Who hasn't uttered something untoward at some point? Something that, if the words are taken literally, contain an ominous meaning.
Balbulican raises a good point. Perhaps Flanagan was speaking in outrageous exaggeration.
But, I don't think so. Despite his scramble to retract his statement the following day, I believe that has more to do with external pressure more than his conscience. He certainly didn't explain himself thoroughly enough nor offer enough contrition to satisfy me. He attempted to pour too little water on a fire of his own making.
I've watched the CBC video several times. Flanagan's statement would indeed appear to be an outrage fueled outburst. At first.
He was offered an opportunity during that interview to quell things and leave the interview with his assassination call removed. He didn't do that, however. This academic, the supposed mentor of a younger generation, who knows the power of the word, declined the offer to mitigate his words and chose instead to reiterate his desire to "disappear" the subject of his now so-called joke.
On the other hand, I don't take anything Flanagan says too seriously. In the bazaars in which I travel he is considered not a joker, but a joke.
Post corrected to link to Balbulican.
A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world
7 comments:
Watching Flanagan on Power and Politics since he has become a staple just reinforces the depths to which Don Newman's legacy has sunk.
The program has become political dandfruff; flakes to the left, flakes to the right, flakes in front and flakes behind.
And it has been going on long enough now that anything different from P&P cannot be realistically expected; it's like the bloody heartbreak of psoriaris.
To briefly return to your point; Flanagan is incapable of serious comment at this stage in his life and career; he has become, he is a caricature of what he seems to believe is? An enlightened neo-con? i.e. It's all funny 'til running with scissors happens to put his own eye out.
There is no doubt good reason Harper has abandoned Flanagan; they are both piffle but Harper still believes he is not.
All I have to say is if your state secrets are so bad that you cannot afford to have them released to the public then you have bad international or domestic relations. All these people are calling for is someone to take out a threat to the continuation of their elit society. If you don't want your neighbour to think you are ploting to bomb them, then don't plot to bomb them. I have trouble feeling bad for people who get caught intending harm on other people. Maybe wikileaks will force nations to act cordially if states are no longer able to hide bad intentions.
I didn't mean he was "joking" in the sense that he was seeking to elict big yuks of the 'priest, minister and rabbi walk into a bar' variety.
I think he was giving vent to a sense of rage and using hyperbole to make his point, as a rape victim's brother might say of the rapist "I'd like to cut his balls off with a grapefruit spoon". Even if provided with the aforementioned balls and spoon, and the opportunity, I don't think the brother would castrate.
I understand your point and meaning, Balb. And I would, under most circumstances, agree that Flanagan was engaging in hyperbole. But not this time. I believe he meant it.
Bal
But if the rape victim's brother had said,"Someone should cut the bastard's balls off with a grapefruit spoon," then that would be analogous with Flanagan's statement. That is incitement.
It has echos of the Beckett incident which played out for real circa.1170. Or some of the anti-abortion attacks more recently. One group incites the other attacks and the first group denies any culpability. Henry II did at least take responsibility for his involvement and publicly regretted it for the rest of his life.
I removed the previous comment.
I don't need the grief from saying Flanagan's comments should be turned back on himself.
Whatever that means.
Post a Comment