Sunday, March 2, 2014

March 2:: I was afraid this would happen - we now have only one more (stupid) step to go.

For all the self-righteous speeches we have heard, almost all have been lies.

The US is NOT supporting a people struggling for freedom. It is supporting a group of rebels that it paid to rebel in the first place. We have no idea what it is they want or that they stand for. It's not the first time Obama has pulled this. Think of all the Al Quaeda terrorists he and his buddies have recruited, paid for, and armed to fight for  "freedom" in Syria.

It's obvious now that this was Obama's oh-so-clever scheme to pull Ukraine to the West, and to make it a base to threaten Russia.

He seems not to have thought of what he would do if Putin didn't back off. And Putin didn't back off.

And that's when Obama made his second blunder. He had to start cooling the situation immediately. Instead, he issued threats (followed closely by our resident half-wit Harper).

The US congress, as usual, is loudly demanding another war, though it cannot possibly be worth the risk it poses.

Just of a few, obvious questions - didn't it occur to Obama that large parts of Ukraine would not support the rebels? What gives him the impression that the rebels have to right to force other Ukrainians to live under their government? Since when did a group seizing power by force become the legitimate government?

As a practical matter, the risks here are enormous - and the gains, if any, do not seem to match the risks.

So what happens now?

My guess is that congress and the US news media will whip the US into a hysteria for war, that Canada and Britain,, at least, will follow the lead.

What should happen is that Obama and Putin should work out a deal to settle this. But I'm not sure that Obama has enough support in the US to do that.

All kinds of other dangers lurk in this - a civil war in Ukraine, a civil war (or just a collapse) of a financially ravaged United States, an intervention by China, nuclear weapons....

We are back in 1914. And,, unless leadership on both sides show more common sense than we have seen,,,,,,,,, this will change the world in ways we can't even imagine yet.

Let's be nice to the Faith Page. Let's be positive. Let's start E7 "Celebration of Faith".

Some celebration!  It lists just four places of worship, all four Christian; all four Protestant.

How could they possibly have only four? The answer seems obvious. The paper must charge for those spaces. Lots of churches can't afford it - or think it's not worth it.

Now, I know the Irvings watch every penny so they'll have more and more money to give to us peasants. But surely they should break the piggy bank in this case. After all they've proven that they have an intense devotion to faith.

Then, well, the TandT just about wets its pants when it refers to this as Metro Moncton. Okay. If it's a metropolis, let's act like one. Let's be proud of it. Let's show the range of people and faiths we have in metro. We have Jews. We have Moslems. We almost certainly have Confucists and Taoists.

We should have columns from them, too, so we can get to know each other. We might even find that our faiths are not so different as we think.

A couple of things struck me about the faith page column for yesterday.

It reads like the sweetsy-cutesie text for a Sunday school class.

I  quite agree with the writer's point. But it's expressed weakly - as things almost always are in this column.

In this case, the column refers to Martin Luther King"s courage in speaking publicly about the sins of his world and criticizing those responsible. And, oh, he paid for it.

The trouble with these faith columns is that I have never seen one of them address such a problem.

We live in a society that abuses the poor while giving unlimited wealth and power to the rich. We may be about to engage in a war that has nothing possible to do with us or our defence (as we did in Afghanistan).

King was public. He made enemies. He tackled the problems of real life.

These faith columns are invariably abstract and wimpy.

I don't suggest that churches should become political parties or should try to force everybody to follow their rules.

But, at a minimum, they could hold meetings to discuss the  daily problems we face, and to discuss them in a Christian context.

If we are not prepared to think about our values in the real world, if we are not prepared to act in accordance with them, what the hell is the point of having them?

In reality, this faith page is for people who spend their lives gazing at their own bellybuttons, and giggling with satisfactions that they will to to heaven while the rest of us will go to St. John.

I was  going to write on the Whatever pages, which I always find enjoyable. Alas! I feel today as Methusela might h ave felt when he turned 950. So I shall, instead, lie me down.

No comments:

Post a Comment