I think we need some new issues, as it gets harder and harder to take ‘serious blogging’ seriously. Here are two things that have caught my eye this morning:
Dunce of the Day:
Brave Scot Steven Wood finds his way to Thought Mesh and unleashes a positive torrent of anti-American leftist cant, cleverly overcoming the problem that half of his arguments contradict the other half by simply ignoring it. AOG (also known as Susan’s Husband on this site), systematically destroys each ill-thought point in turn, but with the anti-American left, it isn’t so much what you argue, more the fact that you’re arguing that counts. And AOG finds himself fighting a Hydra: every time you cut off a head, a new one grows back.
And talking of brave Scots...
Most preposterous comment of the day
Inevitably, Lou Gots on BrothersJudd wins, with his comment on the possibility of Scottish devolution.
Leftist bloggers do seem to have a knack for couching their views in an unattractive anti-Americanism (rather than simply opposing US foreign policy). I like to think I'm one who doesn't. When I finally get round to writing my all-encompassing article on why it really was wrong to invade Iraq (best guess: December), perhaps Think of England will be good enough to show me to the lion's den by publishing it?
ReplyDeleteIn the interests of free speech, certainly I will, but I'd recommend reading the rest of the comments on that thread first, especially that by David Cohen, so that you can preempt the assault.
ReplyDelete'Wallowing in the Buts' would be a magnificent title for your first book on the subject of Canadian/US relations, Peter.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to martpol, and so as not to pre-judge his efforts, however, it is perfectly possible to argue against the Iraq invasion without falling into anti-American cant. After all, the British were in the invasion too.
ReplyDelete(nb - however, he will blow this if at any point he mentions the word 'oil').
Hmmm... I suspect international law is going to figure heavily. But again, it is possible to mention it without anti-American cant (unless of course the magic words "rode roughshod over" or "drove a coach and horses through" are invoked).
ReplyDeleteI am a bit worn out myself. At least Wood hasn't gone the "Bushitler" route, which makes him better than 90% of the anti-invasion argumentors I encounter.
ReplyDeletemartpol;
For me, the key test of anti-Americanism is whether one applies one's standards to other nations. E.g., it's not anti-American to think its leaders are evil and venal if you think every ruling class is evil and venal. It's anti-American to think that of the USA and not France, though.
Aww, is getting far too sensible.
ReplyDeleteCan we not just have the go at the French again.
Isn't your credibility and reputation for evenhandedness automatically inviolable because you're Canadian?
ReplyDeleteEveryone:
ReplyDeleteI'd love to go ahead and write that piece right now, but to do it justice I'll need to find at least a few days where I'm not jumping in my car and traversing the windy roads of Wales in an effort to convince students to take an interest in global affairs.
But my executive summary will doubtless be along the lines that, if it wasn't for their obsession with global oil supplies and trampling the Geneva Convention underfood, America wouldn't be anywhere near as evil.
Very good :)
ReplyDeleteAnd be warned: every time you throw the word "quagmire" at us, we can chuck back a "fungible".
Welsh students specifically?
ReplyDeleteFor me, yes - Welsh students specifically.
ReplyDelete