rapping, Jack Layton calling everybody "Brother", and now allegations of anti-semitism. How long before we start seeing Nation of Islam bodyguards?"
Strange Bedfellows
Why is reddest of Tories, Joe Clark, endorsing Blue Tory turned Blue Liberal Scott Brison?
Strange Bedfellows, Part 2
Why is committed socialist and former Alberta Tory education minister Dave King endorsing Anne McLellan?
Bah!
Why is The Journal, an entity which ought to be looking out for the public interest over the interests of political parties, urging Stephen Harper to "control" his MPs? Is not a varied and engaging public discourse my our parliamentarians more in the public interest than party leaders commanding automotons?
Bah! Part 2
This talk of "free votes" continues to vex me. First of all, of course, as I hasten to point out at every opportunity, *all* votes in parliament are free votes, until party leaders wield a weapon more potent than caucus expulsion.
Beyond that, however, comes the way that party leaders seem to be using the concept of a "free vote" to weasel out of taking commitments. The impression seems to be that by declaring a vote on something a "free vote", nobody has to take a public position until after the election campaign. The opposite should occur - as soon as MPs know that they will be voting their consciences (or whatever MPs have in lieu of), whether they like it or not, we should see debate during the election campaign become *more* engaging, as candidates for MP in local ridings are suddenly forced to take their own decisions. Instead, they refuse to talk about anything on which the party lacks a platform. Bah, indeed.
Meanwhile, back in provincial politics. . .
Lest we forget that Ralph Klein is still crazy, he has speculated about calling an election, for no apparent reason, in the Fall. I assume he's just jealous of all of the attention the federal leasers are getting right now.
Amusing e-mails received by Steve today
First, I received an e-mail that thought that it was June 20, which means that it will be at the top of my inbox until then. This would not be so bad if the subject line was not "Re: Orgasms". And no, it's not spam.
I also received an e-mail from Kail Ross, which is always a pleasure. For those of you who don't know Kail, he makes me look like a starry-eyed idealist. Anyway, he was writing, as a Valued Constituent of mine, to let me know his thoughts on the motion before Students' Council to allocate $14 030 to hold an open air concert to celebrate PSE. Some of the better excerpts:
"If all we're looking for his media attention, here is what I propose: for $7.50 we could get Anand drunk (assuming Bacardi Breezes still cost ~$2.50), strip him down and get him to dance with a 'support PSE' cock ring on."
"Although I'm in favor of a number of [the proposed bands], I am also ~50 years older than the mean student age. You want kids to come? Bring them kids bands."
"I find it interesting that Blatz is taking this motion so early in the year, something I should have done with VIDS oh so long ago when Council was more retarded than usual."
And finally, a word from my hit tracker
I seem to have a regular-ish reader from the University of New South Wales. I cannot imagine why.
|
For some reason, after (relatively) ignoring election talk for the past few weeks in this space, today's paper inspired me. Go!
Much Ado About Judaism
Future political opponents of mine, take note. Save the content of this blog, lest it not be up in ten years' time. Brand me with the Black Mark (er, so to speak), worthy adversaries, for I am about to agree with Malcom Azania.
(Disclosure: I was supposed to be campaigning for Mr. Azania last night for ten bucks and hour, but that fell through when my mother passed along a relevant phone message while I was sleeping. She really should have known better - just because I'm replying, doesn't mean I'm awake, as I am quite capable of making conversation while asleep. Which is more than you can say about me when I'm awake. I digress.)
Azania, for the unenlightened, is the NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona whose 1994 comments on Jews and whitesupremacy (I have no idea why it's one word - must be a leftist thing) have caused a furor since being identified on Colby Cosh's website (which regular readers of this space will recall as a key component of my link bridge with the incomparable Paul Wells. The most oft-quoted portion of Azania's comments is "The group that is defined as "Jews" in the USA is most notable for their relations to us, IMHO, in that they are WHITE."
Now, I do not know Malcolm Azania per se, but I've certainly met him. Hell, give that I've been following the advocacy efforts of the U of A Students' Union over the past years, I sometimes think I've heard his voice more than me own mammy's. And never once have I been given reason to believe that he was anti-semetic - a prima dona, sure, and a little too given to pseudo-intellectual rhetoricizing (though I trust that none of you, oh regular readers of this space, object to that?), but no anti-semite. So, responsible and underemployed pundit that I am, I elected to read his entire 1994 post. The entire thing - once you get past the too abundant (and characteristically pompous) poli sci-speak - boils down to the following chain of logic.
1. Whites are supreme in our society.
2. Most White people, consciously or unconsciously, propogate this system out of self-interest.
3. Most Jews are White people.
4. Therefore, most Jews propogate White supremacy.
That's it. That's all there was. Even the above comment (re: Jews being WHITE) was immediately preceded by "Anyone who asserts that ALL Jews at ALL times are either our friends or our enemies in ALL THAT THEY DO is obviously wrong.", which frames it in rather a more reasonable context.
The post *is* stupid, of course, its "us vs. them" tone hardly conducive to the racial harmony that its author purports to seek, but anti-semitic? I've read Leon Uris books that were more so.
And, as long as I'm heaping scorn and derision in random directions, let's save a heaping for those who have suggested that Azania "resign" - resign from what? The man does not hold any office. Surely people aren't suggesting that he should "resign" (or, more correctly, "withdraw") his candidacy on the basis of this? A squeaky-clean past is not a requirement to present one's self for election in a democracy.
The CBC's Al Ray on the NDP: "We've got Ed Broadbent rapping, Jack Layton calling everybody "Brother", and now allegations of anti-semitism. How long before we start seeing Nation of Islam bodyguards?"
Strange Bedfellows
Why is reddest of Tories, Joe Clark, endorsing Blue Tory turned Blue Liberal Scott Brison?
Strange Bedfellows, Part 2
Why is committed socialist and former Alberta Tory education minister Dave King endorsing Anne McLellan?
Bah!
Why is The Journal, an entity which ought to be looking out for the public interest over the interests of political parties, urging Stephen Harper to "control" his MPs? Is not a varied and engaging public discourse my our parliamentarians more in the public interest than party leaders commanding automotons?
Bah! Part 2
This talk of "free votes" continues to vex me. First of all, of course, as I hasten to point out at every opportunity, *all* votes in parliament are free votes, until party leaders wield a weapon more potent than caucus expulsion.
Beyond that, however, comes the way that party leaders seem to be using the concept of a "free vote" to weasel out of taking commitments. The impression seems to be that by declaring a vote on something a "free vote", nobody has to take a public position until after the election campaign. The opposite should occur - as soon as MPs know that they will be voting their consciences (or whatever MPs have in lieu of), whether they like it or not, we should see debate during the election campaign become *more* engaging, as candidates for MP in local ridings are suddenly forced to take their own decisions. Instead, they refuse to talk about anything on which the party lacks a platform. Bah, indeed.
Meanwhile, back in provincial politics. . .
Lest we forget that Ralph Klein is still crazy, he has speculated about calling an election, for no apparent reason, in the Fall. I assume he's just jealous of all of the attention the federal leasers are getting right now.
Amusing e-mails received by Steve today
First, I received an e-mail that thought that it was June 20, which means that it will be at the top of my inbox until then. This would not be so bad if the subject line was not "Re: Orgasms". And no, it's not spam.
I also received an e-mail from Kail Ross, which is always a pleasure. For those of you who don't know Kail, he makes me look like a starry-eyed idealist. Anyway, he was writing, as a Valued Constituent of mine, to let me know his thoughts on the motion before Students' Council to allocate $14 030 to hold an open air concert to celebrate PSE. Some of the better excerpts:
"If all we're looking for his media attention, here is what I propose: for $7.50 we could get Anand drunk (assuming Bacardi Breezes still cost ~$2.50), strip him down and get him to dance with a 'support PSE' cock ring on."
"Although I'm in favor of a number of [the proposed bands], I am also ~50 years older than the mean student age. You want kids to come? Bring them kids bands."
"I find it interesting that Blatz is taking this motion so early in the year, something I should have done with VIDS oh so long ago when Council was more retarded than usual."
And finally, a word from my hit tracker
I seem to have a regular-ish reader from the University of New South Wales. I cannot imagine why.
