Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Quote of the Day: Peace Talks Didn’t Open the Gates of Auschwitz

From a Canadian journalist: he seems to be taking their version of Maureen Dowd to task for her whine, which is - to judge by his quotes - indeed narcissistic.

I couldn’t find any links to her essay, “Blowing in the Wind” (how apt), but Noreen Golfman found that double amputees wounded in the war to be a blight on her holiday.

Poor puss.

Rick Mercer, who writes for a Newfoundland and Labrador paper, The Independent, admonishes this worthy for her reference to a soldier friend of his as a “poor sod” - that, and her failure to mention the sod by name. Interesting, isn't it, the way leftist journalists can dehumanize and make disappear those they don’t approve of?

Mr. Mercer says:

Poor Noreen Golfman. She wrote in her Jan. 12 column (Blowing in the Wind … ) that her holidays were ruined by what she felt were incessant reports about Canadian men and women serving in Afghanistan.

[…]

The “poor sod” in question, Noreen, has a name and it is Cpl. Paul Franklin. He is a medic in the Forces and has been a buddy of mine for years. I had dinner with him last week in Edmonton, in fact. I will be sure to pass on to him that his lack of legs caused you some personal discomfort this Christmas.

After further discussion of Ms. Golfman’s debating tactics re Canada’s role in Afghanistan (and she does seem to aim for the crotch), Mr. Mercer has a final and most fitting thrust:

Auschwitz: Nazi NegotiationsYou end by saying you personally cannot envision that peace can ever be paved with military offensives. May I suggest to you that in many instances in history peace has been achieved exactly that way.

The gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks. Holland was not liberated by peacekeepers and fascism was not defeated with a deft pen. Time and time again men and women in uniform have laid down their lives in just causes and in an effort to free others from oppression.

Academics like Ms. Golfman don’t want smelly, bloody reality to get too close to their ivory tower. She would do well to climb the fence of the “women’s studies” ghetto (where she currently labors) and attempt to secure legitimate work, some reality-based occupation which might enlarge her horizons, demonstrating to her that truth does not lie in what she is able to “personally envision.” History won’t be found in that general direction either. Oh…I forgot: it’s herstory, not histoire.

Twit.


Hat tip: Small Dead Animals

10 comments:

Caveman said...

Judge for yourself the depth of Noreen Golfman's intellectual narcissim - this is the article she wrote:

ndependent 12 01 07
Noreen Golfman

Blowing in the wind . . .

Between mouthfuls of fruitcake and blissful stretches of catch-up sleep, you couldn’t ignore the war (oh, sorry, is that peaceful restoration work?) in Afghanistan during the holiday season if you tried. On the one hand, you were given license to let go and savour slow food, idle afternoons, and the constant pleasure of friends and family—in other words, fully appreciate the privileges of life in the West; on the other hand, you were constantly reminded of Our Boys our on patrol, eating reconstituted turkey in the Afghan desert—in other words, invited to feel guilty for not chowing down sand and fighting the war on terror.
Every time you opened a newspaper or listened to the news, especially on the CBC, you were compelled to reach for the box of tissues. If it wasn’t a story about some poor sod’s legs being blown off then it was an extended interview with some dead soldier’s parents. Indulging in another bite of dark chocolate was meant to be more painful this year. Here, have a plate of guilt with your second helping, my dear, and pass the self-reproach.
Amidst all the cranked up sentimentality and the daily barrage of stories from the likes of reporter Christy ‘one of the boys’ Blatchford or Peter ‘not exactly on the front lines’ Mansbridge, The Globe and Mail’s television columnist, John Doyle, dared to question the nature of the coverage. Doyle openly wondered, as is his right and responsibility, what in the world the public broadcaster was doing, let alone his own privately owned newspaper, devoting so much mawkish attention to the Canadian troops?
It’s one thing to pay full respect to the men (and some women) who have chosen a life in uniform and are therefore more or less voluntarily enduring punishing conditions, risking their lives many thousands of miles away from the comforts of home.
It is another to report on their presence in that unfamiliar place without so much as a hint that they don’t belong there, that the campaign to restore order and keep the Taliban from returning to power might be doomed, that blood is obviously begetting blood and that Canadians, and especially the Newfoundlanders who comprise such a disproportionate percentage of the overseas troops (compare with the number of African-Americans fighting in the doomed project of Viet Nam), are destined to return in body bags.
Shouldn’t we—the media, our public intellectual, citizens in general—at least be questioning, not merely glorifying or going sloppy over this fact?
Any time anyone questions the coverage, as Doyle did and as this column is venturing to do, you can practically hear the rage mounting in the neck veins of the military huggers. Peter Mansbridge threw a public hissy fit, obviously protesting too much. And Doyle told his readers that he’d been receiving some pretty nasty hate mail after his columns in December, not surprising, really, when you consider how defensive people are about the troops. I expect I’ll get some ugly stuff, too. It is a trite irony that you are chastised for daring to question the purpose of the military mission when that very mission is allegedly about restoring democracy and freedom of speech.
Which leads me to kick at another sacred cow--that is, Rick Mercer and that whole lot of star Newfoundlanders who went over to entertain Our Boys (and Girls) over Christmas, reportedly flown to unmarked destinations and, presumably, forced to share some dehydrated food and wear really ugly clothing for a few days.
What in the world is going on? Where are the protest songs of yesteryear? I guess, when General Rick ‘MUN Graduate’ Hiller invites you to come along and share the joy ride you have to join up faster than you can say ‘Bob Hope is dead.’ Reading Mercer’s widely circulated piece on the joys of serving gravy to the grateful Canadian boys was almost as painful as watching Peter McKay flirt with Condoleezza ‘Condee’ Rice.
Just when did the worm turn? When was it suddenly acceptable for your garden variety progressive, satire-loving celebrity to hug the troops, praise military actions, and pass the ammunition without so much as a hint of dissent or any questioning of the value of the mission, not to mention its obviously USA-linked agenda? Can you imagine popular talk show host Jon Stewart flying overseas over for a few feel-good shows in Iraq?
What looking-glass world have Rick and his talented cronies walked into?
Inevitably, in the United States the right-wing White House mongers who first encouraged the post 9/11 invasion of Iraq are now retreating faster than a camel in heat. It’s taken an awfully long time and thousands of body bags, but public opinion is finally forcing an undignified about face. The buzzword for 2007 is ‘exit strategy.’
But not here, not if you listen to Stephen Harper, not if you are getting all warm and fuzzy about how meaningful it is to stand in line waiting for a double double at the Tim Horton’s shop in Kandahar, not if Christy Blanchard’s columns make you cry, and you want to make Rick Mercer and his buddies honourary soldiers.
It is really hard to see how the road to open debate, let alone peace, can be paved with military offensives and the song and laugh shows of Newfoundland talent, and there is something deeply disturbing about the unquestioning belief that it can.

troutjacki said...

I just posted this on another blob but it seems equally applicable here...
Tommy
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

John Sobieski said...

Liberals are so righteous they cannot see how foolish they are, how disgusting their behaviour.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

- Kipling "The Young British Soldier"

Nevsky said...

Good post, Dymphna; and good job posting the entire article, Caveman -- it was pretty enlightening to read it. It's one thing that she's against the war, but it's truly amazing how distraught she is that people aren't more hostile to the troops fighting it, like they were in the Good Ol' Days of Vietnam.

Speaking of "enlightening", I think Ms. Goofman may have a point, so I suggest that she go and live with the Taliban in areas of Afghanistan that they control. This would present numerous possibilities:

1) Perhaps by living there, she really will solve the problem, and our troops can come home. (Not likely?)

2) Perhaps by living there, the way she gets treated by the radicalized Islamic world will broaden her horizons some. Nothing like getting sent to prison for being a rape victim, then getting systematically gang-raped there by the prison guards, to enlighten her about how progressively Islam protects the rights of women! (And don't get me wrong, Ms. Golfman -- I do NOT wish this to happen to you; my point is, I wish it didn't happen to ANYONE.)

3) At the very least, there's probably not a great deal of chocolate cake there, so she wouldn't have to be concerned about feeling guilty eating it. (Now there's a thought!)

Either way, problem solved.

Her right to write stupidity like that is protected by those brave boys and girls that Canada and other countries have sent to Afghanistan. But, she doesn't understand that, since she can't see past her chocolate cake and her guilt for eating it.

Cindi said...

This is a small and not at all trivial taste, for the 'poor puss', of the crap served to Americans, for instance, on Thansgiving. From sob stories about the inhumane treatment of the turkey to living visions of the 'food insecure' gobbling their portion at soup kitchens, it's all about guilt. And it comes straight from the very visions of Her Ilk.

Now she sees it aimed at herself in a more important context and can't take the heat. Call the wahmnbulance.

And the time to debate military action is before the troops leave. After that, you need to shut the heck up and root for their success and welfare.

Exile said...

"Twit."

How very apt! Brevity at its best!

Calendar Girl said...

I don't think she's attacking the troops or asking us to. I think people need to stop making assumptions based on their knee-jerk reactions and think things through before spouting off. I think she's just saying that anyone who isn't a psychopath would be emotionally affected by these stories of fallen and injured soldiers. So why is all the news coverage trying to manipulate our feelings? Trying to avert our attention to these victim-heroes, as opposed to demanding why they have to lose there legs, or die in the first place? The tragedy here is that the means do not justify the end. A waste really. Nothing we can do will change the lack of 'democracy' over there. Those ideologies have been in the making for hundreds of years due to historical, cultural and religious factors that cannot be changed by any action we take. If that's even the real reason we're over there. Canada should protect its citizens, work to make Canada a better place (have you seen how many people are homeless here?) instead of putting our tax dollars into a fruitless, wasteful endeavour in an effort to impress who? the US?. Life is worth more than that surely?

jeda said...

Well Golfman...go back to your useless English classes. Teaching a language, usually numbs one's brain after a few years due to the fact that there are no changes, just the same old stuff every day...try Science. You have written the absolute award winner of crap letters I have ever read.As my Dad use to say, go to the front of the class. It is obvious you love yourself, and have a feeling of greatness, but that is your problem not ours.If you want to do something with real purpose,instead of eating fruit cake and complaining, put on a uniform, go through bootcamp, join the troups, then maybe you can open that mouth. Otherwise, you are not at all qualified. This article is making it's way around the net very quickly and you have certainly ruined your reputation. Good for you lady. Go burn a bra.

Dymphna said...

I think people need to stop making assumptions based on their knee-jerk reactions and think things through before spouting off.

And I suggest that you might engage in serious argumentation rather than (a)ridicule or reductio ad absurdum summations of those who disagree with you("knee-jerk reactions"), and mind reading ("think things through"). Neither of these forms of argument are honest.

The criticisms of Ms. Golfman's sentiments have merit. From her remarks, this appears to be about *her* view of history and *her* view of reality.

To take just one factoid she used: there were *not* proportionately more African Americans killed in Vietnam than there were white boys (we're allowed to call the whites "boys" you'll notice). This canard has been going around for more than 30 years now and the Left knows it's a lie, but they continue to use it.

And the fact that Ms. Golfman doesn't like being manipulated by the MSM is unfortunate; her ilk sure didn't mind the MSM's deliberate focus on making sure we lost Vietnam by mortally wounding the will of people at home so that American citizens thought we were losing. And they were led to believe that our soldiers were "baby killers" (their terminology).

The open contempt in the MSM for our military led to the contingent of "peace-not-war" folks who felt free to spit on those in uniform returning from the war.

The MSM-academic complex is much more dangerous than the military-industrial version of bedfellows. The former is attempting to undermine our culture from the inside.

The Class of 1974 is determined to make of this another Vietnam, and to some extent they are succeeding. They do not see the validity of sustained military action at any time and will eviscerate those who disagree.

Madam, the knee-jerk is not in the responses to Ms. Golfman's trite essay. Her knee jerked first.