Skip to main content

The Warren thing

Warren Kinsella's upset by Damian Brooks saying that he might in some small way have responsibility for the death of a Canadian submariner, since he (Kinsella) was a part of a government that has cheaped out on things military for a very long time - since 1993, I believe. The obvious comparison is to comments that the leader of the NDP made during the last election, where Mr. Layton accused the Liberal government of responsibility for the death of a homeless person. That accusation was, rightly I think, laughed off by Paul Martin, and most Canadians that I know thought that Layton was a bit off in suggesting it. Is this a comparable case? Submariners, and all Canadian military personnel are making a very large sacrifice, by the nature of their profession. It is done voluntarily, but in a moral sense I think we are bound to recognize the scope of what they are doing. The sacrifice they make is among the highest we can make for our countrymen, and since it is so high, we ought to make every effort to ensure that we respond in kind, as best as we can. That means good equipment, a high degree of public respect, and a judicious use of our military force. I don't think we've lived up to that part of the equation. Is that Kinsella's fault? Not really. There are too many other factors that need to be considered, so many that assigning blame to one person, never mind the government, is too much of a stretch. The homeless person's claims on us are those he has by right of being human and being a neighbor. He has those rights and they are not nothing. But the military offers to do something very noble and worthy for us and that, in my mind, makes it's claims on us more serious. What am I getting at here? Simply this. If it was OK for Jack Layton to make his accusation on behalf of a homeless person during an election, and no lawsuit was threatened then, why is it NOT OK when a similar question is asked with no election on, and when the dead person may have a greater demand on our conscience? If Kinsella had not threatened to sue the whole thing would have blown away. There was no election pressure or media scrutiny of Damian's comments. Paul Martin, who I'm no fan of, had a better sense of the perceptual dynamics and let it go when the whole country was looking. Kinsella can't stand a few lonely bloggers even asking the question. The answer to the question, is Kinsella responsible for Lt. Saunders death, is no, he is not. The answer to the question, should Canadians be able to ask that question is, yes, they should. And no, I'm not talking about the state of the law here. Meanwhile Kinsella is still going about "kicking ass" (his words):
Those kinds of guys [conservative bloggers]- and they're mostly white, angry and aroused by Mark Steyn's web site - get offended by all sorts of things.
Kinsella is also white (relevance?) and it is clear he gets angry and aroused by these questions too. He just doesn't get it: The problem is that it is his own ass that he is kicking, because Damian's question has been amplified and readers' sympathy diluted by the addition of more questions: was the response appropriate? Was it appropriate given the way he plays the game?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi