The big, important question - *yawn*
I'm not going to nitpick.
OK, I'm going to nitpick a bit: why is CBC's "Reality Check" an opinion piece strewn with factual errors and assertions of opinion dressed up prettily like facts?
That's it, I promise.
I'm actually here to applaud the article, since it asks the one big question upon which our entire defence policy revolves: what the hell do we want our military to do?
This question is the elephant in the military bunker, and I suspect that the Darfur vs. Afghanistan debate will provide a focal point for two visions that need not necessarily compete, but surely will.
That is, the debate might spark some introspection if Canadians bother to pay attention to the issue for longer than it takes them to finish their morning coffee. I'm not holding my breath.
Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks
Update: And what is up with the crown-behind-the-head photo-fetish at CP? OK, I'm really done nitpicking now.
OK, I'm going to nitpick a bit: why is CBC's "Reality Check" an opinion piece strewn with factual errors and assertions of opinion dressed up prettily like facts?
That's it, I promise.
I'm actually here to applaud the article, since it asks the one big question upon which our entire defence policy revolves: what the hell do we want our military to do?
Eventually the questions lead back to the fundamentals? Why does Canada have a military? Who are Canada's enemies: terrorists such as Osama bin Laden? Expansionist Chinese who want Canada's energy? Rogue states like North Korea? Or rogue Americans who want Canada's water?
...
The fault lies not with the military that Canada does know where its military fits in a changing world. That task is not for Hillier or any other general.
Nor does the fault lie only with the Harper government, but with the succession of governments that went before it. The reality is that until this government or the next figures out Canada's place in the world, nobody will know where to spend that $5.3 billion.
This question is the elephant in the military bunker, and I suspect that the Darfur vs. Afghanistan debate will provide a focal point for two visions that need not necessarily compete, but surely will.
That is, the debate might spark some introspection if Canadians bother to pay attention to the issue for longer than it takes them to finish their morning coffee. I'm not holding my breath.
Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks
Update: And what is up with the crown-behind-the-head photo-fetish at CP? OK, I'm really done nitpicking now.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:18 p.m.
6 Comments:
It probably has more to do with where they are given position than any fetish
Don't believe it, Cameron. The guy who shot that pic obviously took care to get the crown lined up just right.
It's the photographer's way of making either a little joke, or a little editorial comment, depending on the photographer.
If you think the crown thing is a coincidence, click on the "CP" link to SDA and check out the plethora of CP pictures with the crown perched on someone's head.
I have no idea if it's an attempt to mock or satirize, but I do know it's a lame visual gimmick. Enough already.
I've been to events as press, nothing as grand as this, and all I'm saying is that very often photographers are positioned in one place, not of their choosing.
Very often photographers from specific agencies get positioned in the same place over and over again.
oh, and mb they guy is also having some fun. People need to lighten up.
Additionally, and this is sort of the same, in the 80s when I covered a lot of punk shows I wound up with a series of photos that I guess I'll call my "shaved headed/mohawked singer eclipses bad light rig" phase.
Didn't plan it, just always wound up in the same place at Foufounes.
Uh, I've also been to events as press, Cameron. Any good photographer is paying attention to the background. And things don't align perfectly by accident.
It's no accident. It's the photographer having some fun with a boring assignment.
Post a Comment
<< Home