Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
I don't see how May's comments 'cheapened the loss of life from World War 2'. She's saying Harper is appeasing the issue of Global Warming by not acting strongly to combat it. She compared it to the most powerful appeasement example in history. I don't see why that is completely invalid and wrong... from her point of view, these 2 instance may be historically parallel. She didn't call Harper a Nazi, and she's not suggesting the Conservatives are going to kill millions of people.
In an interview Tuesday, May said the tempest over her weekend remarks to a church group were being both misrepresented and overblown.
May explained that the controversial quote attributed to her in news reports was actually her repeating the comments of a British journalist and environmental writer, George Monbiot.
Monbiot had told a conference on Saturday that there is a "new axis of evil" on climate change, naming U.S. President George Bush, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Harper as the offending trio.
According to May, who says she took notes, Monbiot called the three "more culpable in the eyes of history than (former British prime minister) Neville Chamberlain's attempt to appease the Nazis."
May says she repeated Monbiot's opinion on Sunday when she spoke to a church group in London, Ont., at the invitation of the local Liberal MP who had defeated her there in a fall federal byelection.
The point, May said Tuesday, is that Monbiot was comparing the moral failure of meeting the targets of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions with Chamberlain's failure to appreciate the dangers of Nazi Germany.
http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?..../n050193A.xml |
I thought I was clear, but I'll say it again differently.
Politics are all about perception. If you say something, no matter how clear one thinks it is, if it has a potentially offensive undertone, its a stupid thing to say. The two moral imperatives are barely comparable aside from a superficial "both were/are clear and present dangers" angle, but that's not the point. People have responded negatively to the comment. I didn't find it particularly offensive... just stupid, since I knew it would offend people.
I know thats what she meant to say, you're right, that's what she meant. But she, as a lawyer and activist, should know that its all about selling ideas, and an idea isn't well received when mired in a controversial analogy. Anti-Abortion activists wouldn't get very far comparing first trimester abortions with Hiroshima and Nagasaki(both were/are methods employed to deal with unfortunate issues in the best interest of the perpetrator that resulted in the loss of another's life or lives as the case may be). They'd already have people's dander up, and the message would get skewed.
She's also crazy to be talking up Jesus when her target voter is a left-leaning social democrat voter, even if they refuse to admit it. Christian angles typically don't play well to the left.