headlines

sitting in front of a computer all day i'm often tempted to surf off in different directions and get multiple feeds on all the local and international news. i read a story tonight that kind of got my back up because it wasn't the first time i've seen this "editorial" tact used in relation to the subject and it always makes me grate my teeth when i see it.

here's the article

what gets me is the tone in which it's reported. a line like the following - "The gaffe by Marlene Jennings came exactly two weeks after Canada's Liberal government irritated Washington by refusing to join the U.S. missile defense system." insinuates the following - that the remark made was a mistake, wrong, and that canada refused to join the missile defense system. to begin, refuse is a strong word, especially for something that doesn't exist yet (and therefore not actually a system) - if they had used declined, for instance, it would have given the story a different tone.

another way of looking at the sentence would be " the remarks by jennings came two weeks after canada's liberal government declined to participate in the american missile defense program."

her words were inflamatory although within the confines of the parliamentary committee and in relation to what she was saying i don't think they were out of line. countries do that all the time - the states, canada (probably ecuador). bush did it just a couple months ago after promising not to bring up missile defense and then publically stumping for it at a press conference with martin. to be caught and in her position though does warrant recourse.

although it's the missile defense part of the story that really irks me.

there's even the argument put forward by the christian science monitor "don't blame canada for missile defense snub" that discusses in detail why canada was justified in saying they don't want to dance. the term snub is grating but it's the line later on where michael o'hanlon states that the defense is inherently a good thing, but so far what we have is flawed and simply not tenable. his gall is palpible in the following - "For now, Canada doesn't want to support the US further on missile defense. That's fine, because there's nothing more the US needs to ask Ottawa to do at the moment." - where to begin? as if canada is a fickle child whose taste buds haven't fully matured but in time will appreciate the american position. there's also the insinuation that because canada does not support this version of defense we are not supportive of defense per se. this is simply false and implies that the american plan is the only viable option. while this may be the case (as the states can push through many plans until they take hold), it gives credibility to the american position and automatically weakens the canadian one. the next sentence - that's fine - makes the inverse statement that if canada had objected under different circumstances it wouldn't have been fine and that it is only given the weakness of the american position that saves canada from regretting its "snub".

and this is a positive editorial!

anyway it reminds me of a conversation i had a couple nights ago with a friend of jane's. he and his girlfriend are travelling through ecuador after a whirlwind tour of northern peru and stopped by to visit with jane and take in a day or two of guayaquil. they actually left yesterday for the coast to bahía (wouldn't be on my list of things to do but...). anyway, jane's friend jose asked me why we still had the queen on our money and stamps. as a known anti-monarchist (sorry mom) i launched into how hopefully canada will one day become a republic. i then turn to the other canadians for their opinions, totally forgetting that they might hold beliefs that differ from mine. well, the guy (don't remember his name but we can call his steve) tries to defend the queen and all she stands for and his girlfriend (hmm... judy) decides to stand by the "we need historical figures" argument "because we're a young country still".

i was speechless. the argument was basically downhill from there, going from slightly comical musings about the lack of canadian heroes or people that we could put on our money, to mere smuggishness (?) in asserting that the royals give us something to talk about - what would be talk about if they were gone?