Parrish: Should She Join NDP?

[caesar]

Many of us are sort of in the middle; we support her message but fault her delivery.

[Guest eureka]

I understand what you are saying, Newwfie, but I cannot agree. It is the office holder who makes an office which is meaningless in itself. If a leader can abuse the office then the office is not, of itself, deserving of respect.

How many Presidents of how many nations now and in the past would we hang if we could have caught them? Should we (the obvious) have shown respect for Hitler, or Saddam merely because they were representative of an office?

Bush may not be either of them but how can we respect a President simply because he is a President?

[maplesyrup]

caesar....I agree.

That is why the NDP if they conduct themselves appropriately, stand to gain the most from this issue.

If the NDP are smart, they should just focus on the issues when Bush is here.

[August1991]

Many of us are sort of in the middle; we support her message but fault her delivery.

Caesar: IOW, you're clueless.

caesar....I agree.

Maple Syrup: Ipso facto.

[caesar]

August your personal insults are uncalled for and as far as I am concerned a compliment cond=sidering where they come from because you refuse to think.

[maplesyrup]

Many of us are sort of in the middle; we support her message but fault her delivery.

Caesar: IOW, you're clueless.

caesar....I agree.

Maple Syrup: Ipso facto.

Into the sauce again I suppose.

Too bad Greg doesn't address this chronic, is it every Friday evening, issue.

[caesar]

Whatever he is into this was uncalled for and meaningless. Grow up August; present an opinion but don't just throw out meaningless insults.

[Cartman]

You guys are totally off base here and a little sensitive. August is pretending to be Parrish and Caesar is Bush. Wait, no, August is Parrish and MS is Bush and Caesar is Martin. Ahhh...neither really works...I will get back to you.

[maplesyrup]

- this was in today's Globe and Mail although I am unable to access it there.

The serious grown-ups of Ottawa

>by Rick Salutin

November 19, 2004

Let's start with Carolyn Parrish's appearance on This Hour Has 22 Minutes. She was handed a Bush doll, told to kiss it — yuck — then throw it on the floor, stomp it like an angry brat, and flash a maniacal grin as the camera panned back to her face. Many serious grownups in Ottawa, like Liberal MP Roger Gallaway, found this “pathetic” and “a perverse joke.” The Prime Minister said he did not “share her sense of humour,” and expelled her from the Liberal caucus since he cannot “tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others.”

I remind them all of Jon Stewart, when told The Daily Show had become the main news source for many young viewers. “Bulletin!” he snarled at the camera, “it's not a real news show!” Bulletin: This Hour Has 22 Minutes is satire. Carolyn Parrish was parodying herself, not George Bush, as she patiently explained to the press, ex-teacher that she is. Politicians who don't get this should take a course on something like, Making Distinctions as an Adult. It brings to mind a six-year-old I know, who was shown a news clipping this week about a Winnipeg peace group that denounced the Lego set Bionicles because they're warriors and “promote violence” among kids. He said he disagreed. When asked why, he harrumphed, “Because they're toys!”

The matter of childishness has pervaded this dispute in revealing ways. Roger Gallaway said he would “expect more from infants.” Conservative House Leader John Reynolds said the Parrish TV bit set a bad example for children, and “somebody like [her] needs real help.” They all fretted over how she might act when George Bush visits the House at month's end. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said MPs should “behave like adults.” Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan clucked, “I don't know about you, but my mother brought me up to believe that when we had visitors we always treated our visitors in a polite, respectful way.”

Hmm, verrry interrresting. Many of these people seem to have childish behaviour on their minds. Why could that possibly be? Well, have you glanced at Question Period lately? There is no more infantilized group of adults in the land. Look at them sitting sheepishly behind their little desks, arranged for the camera as background to their leader or his ministers, dutifully clapping, whomping their desks, and yucking it up over the feeblest personal putdowns or substitutes for wit, because it is their job to do so mindlessly. Does an occasional glimmer of embarrassment cross their faces? No way to tell, it's gone too fast.

Some are people of accomplishment, I know it for a fact. But you'd never guess it then and there. Anyone who has attended Question Period in person, including the guards who admonish high school kids in the galleries to behave nicely, have shaken their heads over it and the way the (real) kids gawk unbelievingly at our hallowed parliamentary infantilism. These people have a stake in deflecting the thought of childishness elsewhere.

As for their media analogues, here is Rex Murphy on CBC-TV talking about the “kindergarten approach” of Carolyn Parrish to U.S.-Canada relations. She has worked up a “vaudeville act” in “increasingly ridiculous venues” such as 22 Minutes that belongs to “the classroom showoff, the needy clown, attention-getting by means of insult and crude display . . . juvenile, smug and vulgar.” It leaves me a bit flabbergasted since his entire commentary is nothing except name-calling, as in — recess? If you don't believe me, here's how it ends, and I'm not pulling it out of context, it has no context: “And one last note: A lot of people who think George Bush is the stupid party ought to visit a mirror.” What age were you when you last heard that one?

At the least, I would argue that by taking a strong stand on a crucial issue — America's hapless response to terror — which reflects the views in her riding and in most of the country, Carolyn Parrish has behaved in a far more adult way than our, ahem, pathetic barking parliamentarians or their equivalent media scolds. Somebody, or possibly everybody, with the possible exception of Carolyn Parrish, should grow up.

I am glad Salutin brought up the subject of the CBC's Rex Murphy. Murphy certainly has tainted the environment over there. I sure miss Peter Gzowski.

[maplesyrup]

BBM, have you thought about how future voters will perceive your postings?

august....he's kid, Please let him enjoy his youth without laying on all your heavy duty paranoid fears on him.

I see you're into the booze again, confusing your thoughts with my posts:

QUOTE 

Bush is a sadistic butcher and a religious fraud as well as a buffoon.

Your opinion, MS. How many Canadians believe as you do?

I did NOT post that.

Why don't you try AA. It might do you some good, to work on all that anger you seem to be carrying around.

[Big Blue Machine]

What did I say? I'm not a kid, I'm a young adult.

[Newfie Canadian]

You make some very good and valid points Eureka.

Respect is a simple concept. You can disagree with someone and vent that disagreement, even anger, and you can do it with respect. Not necessarily because he's George W. Bush, but because he's the President of the United States.

Look at the fighter pilots of the first World War. They were up there trying to kill each other, but at the end of the day they toasted each other. When a body was recovered by one side, they'd call a truce and return the body, with respect.

My point is, Parrish could have voiced her disagreement and anger with Bush in a more respectful way, not because he's G.W. Bush, but because he's the democratically elected President of the US. For that matter, because he's a human being.

I know if my 5 year old daughter did some of the stuff she's done or showed the disrespect Parrish has shown to Bush to another child, she'd get her butt tanned real fast.

[caesar]

My point is, Parrish could have voiced her disagreement and anger with Bush in a more respectful way, not because he's G.W. Bush, but because he's the democratically elected President of the US. For that matter, because he's a human being.

She owes nothing to Bush or the American presidency; She does owe a little dignity and respect to the people she represents and the office she holds. She didn't need to bring herself down to Bush's childish temper tantrum level.

As for August; I don't need to put up with that type of ignorant remark without any qualificiations. Greg told me I shouldn't call him OSTRICH for refusing to even read or consider out proofs.

To call us clueless in that situation makes no sense; it was just name calling.

[Argus]

Who do you imply is below average intelligence. Who do say is too intellectually lazy to inform themselves?

Give it a couple of weeks. I'm sure you'll see them in the street when Bush visits.

You have very little of the understanding of the nature of the respective economies and little of the nature of business if you really believe it makes one bit of difference what anyone calls anyone else.

Uh huh, as opposed to that deep insight we keep seeing from you. The fact is that a good relationship between political leaders can alleviate many of the difficulties neighbours and trade partners are bound to experience. Likewise a bad relationship only makes matters worse, as political leaders refuse to intervene or take any action in order to cut through bureacrcy or red tape.

If mad cow had taken place under Reagan and Mulroney it would have been gone now. The softwood lumber problems would have been speeded to a satisfactory conclusion. A little pressure from the administration can often do wonders to offset congressional pressure coming from protectionist senators and congressmen from lumber and farm states.

The constant cries of the percentages that we export to the US and the amount they send to us as a reason for acring the supplicant is rather pathetic.

What is pathetic is this desperate, frantic need on the part of a number of Canadians to have our government officials loudly and repeatedly express their disdain and disagreement for the United States and its leadership. Nothing - absolutely NOTHING would be gained by this. Yet we risk further irritating the US administration and exacerbating the situation with our trade problems. Why do so many Canadians, who rarely express any interest in what's going on beyond our borders, and have very little information on it, insist that we need to "stand up to" the Americans, need to criticise them openly, need to call them names and repeatedly express our dissaproval? Even if I agreed with the criticism of US policy I simply don't see the point - except to satisfy your need to have everyone know how self righeous you are.

[Argus]

Yes, I recognize there are a lot of ignorant people who are too intellectually lazy to provide themselves with sufficient knowledge to make intelligent decisions.

Perhaps you were looking in the mirror eh. You and Stoker refuse to seriously listen to the Canadian point of view in your unrelenting defense of American actions that disturbs not only Canadians but many peace loving fair minded people world wide including many Americans.

First of all there is no "Canadian" point of view. You don't represent Canada. You represent people who are ignorant about history and geopolitical behaviour. You are driven by ideological concerns, not interest or care in human rights or opposition to war.

Second, I do oppose a number of aspects of US domestic and foreign policy, and don't like either Bush or his cadre of supporters. However, unlike yourself, I weight the behaviour of the United States in context. I consider what I believe they are trying to achieve, what provokes their behaviour, and consider the motivations and behaviour of those who oppose them. I weigh this in concert with what is likely to, or even might happen depending on various circumstances and scenarios, including them doing nothing.

I am a pessimist and cynic about most politicians and world leaders. Bush is no more self serving than most, and American behaviour no more selfish than most - and a good deal less than many.

[Argus]

Her statements were unwise and could have been made more diplomatically but that misses the point. The diplomatic condemnations of Bush have to be made at the highest levels and, as far as Canada is concerned, they were not being made.

Why? Please state, if you are up to the task, your coherent and logical understanding of what we achieve by making these condemnations "at the highest level" as opposed to the likely outcome of not making them. Please demonstrate the importance of making these condemnations.

[Argus]

Parrish is supposed to representing the best interests of Canada as a Parliamentarian. As such she does not have the right to shoot off her mouth and insult the President of a country who in many cases provides for our livelihoods.

Everybody now: Man those new clothes the Emperor is wearing sure are nice. For all the caterwauling from the America first factions, I've yet to see any evidence that parrish's comments ever even registered south of th eborder, let alone had any impact. If you want to blame somebody for the chill in Canada U.S. relations, look to Washington and its protectionist trade policies.

And what evidence do you believe an insightful and sensitive lad like yourself would get? Do you expect to see Bush calling us names on national TV? Do you think one of his senators will be stomping on Martin dolls? Gee, how about this for evidence: mad cow and softwood lumber continue to cost the livelihoods of Canadians with the US administration showing absolutely no interest in getting involved.

Yes, I recognize there are a lot of ignorant people who are too intellectually lazy to provide themselves with sufficient knowledge to make intelligent decisions.

That's quite a dexterous maneuver. Did you have to have some ribs removed to pull that off?

Nope. Just have to read a few of your posts.

[Argus]

Canada Free Press = Toronto Free Press = Fascism

I've never heard of them. Do you have some evidence to support that insult? Evidence that they support a facist ideology? I am aware you hold a particularly violent dislike for anyone who holds opinions which differ from yours, but that does not neccesarily make them facist.

[Argus]

Earlier only 30% of Canadians thought Parrish did the right thing.

Now close to 40% (38%) of Canadians think Parrish did the right thing.

Give this a few more days, when more details come out, and the support for Parrish could top support for Martin on this US issue.

Actually 97.6% of Canadians think she's a shrill harpy and are glad she's gone.

Got any cite to back up your statistics?

[Argus]

August your personal insults are uncalled for and as far as I am concerned a compliment cond=sidering where they come from because you refuse to think.

There's the pot calling the kettle black

[Argus]

At the least, I would argue that by taking a strong stand on a crucial issue — America's hapless response to terror — which reflects the views in her riding and in most of the country, Carolyn Parrish has behaved in a far more adult way than our, ahem, pathetic barking parliamentarians or their equivalent media scolds. Somebody, or possibly everybody, with the possible exception of Carolyn Parrish, should grow up.

I am glad Salutin brought up the subject of the CBC's Rex Murphy. Murphy certainly has tainted the environment over there. I sure miss Peter Gzowski.

So let me see if I have this straight. It's childish for people to call each other, and particularly to call Parrish names, like Rex Murphy did, and the "adult" way to "take a stand" is to instead call people bastards and idiots like Parrish did? Do I have that more or less straight?

[Chloe]

I'm sure most of you will agree that Parrish deserved to get booted out. She makes Canadians look like childish, immature whinny babies, who will stomp on a DOLL okay a Doll to make a point. I wonder how all her years in school were spent.... writing on the chalkboard I hate my teacher!

For goodness sake, she's in a position that is suppose to be a respecteable one, lower the standards of it and they'll be solving our problems with rock, paper, scissors.

You don't like Bush or any other policitian, show that you have the brain capacity to argue with them intelligently.

Instead of with their children.

[kimmy]

Why is it that a poo-flinging monkey like Parrish gets the headlines, while a guy who has done a lot of research into the issue and has articulate things to say, gets little press at all?

If Kimmy goes scatalogical, that means Kimmy's a cross-dresser.

(whaaaa?)

Scatalogical? no. Zoological.

Spend some time with Discovery Channel, and you will learn that our simian friends like to lob feces at each other. Why do they do it? Self expression? Pent up frustration? Recreation? I don't really know. Why has Carolyn Parrish been lobbing verbal feces around? Self-expression? Pent up frustration? Recreation? I don't really know that either.

Paul Martin was content to sit by and watch these nuggets sail past, until one of them caught him square in the face.

I suppose some people will object to my characterizing Parrish's attacks on Bush as verbal feces; that's debatable. But for her bizarre outburst against her own party last week, I think it's a very apt description.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

I'm sure most of you will agree that Parrish deserved to get booted out. She makes Canadians look like childish, immature whinny babies, who will stomp on a DOLL okay a Doll to make a point.

Well, at least she didn't burn it.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I am humbled, Argus, by the cool intelligence you diplay in "weighing" such weighty matters as the "geopolitical" concerns and the economics of these issues.

I will prostrate myself at your feet hoping for some crumbs of wisdom to fall my way.

The certainty that you display in knowing that Reagan and Mulroney would have resolved all our problems; your deep understanding of American politics in knowing that they would simply have brushed aside all those interests that control the American system and rsolved all in return for "Brian's Song."

Could I explain to you "coherently how these things work at the highest levels? Probably not since I lack your sweeping knowledge of the inner workings of everything.

However, representations at the highest levels do, in my view, have some effect on the actions of nations and their leaders. A united front by all those world leaders who agree that Bush is a very dangerous leader would, I think have given Bush pause. The small support plus the "fence sitters" made Bush think - wrongly - that he could act unilaterally and get away with it. I fault the leaders of the real Free World - that does not include the USA for not being more public and vociferous in their opposition and condemnation of the New American Century project.

As in the 1930's when vacillating leaderships encouraged Hitler to act out his dreams, so this American administration has been encouraged by the muted opposition.

For trade issues, I would suggest that you consider need. The US needs Canada every bit as much as Canada needs the US. Trade has always been a two way street been the two and the Free Trade agreements made only a small shift in trading patterns. They did, however, greatly diminish our control over our economic and social policies, as well as put Sovereignty at risk.

I await with trepidation your incisive rebuttal of my concerns. I wonder whether you will do this with facts rather than statements asserting your superior knowlege.