Where else would politicians use a Monty Python sketch to describe the death of a major political initiative?

Monty Python parrot sketch recalled
Ministers pulled the plug on a British referendum on the controversial EU constitution yesterday, following the emphatic defeats in France and Holland.
Political Editor Simon McGee reports.

IT breathes not and it moves not, but Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday refused to say what is clearly visible to all - that the EU constitutional treaty is dead.

As all 25 member states are required to say “yes”, the French and Dutch votes mean that as it stands it cannot come into effect.

But caught between France and Germany, still insisting every country should see through their own ratification processes, and Article IV-447, which lays out the requirement for unanimous ratification, Mr Straw went for the careful balancing act of announcing in a Commons statement that a British referendum should be “postponed”.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Liam Fox declared the treaty was dead and plenty more MPs made the same point, but it took the honourable Member for Bolsover, Denis Skinner, to point out that the situation had something of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch about it.

Mr Skinner suggested sending the French President a copy of the said clip.

I’m not sure President Chiraq would understand the humor…

And England was also the country that produced this biting, dry humor exemplified by Monty Python that appeals to me so greatly and is so apropos of the current situation with the proposed EU Constitution.

‘Nuff said…

Moderates are in the unenviable position of having rocks thrown at them by ideologues and extremists from both sides of the political spectrum, but there are far more moderates than are realized.

In fact, most are moderates without knowing they merit this designation, and they are in danger of allowing the ideologues and extremists to define moderation into an evil.

What do I mean?

First, who am I calling ideologues and extremists?

According to dictionary.com:

ideologue: noun - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

That definition is inadequate in our current political climate. My personal definition is this:

An ideologue is someone who advocates a particular ideology and defends that ideology beyond all reason, up to and including excusing the hypocrisies and crimes of their fellow-travelers, the very same hypocrisies and crimes they condemn in any and all who do not follow their beliefs.

In alignment with that definition, an extremist is merely an ideologue whose views and beliefs are so removed from the mainstream of the right-wing or the left-wing that their influence is solely due to their vehemence rather than any positive outcomes that would result from implementation of their agenda.

Next, let me list what a moderate is not, at the very least to counter the accusations of the ideologues and extremists who use negative connotations perhaps to make their own outrageous positions and inflexibility more palatable.

A moderate is not someone without deeply felt and held principles.

A moderate does not always compromise at the expense of principles.

A moderate is not “squishy” or unwilling to defend their principles.

A moderate does not believe they hold the sole truth or the only “proper” way to think about the world.

Now, to the heart of the matter, what is a moderate?

A moderate does have deeply felt and held principles.

A moderate will defend those principles if they are attacked.

A moderate recognizes that there are other beliefs and opinions and indeed, deeply felt and held principles, and is willing to listen to those advocating other beliefs and principles and weigh them against his own beliefs and principles and acknowledge when his come up short.

A moderate understands that if a diverse population is to live together (and even the population of the early United States was diverse, there were more loyalists than the hagiographic histories we are taught as children acknowledge), then listening, open and honest discussion, and compromise are not only necessary, they are the only path to avoiding the mutual murder that is so easily advocated by extremists, as has been illustrated with indisputable clarity in the Balkans and Rawanda, just to name two of the most egregious examples of the past two decades.

In other words, strongly held views are not an obstacle to being a moderate, not if the fact that other views may also have merit is acknowledged and those views are considered and discussed.

So, in essence, those who refuse to have knee-jerk reactions to every development but are willing to put in the effort and skull-sweat necessary to think about how events fit into their world-view, and how their world-view might actually need to change based upon events and what they learn as they go through life, those are moderates.

The ideologues and extremists are the ones who excuse crimes and advocate actions that lead to atrocities.

There are many who claim to think their positions through and evaluate opposing views; however many of those claims are proven spurious when crunch time comes.

There are some who claim to be absolute conservatives or liberals who do recognize that other, equally legitimate views exist that are not in perfect alignment with theirs, and they do not call for the destruction of those others. These are the ones I believe are true moderates, even if they themselves do not think so.

And you, are you an ideologue or a moderate?

Answer carefully, because the only one you will be lying to is yourself if you do not answer honestly.

Obviously crime pays, or there’d be no crime.
   -G. Gordon Liddy

…how long before this man is branded a traitor by those who don’t want to hear his message?

Good Intentions Gone Bad
NEWSWEEK’s Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts.

By Rod Nordland
Newsweek

June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America’s good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn’t work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced “actionable intelligence.”

—

The most powerful army in human history can’t even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad’s main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn’t stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam’s fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost — which only deepens Iraqis’ resentment.

The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don’t work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone’s checkpoints. They’ve repeatedly punched Iraqi ministers, accidentally shot at visiting dignitaries and behave (even on good days) with all the courtesy of nightclub bouncers — to Americans and Iraqis alike. Not that U.S. soldiers in Iraq have much to smile about. They’re overworked, much ignored on the home front and widely despised in Iraq, with little to look forward to but the distant end of their tours — and in most cases, another tour soon to follow. Many are reservists who, when they get home, often face the wreckage of careers and family.

We are a democracy because it was the fundamental belief of those who founded our country that many different opinions are needed to be heard in order for the people to be self-governing.

Hence the First Amendment prohibits government restriction on political speech.

Even if you don’t like the message, do NOT attack the messenger. Instead, analyze the message for truth or falsehood, and present your case.

Shooting the messenger is the childish reaction of despots.