Cartoons on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and GOP Politiking
One of my favorite sites for procrastination (usually while eating a quick lunch in my office) is Daryl Cagle’s Political Cartoonists Index a MSNBC. Therein, you’ll find a compendium of some really great work by cartoonists from all over the globe (but with heavy emphasis on U.S.-based cartoonists).
Over the past week the website featured cartoons relating to the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Once an Obama election promise, the GOP–that grand, old Republican party–blocked passage of a bill that would have eliminated the policy. Apparently, this was done so that the Republicans could pander to elements of their ‘base;’ which usually means the Christian, evangelical right and the right-wing punditocracy (which functions as a sort of echo chamber). It really is an unfortunate policy and makes me wonder if a superpower or empire cannot function without some kind of bigotry or social discrimination. But it is sad that a Democracy-Superpower cannot treat all of its citizens equally, especially when they serve in the empire’s military.
I can see why they chose imagery from Adam Zyglis’ cartoon as the representation of the General and his medals is brilliantly done. But there are many other great cartoons in that section as well so please take a look.
Can You Say “Ideologically-Based Hypocrisy”?
A commentator named ‘Runner’ pointed the following out on a CBC News/Politics story… it seems in a 2008 report entitled “Is Toronto in Decline? Worrying Trends from the Census”, the Fraser Institute says the following:
The best data produced in Canada are the census data. While no data are perfect, the census attempts to reach each and every Canadian. The most recent census was conducted in May 2006. However, the data which reflects directly on the questions raised in this paper were released on May 1 of this year (Income and Earnings) and March 1 of the year (Labor). This paper will present….
If you have been following the strange saga of the long-form census and the current Canadian government’s attempt to abolish it, ostensibly because of an outcry from a handful of people who think it is an invasion of personal privacy, then you might recall that the Fraser Institute is loudly supporting the government by insinuating that it is only (left-wing, progressive?) activists and academics that use census data and that if anyone wants reliable statistics that he/she should, like good little free-marketeers, commission his or her own polls. I am not sure if the Fraser Institute is suddenly wanting to get into the polling business and make oodles of money, but even before I read the above quotation, I found their reasoning very dubious on a number of different counts. In their world, statistics would be the province of those who could afford it (and there is already enough inequality in the world). That would include municipalities and think tanks. I guess that would also mean that governments, especially the federal government, would have to contract with private polling firms and hope that those private interests would not abuse the personal information they gather. In a world (think Facebook) where information is valuable as marketing data, it would be very tempting for a business to sell the data to Axiom or some other, large data-collecting corporation. Also, since the federal government is funded by tax-payers, why is it a problem if a government agency like Statistics Canada makes its aggregated data (where all personal identifiers are stripped away) to anyone in Canada? I mean, we live in an information age where access to reliable information is commonly regarded as a hallmark of living in an advanced country. Also, having Stats. Can. provide such information to anyone is highly efficient and can take advantage of economies of scale, and don’t we want governments/countries to try to be as efficient as possible?
But, perhaps that is too much to expect from an ideologically-driven think tank like the Fraser Institute. They, like many other politicized organizations (along any part of the ideological spectrum) often say whatever is politically convenient no matter how untrue or blatantly hypocritical. And the Fraser Institute prove it best themselves in the very words of their own report.
PS. a screenshot from the pdf version of the report is below:
The excesses of patriotism
Jack-Boot Patriotism: You Will Be Patriotic Or We Will Crush You!! (Yes, the image is a little excessive but, then again, we're talking about death threats....)
I just posted this text (see below) after seeing a CBC documentary about a high school principle being verbally attacked by fellow citizens because of a misunderstanding about his change to how his school handles the national anthem. Some people went a little crazy because he changed to a new format of singing the national anthem. Instead of singing it in the morning at the beginning of each day, the school began singing it in the auditorium during assemblies and what not. This was done so that some children would not be ostracized because their faith prevents them from taking part in such things (not sure what religion this is or the details). Some people, including some Conservative MPs, interpreted this as him ‘banning’ the national anthem or as excessive political correctness. One of the New Brunswick MPs is the minister in charge of veteran affairs and used this in the old fashioned ‘the-lefties-are-traitors(or-at-least-unpatriotic)gasp!’ sort of way they do. I was getting a little annoyed with Susan Ormiston and her somewhat ‘how could you?’ tone too but she probably sees the ‘outrage’ in the community more than I can. At any rate, this is another example of how the extreme lunatic/political fringe makes a lot of noise all to single out individuals to become objects of frustration and hate. One of the citizens who seems like she is partly behind this complained that they were taking away our national symbols like the pledge of allegiance (which is what U.S. citizens take as a pledge). And some even made physical of death threats. This ‘fringe’ argues that the majority are behind them on this but I fail to see how attacking fellow citizens is anything except a path to mutual ethical and moral destruction.
Anyway, these people really need to think about what they are doing and what they are reacting to. It just pisses me off
Sent to CBC:
Those making the complaints, including the MPs who spoke out against this school principal, certainly do not speak for me… what ‘majority’ do they think they speak for by threatening another person’s life? The one parent complained that we have outlawed the pledge of allegiance. It is only a symbol and not a measure of patriotism. Besides, the pledge is the U.S. symbol as ours is an Oath of Allegiance (sworn to the Queen and her heirs). They might be well-meaning but attacking a fellow citizen is surely not what I think our soldiers are fighting for.
The Flag Lapel Pin as Pro-War Propaganda
Somehow I stumbled across this website once again and it brought with it a few laughs. I had mentioned the lapel pin and its political symbolism in the U.S. to students taking the propaganda course I am teaching at the moment. It is interesting how the lapel pin came to symbolize ones patriotism (or lack of it if that person… such a Obama… didn’t where it) and it even was used by members of the Conservative Party in Canada in similar ways. Of course, its meaning was forced so that it also came to mean… at that time at least… that the person was supportive of then President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. (Wow, am I glad that he is gone.)