the politics of a horse's ass
perhaps we should try to make something of the prodigious piles of wasted newspaper space the sun devotes to its editorials, opinions and other opinionated columnists. i mean, it's not like it's doing anybody any good otherwise...
today's sun blows (bloviates?) just about a third of their page 3 on a nonsense rant about the distinction between "allies" and "americans" on omaha beach in order to pick fault with the recent SOTU address. the first and only thing of which this reminds me is how quickly the idiots of this particular partisan bias wanted to whine "allies" when it suited their de facto unilateral disrespect for our own (i.e. only congress can declare war) and international (go look up "soveriegnty" some time) law. (yeah, that's right, it was ALLIES who were all up in that iraq thing).
last i checked, d-day was considered a single invasion, not five separate ones, and when referring to canadians and british as "allies", it's more than a bit disingenuous, if not outright wrong, to suggest that we, the americans in that fight, weren't "allies", too.
i'm also not quite sure what is meant to be suggested by "do they teach world war II at harvard? or do they just teach about wars we lost?". i'm not aware, considering my scant comparative education, that we as a country have ever officially lost anything that's been officially called a war... (since, after all, the subject today is the careful splitting of semantic hairs...) are you?
oh, there's been a conflict here and there (e.g. korea) where the outcome has been left undetermined (korea is still just a "ceasefire" over 50 years later), or historically been deemed less than favorable, (i.e. we did strike our colors over saigon), but a war?
perhaps the horse's assistant can do some fact checking and get back to us.
today's sun blows (bloviates?) just about a third of their page 3 on a nonsense rant about the distinction between "allies" and "americans" on omaha beach in order to pick fault with the recent SOTU address. the first and only thing of which this reminds me is how quickly the idiots of this particular partisan bias wanted to whine "allies" when it suited their de facto unilateral disrespect for our own (i.e. only congress can declare war) and international (go look up "soveriegnty" some time) law. (yeah, that's right, it was ALLIES who were all up in that iraq thing).
last i checked, d-day was considered a single invasion, not five separate ones, and when referring to canadians and british as "allies", it's more than a bit disingenuous, if not outright wrong, to suggest that we, the americans in that fight, weren't "allies", too.
i'm also not quite sure what is meant to be suggested by "do they teach world war II at harvard? or do they just teach about wars we lost?". i'm not aware, considering my scant comparative education, that we as a country have ever officially lost anything that's been officially called a war... (since, after all, the subject today is the careful splitting of semantic hairs...) are you?
oh, there's been a conflict here and there (e.g. korea) where the outcome has been left undetermined (korea is still just a "ceasefire" over 50 years later), or historically been deemed less than favorable, (i.e. we did strike our colors over saigon), but a war?
perhaps the horse's assistant can do some fact checking and get back to us.
Labels: lowell sun, politics, rant
posted by kad barma at 8:32 AM
1 Comments:
I read it and thought it was picky. On the other hand, it brings up the fact that we as a nation do a lot of that. For example, I commonly hear "US and NATO". Doesn't anyone know that we here in the US (and those folks up in Canada and the nice people in Iceland) are also part of NATO, which stands for NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization.
The President's wording left something to be desired, but the critique didn't properly square the circle.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home