Alright.. so today we get a lesson in childish behaviour.
Carolyn Parrish, an MP for the Liberals in the House of Commons, has apparently publicly stated her dislike for President Bush and has squished the head of a poor little Bush Doll on a Canadian Satire show.
Today, Prime Minister Martin bowed to pressure and Fired Her for what she has done.
Fair enough, I say… Parrish was out of line… when you’re in a position of public power you should abide by simple rules of respect. No matter what you think of an “opponent” (and Bush isn’t even that) you should always be respectful. Keep your strongest of feelings to yourself and your family and friends.
I share Parrishs’ view of Bush… but had I been in her position I certainly would not have been so vocal in public. There are ways of voicing your displeasure in the public sphere… and childishly stomping on a dolly of George Bush, and having that footage aired days after an announced state visit, just isn’t cool.
I learned in school that when you work in groups you have to learn to work together no matter what you think of your partners. Bush is a partner in the world political group… Parrish needs to work with him whether she likes him or not.
Now onto the reaction. Dean Esmay, a popular right-wing American blogger says, Americans should Boycott Canada.
Oh please. Grow up. Just because someone said something bad about you means you’re never going to do business with anyone like them again?
It’s like when the French were opposing the Iraq war… there was a “movement” to boycott anything French including wine and “French Fries” (of course… French Fries actually originated in Belgium, but whatever).
Esmay shows the exact same amount of respect and forethought as did Parrish. The only thing saving Esmay is he’s just a private citizen, not a public official.
I think they should both be ignored as loudmouths who say things just so they get noticed.
UPDATE:
I just heard on the news here that the straw that really broke Paul Martins back wasn’t so much the disrepect towards Bush.
Apparently Parrish also yesterday said she didn’t care if the Liberals lost the next election, and that the Prime Minister was “weak”.
Well… I don’t like Paul Martin all that much (though he’s growing on me I admit)…. but if I were him I’d probably pull a Donald Trump and say “You’re Fired” as well!
I read Dean Esmay regularly and he is not “right wing”. However, he is an independent, not aligned with either the Dems or the GOP. He leans more left on many issues but he has been a staunch Bush supporter and the GoWT. He pledged and was serious that if Kerry were elected he would give him the respect and allegiance any American owes his presiding President. The “benefit of the doubt” could be Dean’s over riding attitude no matter who the successful candidate is. He has repeatedly vowed he would NEVER treat a President Kerry as the “anybody but bush” crowd has treated Bush all during the last four years.
You should read him regularly or go through some of his archives if you want to know how this man thinks. He is one of the more adult bloggers of any stripe that I’ve read. Anyway, Chris, we aren’t going to boycott Canada. Since getting to know you as a blogger, I have a great appreciation of Canadians in general if you are mostly European liberals and wrong, wrong, wrong in your would view. 🙂
Well, I don’t read Dean Esmay everyday, but everytime I have I’ve noticed a fairly right leaning slant to his views…. but then that can be said of most anyone when you’re talking about a Canadian analyzing an American.
Kerry is further “right” then our “Right Wing” would ever be here… that’s what we get for living in a Soviet Kanukistan. 😀
Actually what I said on my blog is that I don’t go to Canada. I hadn’t suggested that anyone else follow suit.
By the way, i would never argue that criticism and dissent are unpatriotic–although certain forms of dissent clearly are. After all, White Supremacists are certainly dissenters, but that doesn’t mean they’re patriots.
And by the way, Roz? Only a hard-left-wing asshole would deny that Iraq’s been liberated from fascist tyranny.
Well, no, I take that back. A deeply ignorant person might deny that Iraq’s been liberated from fascist tyranny. So Roz may just be deeply ignorant and not a far left wing asshole. Just to be clear.
“Iraq liberated from fascist tyranny”? Maybe. It has certainly been liberated from a fascist tyrant. However, it seems to me that many Iraqis are probably still subject to fascist tyranny, but now it’s from Islamic terrorists. (OK, you could quibble and call it religious tyranny instead of fascist tyranny, but I think my point is clear.)
Perhaps if we sent in a couple of hundred thousand more troops we could really get the security situation in Iraq under control so the Iraqis really could be liberated from tyranny. The Iraqi troops unfortunately haven’t proven to be very effective to date and I have my doubts about that changing any time soon.
BTW, I’ve been reading Dean semi-regularly for several months now. He does seem to be largely right wing in his views. He hardly toes the party line, but his views do seem to more or less align with those of the right wing. I think of him as an “independent right winger”.
Perhaps Roz’s definition of “Liberation” includes something more than simply the deposition of a tyrant? There are many other factors that one needs in order to be “free” including:
electricity, fuel, and water.
jobs
security
democratically elected representatives
It is up to the Iraqis to tell us when they feel they’ve been liberated… so far, I don’t hear many Iraqis saying that…
This is wrong on so many levels. For one, I resent the implication that refusing to do business with those who ridicule and abuse you is somehow immature. While I support and defend the right of anyone in the world to express their views, I don’t feel that I should be required to finance it. The whole issue over “french fries” vs “freedom fries” has been blown out of proportion. It was symbolic for goodness sake! None but the stupidest among us actually believe that french fries come from France. In the US, most of them come from Idaho and most Americans know that. The French government has clearly gone out of their way to undercut American foreign policy initiatives. Why should US citizens continue to economically support those whose objectives are so clearly at odds with our own?
won’t:
So you believe that every Canadian shares Parrish views?
Is it my turn to throw mud?!?!?! I’m an independent New York City who voted Bush a couple weeks ago. Yes, I AM one of the five. So Iguess that would making me a right wing extremist warmonger per some of the comments. So be it. I think someone’s choice to boycott anything is a personal decision, whether it was suggested by others or not. I happen to agree with the boycott of France. With the amount of wine I consume that actually may hurt them. It is a personal decision however. I feel that as a US citizen it is my job to act as I feel it best suits my country. Someone who openly against our foreign policy and overtly supplies advanced arms to our enemies is to me our enemy. I will not financially support our enemies unless I have no other choice. You may suggest well how do you drive and be ok with the money going to the Saudis. I reconcile that with the gas in my car comes from Mexico, or Texas, or Venezuela, and soon from Alaska. Iraq was liberated from a murderous thug. If you doubt that do a google search on mass graves in Iraq and you have nothing to question on it. Europe wasn’t reconstructed in a day after WWII. However, with Billions of US dollars and many coalition deaths it was set right. At least until they screwed things up again on their own. You can lead a horse to water I guess. If you do your homeowrk you will see that MANY of the problems facing the US in Iraq were around in Europe post WWII. The physical reconstruction will follow but the biggest thing is the Iraqis are the ones truly in control of their future. That is pretty free to me. The Sunni’s are pissed now because they don’t have a iron grip on the country anymore and they find themselves now in the minority. It’s understandable that they are not happy with it. It will take time, money, and unfortunately blood, but Iraq will be something for Iraqis to brag about before too long. You make liberation a physical thing, but it is so much more than that. By limiting it you belittle it and drain it’s true value. You make good points about problems that exist, by I think you miss the most important ones. To conclude, I personally won’t be boycotting Canada, I can’t… I love Hockey too much. Now who wants to place a bet on the Israel/Palestine mess getting cleaned up before the NHL CBA?
tawn:
I don’t know that Iraqis really believe that right now. Hopefully they will soon… but right now, it’s going in the opposite direction.
I just find the whole “boycotting a country” thing so ridiculous
Boycott a company? Sure… I don’t buy NIKE because I disagree with a lot of their business practices.
But a country simply because of one disagreement on one issue?
Silly…
For an example… click on the “A Family in Baghdad” link on the site here.
Cheers…
oh… and probably the only way the CBA will be settled before the Israeli/Palestine issue is if everyone BOYCOTTS the owners and players!
Course.. it’s hard to do that when there are no games to boycott *sniff*… crap… I guess I’ll just have to keep watching Football.
😀
Hey, Dean? To consider the liberation of Iraq a meaningful notion is to do more than to look at Saddam and what kind of leader he was. No one, not even a “hard-left-wing asshole” would consider him to be anything but a tyrant. But that does not mean that going in as an outside country to militarily remove him and throw the country into complete chaos and instability means that they have suddenly been “liberated.” There are many many forces that lead to someone like that coming to power in the first place, and it’s simplistic to think that it can be easily reversed, by outside military intervention, nonetheless. The other issue is that of who becomes the great arbitrator of who is a tyrant and worthy of removal and who isn’t. The US went in without any kind of meaningful international sanction and started a war in a country. No military threat to them (despite the initial justifications…remember those? Somehow the tune has been changed now). When considering international relations there has to be some kind of consistent standard for war and “liberation,” otherwise we get dangerously close to a country feeling justified in the removal of Bush, the tyrant. One country cannot be the world police.
I left a comment at Esmay’s site, but I want to make sure that you Canadians hear me clearly as well.
I will not buy Canadian products and I will never travel to Canada. You join France and Germany in my list of cultures lower than navel lint.
Don’t like it? Tough. Grow some gonads. F’ the lot of you.
Roz
That was a good comment. I appreciate your perspective. That’s a first for me. I’ve never been able to see the rationale against the use of US military power in Iraq until you spoke up. I think it was your lack of anger that allowed me to see the true nature of the objections even though I still support the war. Thanks much from an American neighbor.
Roz. One country can’t be the world’s policeman?
If not us, who?
You?
The UN, whose Security Council was on the take from Saddaam?
Belgium?
NATO who has to borrow aircraft from us or the Ukraine to get outside Europe? And who did a bang-up job in the Balkans?
Us or nobody.
Your choice?
I know my choice.
You’re on your own.
Jane M
Thank you. I appreciate your comment. I think that this debate gets so highly polarized that people end up arguing about extreme versions of the other person’s position, rather than recognizing that it’s a tough issue. Of course it’s difficult to stand by and watch a country where groups of people are systematically oppressed and even killed. The question is about how best to deal with it. What I worry about is when people really latch on seemingly unquestioningly to a belief that one country can go in and intervene on another country’s behalf (without their consent) to do what’s ‘best for them.’ It is so difficult to understand the history and complexities of another country, and yet somehow some people feel completely confident that something like a military intervention will somehow solve the problem in a matter of months?
One final thought. I think that most people who oppose the war have reasons similar to what I posted above. Agree or disagree, but it is not based on simple ignorance or naïveté. This is why it makes me so angry when certain people (ahem) make blanket statements about boycotting a country because certain of their members are dissenting with the dominant view of another country. It feels very creepy-cultish to me. Why am I not able to stand up and criticize the policy of my own nation or that of another? Shouldn’t one’s beliefs be strong enough to take in and withstand criticism? Shouldn’t we all be engaging in debate about these issues? To me they are too important NOT to argue about.
That’s all for now 🙂
Roz. Pay atttention, now.
Nobody’s stopping you from criticizing.
Got that?
Or maybe you can show us pix of the speech police taking you away?
What you are seeing is that people are free to react negatively to your comments.
Deal with it.
Richard
What I was referring to was not people responding negatively to my comments – feel free to do that. I was referring to the notion that it’s somehow appropriate to boycot countries for having dissenting political views.
Roz. Why is it not appropriate to boycott? It’s a free choice of where to spend one’s resources and time. Social standards.
As to Parrish, the American reaction is, “who?”. “Is she anybody?”
“Are we supposed to be upset?”
Since Martin fired her, she no longer even remotely can be said to represent the government. Only her own riding, poor fools. Maybe we should only boycott her riding?
On the other hand, Parrish is not a lone ranger.
Years ago, I heard a Canadian call-in show whose subject was the US picking off the Achille Lauro highjackers (see “Leon Klinghoffer”) by intercepting their Egyptair flight and forcing it down, using carrier planes over the Med. It was a problem in that Mubarak had assured us the guys weren’t on the plane and so it embarrassed him.
Anyway, the question was whether the US had any right to do that. Nine to one, the Canadians slammed the US, mostly starting out by saying they weren’t condoning the murder, but then going ahead and excusing it and hammering us for doing anything.
So, Parrish, whoever she is, doesn’t formally represent Canada. But she talks a lot like a lot of Canadians.
The difference is not important. The point of view is.
I don’t advocate boycots (an exception for that sentiment applies to France for me) particularly but I don’t see why Candadians are so offended by such a reaction. Until the Iraqi war, I and most Americans had only friendship in our hearts for Canada and I thought it was mutual. It’s been an unpleasant surprise to learn that now and prior to the Iraqi war, the US was held in such low regard by our friend Canada. We were blissfully unaware of such opinions.
But then I watched the CBC news beginning with the invasion on March 13th, 2003. The undisguised malevolence displayed by the newscasters and reporters and the contempt held by those individuals for the US was palpable and I was offended by the blatant antagonism expressed against the US by Canadians via the CBC. I was shocked by it and very, very offended. Our demize was obviously Canada’s fondest hope.
You live with pervasive anti-US sentiment, as Canadians, in your general society, news reports and political discourse. It is so pervasive, I fear, that you no doubt are unable to judge the effect it has on the recipients or realize how harsh it sounds coming from a “friendly” North American neighbor. It’s first hurtful and then anger inspiring.
To Americans, the anti-US rhetoric coming from a place we thought of as friendly, is viscious, overly simplistic and blatantly unfair in its one-sidedness. It’s far worse to hear it from Canada than from France who have been sneering down their inferiority ridden national pysche noses since the days of DeGaulle. We have an understandable right to express our reaction to the ill-will expressed from the north.
I don’t hate Canadians, nor will I encourage some kind of Canadian boycott but do you really expect Americans to not wish to express their feelings at the insults hurled at us from a country that we have always held in high respect and the friendliest relations? The reaction by many Americans is human and quite to be expected IMO. Canadian anti-American rhetoric is insulting to the American people. Would Canadians feel warm fuzzies to those who would denigrate them so? Hardly.
Roz- I can’t believe Dean Esmay would call you a hard left wing asshole or deeply ignorant. It is obvious to any sane person that the US is in fact oppressing the noble, freedom loving people of Iraq, denying them the “liberty” they had under Saddam Hussein. I mean, who do we think we are? We have no business being the world’s policemen. You don’t have to look any further than the UN for a competent, honest agency for solving the world’s problems. Heck, look at the swell job they did in Rwanda! Or pretty much anywhere else they work.
If we Americans weren’t such evil, hateful people, I am just absolutely positive that the islamic retards would have left us alone (after we gave them all those weapons to, you know, fight communism).
Roz, there are problems in the world. There always have been, there always will be. You can ignore them for awhile, but if you do that, you end up with something like 9/11, where the problem comes to you. It’s okay for you to want to hide your head in the sand, and say we shouldn’t be the world’s policemen. I think you’re left wing, but I don’t imagine you’re an asshole. But those problems are still out there, and they are not going to go away on their own. Shortly after 9/11, we put a lot of pressure on India and Pakistan, and probably stopped them from tossing nuclear missiles at each other. Do you really think the world would have been a better place, if we hadn’t stepped in and done some diplomacy, which could be considered “neighborhood policing?”
While you’re feeling sorry for all those oppressed Iraqis, why don’t you take a few moments and enjoy the fact that you can mouth off your opinions, because you aren’t living in an islamic country, wandering around in a burka.
By the way, Parrish is a demagogue, an ingrate, and, obviously, a very unhappy person. I think it’s just swell that she got booted, even if it was for calling the PM a weenie. And, like Dean, I will not be spending any of my hard earned cash in Canada. Then again, I live in Texas, so it’s a matter of geography, rather than an act of defiance.
You wanna talk childish, my Canadian friends? Childish isn’t refusing to buy from those who hate you and wish your designs to fail; that’s sanity. Childish is to act like the proverbial two-year old, secure in the knowledge that no matter how many times you tell Daddy you hate him, he’ll still feed, house and protect you. Sadly for America, we are stuck with a childish Canada, because in protecting ourselves, we end up protecting you, whether we want to or not.
Jane M hit it on the head. Getting smacked in the teeth by your friends is infinitely worse than getting the same from the French. And it isn’t so much a matter of disagreement over Iraq; plenty of room for that. The Swiss didn’t help, and we’re not annoyed at them. The Mexicans didn’t help, and we yawned. The Argentines stayed home, and we went on our way. No, it’s the virulent anti-Americanism spewed from a plethora of Canadian sources that we considered friends. I was in Montreal when the invasion occurred, and bluntly I was floored by the vitriol. And it hasn’t stopped since. Parrish is hardly alone. And she wasn’t disciplined until today. And it wasn’t for hating Americans, but mocking Labor. That Parrish survived politically until this day really says it all, don’t you think?
So spare me the “lone idiot” theory. I’m also among those staying south of the border, and not purchasing goods from north of it, for the duration and some time beyond. It’s about all I can do to Canada to express my displeasure, short of giving y’all the Taliban Treatment. Which seems even more unfriendly. You don’t like the boycott? Then do what is necessary to end it.
I’d like to jump in and take a wack at clearing up the whole “Boycott–reasonable reaction or immature silliness?” question. First of all, though, I should mention that I’m a military wife and staunch republican, social as well as economically although I’ve been known to take off on a friday night and hang out with “the other side” because my best friend of 16 yrs is liberal AND gay and it means so much to him to have me be part of his circle of friends. My point in mentioning this is that it IS possible to disagree on some very important issues and share the love at the same time. When he starts leaning too heavily on me about my views I am quick to remind him of the time we all went camping and a leak in the roof of the cabin, right over one of the beds, resulted in his sleeping with my husband and I instead of the cold hard floor. (I got the middle…YAY me!) The threat of telling his friends that he slept with not one, but TWO republicans usually ends the onslaught and restores humor. lol
Now, as for boycotting. In my opinion, this is much like when my husband and I have a spat, he loses his temper and crosses that line saying way too much in a very hurtful manner and I have no desire to partake in some of the better aspects of marriage for a time. I boycott his body ya might say. He calls this “getting cut off out of spite” but I disagree. It’s not something I’m doing to punish him at all…I’m simply not in the mood after all is said and done, for a time anyhow. I don’t want to, and it is my body, why should I have to if I don’t want to?
In my opinion, boycotting is much the same. My money, why should I have to? Is it not my choice if I should happen to not feel like going to visit a country that I feel has crossed that line? Or purchase their products? I wouldn’t enjoy myself at all if I went anyhow. I would feel like dirt if I gave them my money. More so than I did in the first place. Why should I have to do that if I simply don’t feel like it and don’t want to? Nothing at all immature about that. As a matter of fact, I would think it would be immature of anyone to suggest I should have to and I get the feeling that this boycotting by Americans makes others angry not because they think it immature but because they know that it will hurt their economy. They want us to let them do and/or say anything they like about our nation, our president, our choices, and us as a people without carrying any responsibility for their actions/words. Demanding we line up in drives like mindless sheep to the slaughter handing over our hard earned dollars. Well, get mad I say, call me immature if that makes you feel better even. I’m not visiting Canada this year like I normally do. I worked hard all year for this vacation and no way am I going to have it ruined by going some where I don’t feel welcome and don’t want to be anyhow.
But hey, what do I know?
My pappy always told me, “Never buy a taco from a Canadian”.
I’m not sure how that relates, but I still live by those words. They’ve never failed me!
Jen
Interesting analysis of hurt feelings, anger and withdrawal. Yes, most of our emotions and reactions are basically quite similar whether we experience them in our personal lives or on a national level of our pysche. You draw a rather interesting analogy from life. C’est la vie!
;(
Right Roz! Let’s discuss what to do about it and by the time we decide on what course to take the crisis is over because a million Rwandans are dead. Or a million Sudanese. Or a million Cambodians.
Murder is murder, genocide is genocide, atrocity is atrocity. Deciding whether to attempt to stop it or not should not cramp anyone’s brain too much.