I can agree with the bit about the media playing a role in this state of things.  Outrage draws an audience.  Rational thinking doesn't.  IT's almost like the whole thing were a metaSuper Bowl.  "We" vs. "They".  And it depends a lot on who gets to define who "We" and "They" are, too.  Words are powerful shapers-- We are tenacious; they are muleheaded.  We follow the best of tradition-- they are sticks in the mud.  and so on. 

I don't even bother with Fox "News" anymore.  See, even the strategic placement of quotes changes the tenor of a sentence.  The pen may be mioghtier than the sword, but both are dangerous in the wrong hands (or mouths).

For me this is the attempt to stifle debate - reminiscent of the old "when did you stop beating your spouse" - any one who criticizes is labeled a traitor to the men and women who sacrifice themselves.  Bah, sending them off to get their heads blown of is far more traitorous in my opinion.

Harper began his campaign against words by attempting to control or restrict reporters' questioning on the hill.  He claimed the media was biased against him - a safe claim because apparently criticism, in a Harperesque world, equals bias.  (Globe & Mail Prime Minister Harper and the media)

Harper has taken suppression of speech one step further; shut down the House of Debate.  Apparently he is so fond of the method of silencing the opposition there is word on the Hill it will become a regular occurrence (Ottawa Sun Proroguing would erode Parliament: experts)

Modes of communication are changing - while I bemoan the loss of poetry and the horrors of Tweeter short forms, perhaps I really am a Luddite, I welcome the change.  I believe the traditional media is waking up to the reality that "the Public" may not be as silent as was once thought.  It is hoped that the politicians will also come to realize they can not claim the public support them when thousands are blogging, posting and tweeting to the contrary.

Back on Dec. 30, when Stephen Harper decided to shut down Parliament, John Ibbitson called it a record “take out the trash day .” Journalists use this expression to describe government’s nasty habit of burying stories by releasing them on Friday afternoons, ideally before a long weekend. 

Such tactics worked because traditional media believed the public wouldn’t read a story that by Monday would be considered “old” (old being three days ago). Social media sites like Facebook break this cycle by allowing people to self-identify as members of an interested audience (and electorate). 

Globe and Mail Harper underestimates Facebook at his own peril 
 

For some decades now, really since the popularisation of television, we have seen the value of imagery rise to parity with content, and then surpass it, to the point where content is just the boring, backroom side of issues that are essentially rooted in optics and in image. 

The world is complicated and perplexing... who has time to weigh more than the imagery? Scientists, for example, are widely said to be "poor communicators": it is up to people who have something to say to feed us imagery that snaps into immediate sharp focus for us. We do not expect or appreciate extertion when it comes to understanding messages... difficult messages come from crap communicators... screw them.

Imagery is the language of politics and politics is now a branch of popular culture. Thus the problems that engage us are cultural (as opposed to ethical, philosophical or intellectual): global warming, for example, is about cultural conflict far more than it is about science.

Which would you rather see filling the television screens? Tedious, drawn-out self-recrimination about a bunch of foreign terrorist towelheads getting their bollocks kicked in a place we've got no interest in, no respect for and no admiration of? Or the Olympics? "The flame" has been trawled through every shag-assed little community across the country -- a pop cultural holy grail -- and local heros have been allowed to trot their few hundred yards holding it high: it's a brilliant image (no substance, of course, but sweet optics).

Compare that with Parliament.  Parliament may have everything to do with poverty, unemployment, war, torture, the thawing Arctic, the chilling health care provision... but, come on, Graeme, it's totally tedious.

Harper's right. Why? Because despite the height of the manure pile, it's an entertaining manure pile. Proroguing Parliament is no different from changing the channel on your TV: it's all about a better buzz.

 Besh... your approach is one that's fairly self-trashing.

Bleshpin, what conservatives and liberals? In the US, Democrats and Republicans are close to identical. The only great departure by Obama from bush's policy was medicare - and and that was gutted by both parties in congress.

As to Canada, Harper and Ignatieff do not seem to have any great differences of philosophy. Harper is petty cynical and dictatorial - but the Liberal mackenzie King tried a very similar stunt.

You have created in your mind images of liberals and conservatives. You are,  I presumed,a conservative, so your rage is aimed at the liberals whom you imagine to be different. Read 1984.

as to other signs of change, we can see a growing worship of the military in Canada. Now, I taught a military history course which drew large numbers of officers. I liked them. I liked their iintelligence and their values and what I would call a basic decency. But I never confused them with idols.

It is increasingly the case that politicians refer not to "our troops", but to our BRAVE troops. And I listened in awe to a politicians who described the Taliban as cowards. And I have been dismayed by the near idolization of General Hillier - an idolization that makes impossible any serious examination of his questionable forays into political positions.

Now, you can, quite correctly, call the taliban many ugly things. But this is a relatively small group without much weaponry, yet it has held off a far greater army equipped with aircraft, tanks, artillery, and the most modern equipment for years. Earlier, it fought brutal years against large Soviet armies, and beat them. Nobody knows how many of them have died in those wars because nobody cares enough to count them. You can call the Taliban many things. But coward is scarcely one of them.

There is very little rational discussion of anything. There is only us and them. liberals and conservatives. Us good, them bad - though both us and them are much the same. In this process, the vital questions never even appear. For example - a fundamental question - why are moslem terrorist attacking the US? (and Britain?) Can it be that they are blowing up themselves and others because they're jealous of democracy? Can it be because the Qu'ran tells them to? If so, why did they wait so many centuries to do it? Can it really be because they're evil? If so, were they always evil?  or has Satan only got hold of them since 1950 or so?

It seems to me that the reason this is happening is a kind of fundamental question. But it's never been asked. And it won't be. Asking the questions is essential to rational discussion, and we aen't getting any rational discussion..

no doubt. But that's not quite what we are talking about. Try  to follow the bouncing ball.

A man who tries to sell a medicine to people by putting whole citiies into an irrational panic by telling them they are exposed to a disease which only his medecine can cure - or an arms salesman who stirs up anti-black riots in  order to sell guns would probably be acting outside the law or, at best, in a manner few of us would encourage.

Besides, buying and selling is not entirely a rational purpose. It is not the salesman's role to represent our best interests. It is simply to sell. And we often buy for reasons that are not rational. Usually, no real harm done.

But we live in what is called a democracy. Try to get that. it means we,through elections, have to decide where we are going. That means we need accurate information and rational discussion. The politicians have to tell us the truth as they see it. There role is not to sell on some emotional terms. If we don't insist on accuracy and honesty from them, our society will simply not work. Remember Nazi Germany.

The decision here is not whether you should buy a snappy looking suit. It is whether children should be cared for, how health should be provided in the most effective way,whether we should kill half a million children in Iraq....

Business advertisers can try to manipulate people as much as they like. It will cause some damage, but we've always survived it.

But when politicians do it, democraccy is over, and then we face a more interesting world than we really want to.

Here's a perfect example of your point, graeme.

From a Globe and Mail article that you can read if you click on this sentence:

In an interview on BNN yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that prorogation gives him the opportunity to do the serious business of the nation without the distractions of democracy - Commons committees and having to answer those pesky questions from opposition MPs in Question Period.

Further on in the same article:

"In the interview, he [PM Harper] said confidence votes that could bring down his minority government will begin as soon as the House returns with a Throne Speech, followed by a budget, in early March. He suggested that financial markets don’t like that 'kind of instability.'"

Yes, we're all about stabilizing the market, forget about democracy. Yikes!

graeme, I guess I lived in another country, because the US I lived in did not have the Democrats and Republicans being almost identical. Though I will give you that a conservative Democrat is pretty close to a Republican and a liberal Republican can come pretty close to a Democrat. There are strong and historical differences between Democrat and Republican, not forgetting Dixiecrats. =)

What the US has, that for some blurs the lines, is hundreds of years of patriotism with a fervor and depth bordering on fanaticism. It is complete and absolute indoctrination. In that, all parties are the same and must be. Hang a flag and hurry in the fold and have anyone think you might have crumpled it to bring it in out of the rain and watch out, they will want you lynched, you Benedict Arnold. It is heightened anytime there is crisis and if you need it heightened any good crisis or perceived crisis will do. Late night can mock the President, but never the country. In times of crisis, even the President is off limits. Ask the Dixie Chicks.  

There is a religious character to it all and you can look at the Declaration of Indepence and the Gettyburgh address to see it. The Gettysburgh address needs some Amens hollered out. So, if you are not godly you must be evil of the devil's or not God's and if you are not supportive of the US, you must be anti-American. Nationals and immigrants must be American and not anything but.... less they be spies or a danger or in crisis will turn... it has been that way forever. "National security" trumps every right and every human. The concept that led to Japanese and German and Italian  internment (including having Latin Americans of Japanese descent deported to not their nation of origan or where they were citizens, but to the US) and McCarthyism.... et al, abounds.

Heck they locked up striking textile workers in '34 for being unAmerican or that the nation's needs or wants trump the people... There was martial law declared. The National Guard went and rounded them up...

Simply look at the US history or FBI files to find out what they will do to suppress civil dissent.

The words are all Americanism. It will be there not matter what party the person supports.

Think I would like to holler out a few Amen myself there StevieG!

A couple of things though, particularly about the difference between the Democrats and Republicans.  Sure, there are a lot of window dressing differences, and despite what people here might think, issues like abortion, euthanasia, legalizing of marijuana, those are all just distractions from the machinations of what the government is doing.  Let people argue passionately and endlessly on those topics, in the meantime we'll be be busy doing complicated things that most people don't have the patience or inclination to try and figure out.

It's hard to believe at first, but Obama really isn't that different than Bush.  Nobel Prize?  He's expanded the war into Pakistan and Yemen.  (And yes, the US was bombing civilians there weeks before the underwear bomber...)  Open and accountable?  Promised clearly that he would never do an end run around the constitution and use "Presidential Signing Authority" - well at last count he's done it at least seven times.  How's that closing of the Gitmo going?  How is Prevention Detention constitutional?  Congress shall have at least five days to study a bill before it is to be passed?  How long was the final draft of TARP legislation in Congress' hands before Pelosi forced the vote?  Minutes!  Not days.  

It is that line of government action that justifies the opinion that there is very little difference between the two parties.  

 And yeah, Harper is doing the same thing -- using fear as a means of distraction.

We better those pesky Yemens!  Better put the airports on high alert!  We won't tell you want to fear - only that you should be afraid!  Something's up!

What?  You want to talk about Parliament?  Don't you know that we should be afraid right now!  That's what we should be doing- sitting around being afraid!!!

Fear is the greatest tool of government.

For me, Bush is in a category unto himself. Having experienced a few presidencies (all those in my lifetime other than Bush's and now Obama's- which spans from Johnson on) and having experienced Bush's daddy and Bush Jr. as governor of Texas... Dubya is in a place all his own in my books.

Obama, for all that I believe he is or could be, is not a liberal or progressive. He was/is definitely right of most Democrats. Ask a liberal and he certainly was better than McCain, but Obama is no liberal, just like McCain was not conservative for a Republican. If you ask most conservatives, Bush was some "compassionate conservative" and still not conservative enough (ick) "letting those aliens in....blah blah blah".

US Presidents and presidential candidates have not been far leaning left or right in some time. 

Obama had a history in Illinois and in the US Senate and has said in his own words in his books that he is not liberal.  Ask the liberal Democrats and even ask the conservatives in the Democratic party. To me, he was/is a centrist/moderate. People decided he was liberal and thus he is and he will disappoint those who feel that way.

The US has rejected liberal Democrats for presidential candidates for decades. So, in our memory, looking at Democrats and Republicans does not seem that different.
 

Stevieg, we're largely in agreement. two very useful posts by you.

It certainly has a strong religious flavour to it - and I don't mean institutional religion - though that  is there, too. It also arises from a highly mytholgized sense of national history.

One of them is the notion that the founders were devoted to human freedom. Not for blacks, they weren't. That took another ninety years for even a titular freedom for blacks - and almost two centuries on, they still have serious problems. You can find a mythology that lies heavy on the perceptions of what Washington and Jefferson and the boys were all about.

I remember the popular TV series when I was a kid. Davey Crockett - pictured as a wilderness man and explorer. In fact, he was a land speculator and also fairly big time as a slave trader. 

 Disney history aside...

Without guys like Jefferson and Washington ( as imperfect as they maybe by our modern standards...) we would all be a lot worse off.  They advanced the ideas of human freedom and exclusion from repressive governments and religions by more than most.

Sure, people invent and distort their histories to buttress whatever needs buttressing in the present.  Everyone does it.  Canadian think we are peace keepers - and that somehow makes us feel better about Afghanistan.

As for Obama stating that he is not a liberal, well he sure is a tax and spend something.  Somehow the word liberal is a dirty word in the American lexicon.  Obama also states he is open, accountable and peace-loving.

granton - your Disney note aside, you should really learn something about both history and economics.

1. I had friends on a team of political scientists who were researching who the big spenders were in Canada and the US. Actually, you could probably do a very simple study  using google.

Historically, in both Canada and US and in both provinces and states, the big spenders have been republicans and conservatives.

Anyway, the phrase tax and  spend is kind of a brainless one. Of course, all governments tax and spend. that's what they're supposed to do. Or would you rather do without roads and bridges and schools and armies?

2. If  you are really keen, ask me and I can send you an article that might revise your views of the "contributions" of the writers of the constitution. Freedom had very little to do with it. Indeed, far more of our traditions of freedom come from Britain. The Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc. spoke of freedom largely in rhetoric. They certainly didn't mean either blacks or women or indians - far the majority. In fact, they promptly engaged in a slaughter of Indians, with the survivors kicked off their lands. So much for all men being created equal. As well, they constitution was carefully designed to ensure the continuing power of the rich. It was quite deliberate.

By the way, I am a professional historian, and if anybody has a mickey mouse understanding of history, it is you.

Oh, and not even counting the Indian Wars, the US over the past 200 and some years has invaded over a hundred and eighty countries which did not ever attack it. One of those countries was Canada. That is probably more than any other nation on earth for that period. Not hard to check. surely even mickey mouse can use google.

 Beshpin --- glad you aren't drinking kool-aid!  When I say what Harper is trying to do Canada, and stirring up the fear ----  that is just me getting disgusted with what I hear on the radio talking about elevated levels of terrorism threats, and that tool being used as a distraction from things like, oh, I don't know, stacking the Senate.

Graeme --- I am not entirely sure what I wrote that pissed you off - but chill --- this is a discussion isn't it?  

So, congratulations on your professional historian status.  Well done.  We're all very impressed and will fall back on our crinolines with a case of the vapors while you impress us with your vast knowledge...

Send me the article, if in your professional historian timetable you can eek out the time...

Dude, are you writing off Jefferson as only a slave owner?  Or did he, you know, maybe offer up something more?  Even if he didn't know it?  Did not some of the sentiment about which he wrote have a positive effect?

Moderation there --- graeme --- as a professional historian (does that mean you make money off history?  please expand....) you must have come across the word:

PERSPECTIVE

by the way, I don't mean to speak derisively of professional historians, so that word again is spelt:

P - E - R - S - P -E - C - T - I - V - E

i 

granton, if we were discussing baking and your wrote in, mentioning you were a professional cook, I think I would take that as useful information, and not engage in adolscent sarcasm that I was bragging, I had  a Disney view of history, etc. (in fact, you don't even know disney. Otherwise you would know the Disney view of history is precisely the one you are advocating.)

If you don't want trash back, don't throw it in the first place.

I mentioned I was a professional historian because bleshpin had suggested I didn't know history. However, since I am a professional historian (teaching it for 35 years at a universty, publishing on it, working as writer/advistor for TV, film and radio qualifies me, I think to call myself a professional.

As a professional I worked with many American historians and, of course, tried to keep up to date with research in that field. I have some reason to say, with some confidence, that your view is long out of date. (You wrote me a letter which I'm really tempted to put up in these posts. In it, you were hurt, and could not understand why I refered to you as mickey mouse - this after you had referred to my Disney view. And you in your next sentence  said I talked dribble, and then asked why I didn't engage in a respectful discussion.

Look. I won't respond any more in t his thread to beshpin or jesu. I know they are here as court jesters. I am still willing to respond to you - if you will follow you own advice, and cool it.

As to the article, I could mail it to you if you send me your address, or e mail it I had your e mail address. Or perhaps I could send it through Wondercafe - but I need acvice on how to do that.

To return to the subject, the danger of making decisions in an atmosphere of hysteria is that very bad ones get made. The damage to the US has been enormous. Over a trillion dollars has been spent on two wars, niether of which had much to do with terrorism, and which have probably increasted the growth of terrorism.

I have no idea what has been spent on domestic security, but it must now be at least tens of billions - and the US economy is close to ruin. Hysteria has also made it possible to tear the constitution to shreds, to practice torture, to jail people without charge or trial....

Yesterday I heard a Canadian cabinet minister we had to spend millions on scanners because  the Birthday bomber could have been a test project for an attack on Canada. That's hysteria. For openerss, he could save more Canadian lives by spending that money on a vigorous campaign against smoking. As for the test project aspect, how could such a clumsy, amateurish operation be conceived as a test for anything. And even if it were, why should we think it is aimed at Canada? But that is the main justification that has been made for Canada spending millions of scanners.

I think there is a strong chance that the use of hysteria is going to take us to the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons, and in the near future.

 Well graeme --- I couldn't agree more with your last post!  Which was exactly the point I was trying to make when I talked about fear being used as justification for a lot of extreme impractical measures that in the end only serve to limit our freedoms and impede our way of life.

I am not sure what view of history you think I am advocating I will try to be more precise in future posts.  No more references to dear ol'Walt.

I should add more to what I said about the Christmas day bomber. but I have to rush off so somebody can tell me I need new glasses (though I find these ones I got at the dollar store seem to work quite well.)

Before I go, I should add that Granton has also sent me a most reasonable and pleasant wondercafe mail. I would be a lout not to respond in kind.

When have most people gone through life without eating?

Never.

But that is scarcely a reason for eating yourself into obesity.

Leaders have always used fear, to some degree. But the use of it now is far more sophisticated, and far more pervasive with the cooperation of news media. In the fear, Americans have watched much of their constitution thrown out the window, they have accepted torture, they have accepted the right of the US government to invade any country at will, they have accepted jailing without charge or trial, already so deeply in debt that the economy may come crashing down at any moment, they will be accepting a defence budget for next year that is almost as big as the bailout was, they have accepted the use of mercenaries from all over the world, thugs, who now provide close to half the US combat troops. Someday, probably soon, they will accept the use of nuclear weapons.