Today, from John Geddes:
The Liberal leader spoke of sympathy for victims and concern about underlying causes, as is proper, but failed to express a leader’s necessary outrage and convey a sense of how justice must be done. The Prime Minister was far better on outrage and justice, but conveniently blurred crucial distinctions about those other possible reactions.
Okay, so why is it necessary for a leader to express outrage? Why not sadness, why not disappointment? Why must it be 'outrage?' Also, is it important for them to express outrage if they don't feel outrage? What if they feel saddened, should they act outraged? Do we want a leader who will insincerely monkey an emotion to satisfy the will of the idiot masses?
How one-dimensional we all are these days.
18 April, 2013
17 April, 2013
Rationalizing the Boston Bombings
One of the big non-story stories of the last 24 hours is that Justin Trudeau is 'rationalizing' the Boston bombings. This is a non-story story because it's a talking point propaganda-machine story being vomited forth by the CONservatives, and it's being rather stupidly handled by the Liberal Party.
Dominic Leblanc, on Power & Politics, tried to say that Mr. Trudeau wasn't rationalizing the bombings, and that Trudeau would punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. He then went on to say that Mr. Trudeau said that we should be removing these people who are most marginalized and who are would-be crime perpetrators from society.
The talking point is idiotic, the refutation is idiotic.
Essentially, Mr. Trudeau was pointing out, much like Prime Minister Chrétien did before him (with respect to the 9/11 attacks) that some people feel marginalized and we should seek to find out what the motivations are to people's behaviour. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Truly, this should speak to the current government's professed fiscal austerity position. Wouldn't there be potential cost savings to be found in preventing people from feeling so marginalized by society that they commit truly horrifying crimes? And wouldn't there be cost savings in not having lost lives, hospital costs, and incarceration costs associated with the aftermath of these crimes?
The talking points of the Liberal Party should not include statements like the one that Mr. LeBlanc made about removing marginalized people from society. The discourse should be moving towards REDUCING marginalization and developing community cohesion, such that more people feel involved, respected, and a part of their communities and country. The response shouldn't be 'You're right, Mr. Trudeau should have said he condemned the bombings outright, and he did say that, and you just didn't give him enough opportunity to make his words fully understood.' The response should be 'You're wrong. The right move isn't to condemn outright what you don't understand. That's how religious extremists and insane tyrants operate. The right move is to try to understand why bad things happen and make positive changes so that they don't happen again.'
Dominic Leblanc, on Power & Politics, tried to say that Mr. Trudeau wasn't rationalizing the bombings, and that Trudeau would punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. He then went on to say that Mr. Trudeau said that we should be removing these people who are most marginalized and who are would-be crime perpetrators from society.
The talking point is idiotic, the refutation is idiotic.
Essentially, Mr. Trudeau was pointing out, much like Prime Minister Chrétien did before him (with respect to the 9/11 attacks) that some people feel marginalized and we should seek to find out what the motivations are to people's behaviour. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Truly, this should speak to the current government's professed fiscal austerity position. Wouldn't there be potential cost savings to be found in preventing people from feeling so marginalized by society that they commit truly horrifying crimes? And wouldn't there be cost savings in not having lost lives, hospital costs, and incarceration costs associated with the aftermath of these crimes?
The talking points of the Liberal Party should not include statements like the one that Mr. LeBlanc made about removing marginalized people from society. The discourse should be moving towards REDUCING marginalization and developing community cohesion, such that more people feel involved, respected, and a part of their communities and country. The response shouldn't be 'You're right, Mr. Trudeau should have said he condemned the bombings outright, and he did say that, and you just didn't give him enough opportunity to make his words fully understood.' The response should be 'You're wrong. The right move isn't to condemn outright what you don't understand. That's how religious extremists and insane tyrants operate. The right move is to try to understand why bad things happen and make positive changes so that they don't happen again.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)