Skip to main content

Arafat and Stockwell Day

Never assume
"I was just saying there are two schools of thought about Yasser Arafat: one that he was a great statesman and a help to the Palestinian people, and one that reflects on his terrorist background and that he wasn't a help," he said. "It was reference to two schools of thought."
The Conservative Party of Canada's Stockwell Day responds to media report that he failed to send condolences regarding the death of Yasser Arafat because Araft had AIDS When I first heard of this story it was from David Frum in the National Post. I thought Frum's analysis was fine. Here was Stockwell Day, noted Evangelical member of Parliament, being cruelly torn apart by the biased Canadian press. Again. More digging showed a different story. Day is a guy who's heart is in the right place, but who's head is all too often missing in action. Who on earth sends out a vague e-mail quoting David Frum speculating that Arafat might have died of AIDS as an "explanation" of why no condolences were sent to anyone after Arafat died? Who does the right thing - no hypocritical condolences for a murdering, lying, wretch like Arafat - and then not only fails to explain it, but manages to make himself look like a homophobic bigot? Stockwell Day, that's who. Day has a history of being a spectacular fumbler. He's terrible with the media and seems to have almost no grip of where his critics are coming from. The e-mail in question reads like it was sent to your best friend in the next room, one you have known for years. In other words, it assumes far, far too much about the recipient. It assumes that Stockwell's vague reference to "two sides" of the story is to two different portraits of Arafat. There was nothing to be gained by being murky on the issues. If you want to take a bold - and I would say correct - stance on controversial issue, you simply must explain yourself, do it well, do it convincingly, and not allow anyone to take your message hostage. I think the brevity of the e-mail is itself a result of Day's past skirmishes with the Canadian press. But that is no excuse; the brevity made the message more dangerous, not less. Where were Day's Media people? Does he have any? Did he use them? The Conservatives simply don't need high profile politicians fueling people's fears about Christians. And, frankly, Christians don't need it either. Posted by Hello

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