Democrat Quandry

Congressional Democrats, who in large numbers voted for the Iraq war, are now claiming that they were not given the complete dope in the intelligence briefings they received. True, no doubt, but nonetheless a tenuous thread upon which to hang their defence.

Saddam may have had weapons of mass destruction. We didn't know. But even had he had them, could anyone believe he was a threat to the U.S.? He may be a murderous monster, but he's not stupid. It would have been suicide. Was he a threat to U.S. interests? Maybe, but it's more likely that he was just in the way. Those "interests" can be summed up in one word: oil.

There was some very questionable "intelligence", such as uranium from Niger. I seem to recall the threat of fishing boats off the eastern seaboard firing rockets into U.S. citiies. Did anyone ask who's fleet was involved, and where were the modifications carried out to enable a launch? It was claimed that Saddam and Al Quaeda were linked, when it was common knowledge that those two couldn't stand each other. Saddam's regime was secular; as an example, his foreign spokesman, Tariq Aziz, was Catholic There were others questionable items. I was no more informed than anyone, but I was sure the whole thing was a pile of crap.

The Democrats ran with the crowd, echoing the old cry, even from the lips of Hillary Clinton: if you're not with us, you're against us. Any one who dissents is a traitor.

There is a saying that if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. I give the Democrats credit for that much. Cheney and Bush just keep digging. And maybe, just maybe, the Democrats will develop some spine.

Hopeless War

Reports coming out of Iraq suggest that many troops are losing their zeal to attack the enemy, concentrating instead, like The Good Soldier Schweik, on merely staying alive and returning home eventually. Is this a sign of the end of the slaughter? Is this the beginning of the end of the Cheney-Bush cabal?

Pseudo Wars

War on Poverty - miserable failure
War on Crime - miserable failure
War on Drugs - miserable failure
War on Terror - miserable failure

Freedom Security Fear Privacy Democracy

The Canadian government is planning legislation to allow the police access to cell phone conversations and email, in the name of national security. Civil libertarians are outraged. Fortunately I have nothing to fear from this, being a loyal citizen. But isn't that what non-Jews said in Nazi Germany? "I'm not a Jew, so I'm ok." But then it was the Gypsies, and then the disabled, then the terminally ill, then the useless aged, one group after the other. One had to toe the line in Nazi land, and be the right kind of person. Now I don't wish to blow this out of proportion - our government is like a band of angels compared with some regimes, even the one to our immediate south. Nonetheless, the creeping invasion of privacy is worrisome. The whole Western world is living in fear; there's a terrorist behind every tree. This doesn't bode well for freedom and democracy. I'm told that a majority will always opt for security over freedom, which calls to mind a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." So much for the famous "Give me liberty or give me death" or the ludicrous "Live free or die" on New Hampshire license plates.

Privacy hardly exists any more. No one is watching when I undress and shower, but beyond that nothing is certain. I don't know who's reading my email. I don't know who's snooping into my bank account. I check my credit card invoice carefully each month. As I was once a supporter of a moderate left-leaning party, am I on someone's subversive list? Tommy Douglas, father of medicare, was considered a Communist in the U.S.

George Bush natters incessantly about freedom, yet he has no understanding of freedom or of its implications. I feel embarrassed for him, for his posturing, for his ignorance. He tells the Chinese how to run their country. He hallucinates about the spreading of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. He has no more idea of how the world functions than a three-year old. He and his inner circle are considered by many to be international criminals, warmongers and war profiteers. It's not easy to argue against that. It's heartening to see that a majority of Americans now disapprove of Bush, finally joining the rest of the world. What took them so long?

Jesus of Nazareth

The doorbell rang and there were two ladies, one clutching copies of The Watchtower. "Aha! the Jehovah's Witnesses" I exclaimed. After a few pleasantries, I assured them that I was not religious; they had no hope of converting me. They don't give up that easily, however. Did I believe in Jesus Christ? Well yes, I'm quite sure that he walked the earth. Did I believe he was the Son of God? No, I don't, I assured them. I believe he was a revolutionary whom many of his adherents thought was trying to get the damned Romans out of the country, but in reality was trying to tell people that there were more important things. Like spiritual purity and that sort of thing. Like render unto Caesar and then get on with it. Golden Rule and all that. I said one need not be religious to be virtuous. One should seek to be moral and ethical and not do harm to anyone. That's very well said the lady clutching the brochures, but wouldn't it be better to emphasize doing good than just avoiding harm? Good point, I admitted, but I thought of all the people who did so much harm in the name of good and of God, such as missionaries, such as the Grand Inquisitioner, but I didn't say anything. The second lady spoke up. Did I believe in God? No, I said. Did I believe in the devil? I hesitated, because, after all, there are a few around. But I said no, not really. I added that sometimes I wonder if evil is only a concept and not a real thing, a real solid entity out there that goes around doing bad things. Surely there is much evil and there are many evil people. That left us in a philosophical ether, so I went on to tell them about a book I had recently read, Nino Ricci's "Testament", one of many written about "the historical" Jesus. His portayal I felt to be very plausible and even probable. He was sympathetic but still made him out to be a mystic and, some thought, a kook. He didn't think much of his mother and avoided her. He knew what he was doing when he went to Jerusalem for Passover. It's involved, so you'd have to read the book. The ladies didn't seem to be interested. They wanted to come in, but I had been through that before, so I denied them as politely as I could and wished them well. They're really quite nice people.