Revolutionary Moderation

My apologies



My recommendation of Counterspin's New Year special and my pre-emptive critique of Sean Cullen were both off the mark. Not that Sean was enormously funny, but the other two were so over-the-top earnest about everything, satire hardly came into it. I'm willing to cut Garofalo a little slack - she seemed to have trouble keeping up with the conversation from a studio in L.A., but still. "Bush is a liar!" "White people run everything!" "Paul Martin is rich!" Comedy at its finest. Book these people for Montreal right away.



I'm a little disappointed in the oversimplifications coming from people who share my end of the political spectrum. They were partially correct: the war wasn't about liberating Iraqis, finding WMD, or hunting for terrorists, but neither can we simply say it was all about the oil. But they did, anyway.



Two comments came from the audience, and they were both, essentially, "Canada should have participated in the war." And Garofalo responded, essentially: "boy, you Canadians I disagree with sure are polite about it". You could almost feel her trying to tone down her response from the fast-talking she's had to do with much more angry and aggressive panels and audiences over the past year.



Garofalo gave me my two Paul Martin sentences, but they were sadly underinformed enough to not have won me for life after all. "Isn't he the guy who cut social programs to balance the budget? He and George Bush will get along just fine." Sure - except that Bush has cut social programmes, without coming anywhere close to balancing the budget. I don't remember exactly, but the current US deficit is budgeted to some number not unadjacent to a gazillion. At least Martin accomplished something with his cuts (cuts that Chretien needs to be held responsible for, or congratulated for, depending on your own opinions, as well). Shared conservative economic policy does not automatically make fast friends. Likewise, Martin's wealth does not automatically get him an invitation to Crawford. Here's an important difference between the two men: Martin actually earned his money. Sure, I'm suspicious of highly successful capitalists, but I'm far more suspicious of horribly failed capitalists who have lots of money anyway, like the Commander-in-Cheif of the United States Armed Forces.



I suppose what I'm saying is that it is far too early to have much of an idea of what Paul Martin's government will really be all about, other than punishing Chretien loyalists for, well, being Chretien loyalists. That theme, at least, has certainly emerged.



What I am also saying is that pre-emptively equating Martin with Bush is not what I would describe as the height of satire.



What I am finally saying is that it may be too soon for Janeane to write the Canadian citizenship exam. But at least I'm getting used to the blonde look. Also, any points she gained with me trying to evaluate Paul Martin and Canada politics in general, she lost with "Alberta is just like Texas"... which the other panelists showed no desire to disagree with, Torontonians that they are. Hey, screw you all.



Special bonus unrelated note: it seems from that panel that there's a new phrase coming out of the left. Remeber the old days, when some selected crazies on the right would use introductory phrases like "I'm not a racist / homophobe / bigot of some description, but [insert offensive overgeneralization here]"? Well, the new one coming from the left seems to be "I'm not a conspiracy therorist, but..."