reed writes

First, let me withdraw my dissent on RW’s recent criticism of the Harper admin for changing the language used in controlling Federal documents.
I have since been persuaded that official language is indeed important and should always be free of ambiguity.

Following Obama’s supposedly Big Deal in forging a unanimous non-proliferation UN vote on nuclear weapons, I looked up the non-p word.
Encarta says “limitation, control, reduction,  prevention….”
But none of those who scripted or supported Obama’s proposal had any intention of reducing their own nuclear stockpiles, the whole thing was aimed at steering public opinion against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

They were playing with words.

If the major players all have stacks of nuclear missiles pointing at each other with no intention of change, what is so dreadful about Iran developing nuclear technology for, as they say,  peaceful applications?

Wouldn’t the best path in terms of world opinion which will ultimately formulate the resolution of  the Iran issue, be even a token reduction of  your own nuclear stockpile?

Or on the environmental front, introduce tough measures to combat rampant China-cheap consumerism instead of preaching the evils of pollution  to emerging economies ?

This West-doublethink can be hummed along to the tune of:
“You can’t create any pollution to develop your new economies
(doo-dah, doo-dah)
although we made tons developing ours
(O de doo-dah-day)….

Or, cut the rope. I’m up.

Are we to be satisfied with the pompous strutting out of an important UN meeting by our foreign minister and his expenses-paid toadies because they don’t like what just ONE of the speakers has to say?

Are they planning to repeat this performance if they get a whiff of any other leader planning an impromptu Flat-Earth rant, or even worse, a religious one?

Pres Ahmadinejad differs from all the rest only because he’s prepared to run with his loopy views while the microphone is on.

Don’t you think the likes of  Sarkosy and Merkel harbour dark thoughts and fantasies about their political betes-noir?

You bet they do. But they keep them for other ears.

What they say at UN assemblies is coiffed and politically-corrected to the point of irrelevance.

But not Aj. That boy loves the podium.

This is an abdication of responsibility by our elected reps and they’re getting away with it because it’s in a faraway place. They wouldn’t dare in their constituencies.

Their #1 job is to LISTEN.

Are we getting value for our tax dollars, having flown and hoteled this bunch into wherever-it-is, to absent themselves from the process?

Make no mistake the champagne will flow regardless.

Thanks to CBC and others who choose not to behave so irresponsibly, we hear President Ahmadinejad also addressed the dumb-ass invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s brutal conduct in Gaza.

Are these issues of no interest whatsoever to Canadians?

Even if he adds one molecule of sensible context to these agonising debates  he is doing his job, unlike the pouting grandstanders sent to represent Canada.

One more time…. shame on us.

There are about 15 million references on the internet.

And millions more if you add “aboriginal”.

Wherever it started, South Africa, Australia or Canada, it is a long-overdue concept which benchmarks our notions of civilisation.

It is also a magnet for fluffy liberal feelgood thinking and the inevitable bureaucracies which will follow.

But how do we intend to make it work?

Sadly, it has taken decades for the Haves around the world to even make eye-contact with this desperate need, to even think about listening to the voices of legions of dispossessed and abused who live in the  world of Have-not-but-used-to-have .

How do we measure progress from such inquiry?

It seems those who sponsor and manage it will be the most obvious beneficiaries with travel expenses, perdiems and resume additions.

This is not to criticise their efforts and rewards, but to ask how reconciliation can follow once the cat of truth is  out of the bag?

Can we reasonably expect people who have been horribly wronged and abused such as Japanese-Canadians, Irish rebels, innocents in Guantanamo  and countless others to feel forgiving and magnanimous towards the perpetrators at the end of the process?

And are the white landowners in Zimbabwe right in declaring that history has given it to them, whoever came before should get used to it?

They are just one instance of land-robbery in our times.

If Truth and Reconciliation takes wings as it should, compensation and restoration must surely follow.

Will they?