In the wake of the presumed death of Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston, Harper questioned why the UN remained in the lookout post along the Israeli-Lebanese border two weeks after Israel’s military offensive began. ... Graham didn’t address the pertinence of the presence of the observation post. But he recalled that the Israelis invited the UN to watch the Hezbollah, which controls the area.So, near the top of the article, we get Stevie's take: basically, that the UN shouldn't have even been there, and (by implication) deserve what they got. And, near the bottom, we get a swipe at Graham for not responding to Stevie's insane, blame-the-victim "reasoning". I tend to think Graham didn't respond to it because civilized and moral people don't take that kind of thinking seriously. But, why did the reporter bother to mention that Graham didn't address Stevie's contention? Is it just a case of drawing the reader's attention to the structure of the dialectic -- or something a little more malicious?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Bill Graham, PM Stevie, and the coming of the Blue Star?
I have to just be overly sensitive today, but I think I've found another hint of right-wing slant (to go with the one just below) in the Toronto Star. Here we find an article about Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham taking Stevie to task over his lunatic response to the murder of a Canadian in Lebanon by Israeli forces. I basically agree with what Graham says; but, I note these two paragraphs: