As the pot calleth the kettle black...

In today's Calgary Sun, columnist Paul Jackson gives us this perspective on the GOP nomination convention this past week.

Ordinarily, I can't be bothered to give this nitwit the time of day - his attitude is sneering and condescending, his arguments are filled with holes you could drive a truck through. Like his compatriot in silliness, Ezra Levant, Jackson is amazingly blind to how the accusations he levels at the "Lib-Left" apply to him:

Liberals and socialists are smug and hypocritical.

On the flipside of the political coin, Conservatives believe in assessing opposing viewpoints and countering them on an intelligent and intellectual basis.

This is exactly the opposite of my experience in this country. That Jackson would be so bold as to accuse left-leaning people of being "smug and hypocrytical", and yet I've encountered more rude smugness from so-called "conservatives" the last ten years or so than I have ever seen from those left-leaning people I know.

In general, I have found what passes for a "Conservative" these days is more likely to fall back on arguments based on a particularly nasty interpretation of the Holy Bible where social issues are concerned; and seems to be blindly unaware of the negative effects of privatization and globalization on people in the middle and lower economic strata.

Further, I will point out that Jackson has never bothered to counter a rational argument that I have seen. His arguments are typically emotionally loaded, and sneering in tone at best. (Read a few of his columns, I'm sure it will speak for itself) For someone who purports to be a proponent of intellectual debate, Jackson slams the door on any such discussion by his tone and vapid arguments.

Bush, always scorned by the Liberal-Left media, academia and the pseudo-intellectual crowd -- as was Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents of the last century -- also gave a measured, quietly patriotic speech. He's leading America at one of the most dangerous times in history, and leading it with a steady hand.

Perhaps, just maybe, Jackson should take a look at _WHY_ Bush is seen in such a poor light by those people. He might come to understand that there is a significant proportion of the population that perceives Bush as having engaged in some of the worst forms of statecraft that we have seen for quite some time. I wouldn't care to compare Bush to Reagan - Reagan never did enough to particularly impress me; Bush has only served to infuriate me. Bush may well be "patriotic", but patriotism does not ensure good governance. Balance, wisdom and a willingness to listen to all points of view do. Bush has demonstrated little of any of those qualities.

The Liberal-Left, who haven't any idea how to fight terrorism, ridicules Bush with rhetoric, but not with any substance.

Ah, the Lib-Left has no idea how to fight terrorism? And Bush does? He has been successful in reducing the risk in the world how? Afghanistan remains a country whose government is on the edge of collapse; warlords still control much of rural Afghanistan, people who have known sympathies for Osama bin Laden. Iraq is a country on the verge of civil war, and the US has yet to bring much that resembles order to it. Instead, at Abu-Ghraib, their troops come up with more ways to humiliate and infuriate the Iraqis. My, such a track record of success. The arguments I have seen from the left reflect my own intuition - if you want to dismantle terrorist organizations, you do so by infiltration and sabotage, not with tanks. These are borderless organizations which do not conform to the kind of military model that the US has been using to wage war.

In Canada, several parties, still two philosophies.

If you believe that there are only two philosophies in Canada (or the US), then you are even more intellectually blinded than I first thought you to be. The Right-Left spectrum is at best a simplistic convenience, and hardly one that reflects the diversity of political opinion and thought that is expressed in either nation.

So we have it: Two parties, two philosophies. In Canada, several parties, still two philosophies.

In each country, personalities who stand on principle; personalities who stand for what they can get.

Look in the mirror, pal. Bush's cronies are the ones benefitting from tax cuts, not the poor. The poor struggle to pay their rent from one month to the next, and cannot afford the extra capital required to make investments. Their investment is entirely in survival.

The wealthiest can afford whatever health care they need or desire - what about the schmoe working at McDonald's for $6.50 an hour?

Where's the respect for legality and human rights? The US currently has many prisoners at facilities like Guantanamo Bay, where the prisoners are held outside of law, outside of any recourse or representation? The so-called Patriot Act and its derivitives increase the rights of the US government to engage in unbridled surveillance and seizure without adequate judicial oversight. How does this make anyone safer?

Yes, Mr. Jackson, there are those who stand on principle, and those who are out 'for what they can get'. I suggest that you may have them switched in your mind. The right-wing in the US that you so admire is far from perfect. Before you get so smug about the inferiority and hypocrisy of the lib-left, I suggest strongly you be damned sure that your own house is clean.