Hu’s on first- and Galloway is an unfit ump.

Opening Caveat: Despite my naturally left-leaning inclinations, this particular entry is going to seem a tad right-ish. I can’t help it. Imbecilic hypocrisy deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what side of the political spectrum it’s found. The only thing more annoying than imbecilic hypocrisy is the fact that people ignore it due to their political leanings. That said, brace yourself- I’m about to say nice things about Stephen Harper.

So, Stephen Harper is in Hanoi for the APEC summit. As you may know, Harpy and president Hu of China have had quite a confusing time trying to set up a meeting together. (For some reason, images of communist baseball players come to mind…) First they were supposed to meet, then Hu cancels due to Canada’s critical attitude towards China’s human rights issues. There was some back and forth between the two sides, and eventually the two leaders met for a brief chat.

Canadian opposition MPs have taken this as an opportunity to blast Harper’s diplomatic abilities and criticize the government’s foreign policy. Fine, fair enough- they’re the opposition; it’s their job to nit pick. (Although it’s quite possible that Harper’s posturing with Hu was a brilliant way to allow both leaders to save face while at the same time allowing them to screw human rights and just get down to business.) But then George Galloway enters the picture. Galloway is a British MP and a well-known critic of the war in Iraq who is traveling through Canada on a speaking tour. He’s making several appearances in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, where he is educating Canadians about why we need to get out of Afghanistan, and how we must accept the legitimacy of the Hamas-led Palestinian parliament. Obviously Galloway is no Harpy fan, but I must admit, I was a tad surprised by his take on the whole Harpy/Hu affair. (Again, this just reeks of Abbott and Costello…) According to him, “Harper's foreign policy strategy is a joke and is causing Canada to be hated around the world.” Apparently, Galloway has condemned Canada’s critical attitude towards China’s human rights record, claiming that "the idea of Canada threatening China is absurd…the whole point of politics is to talk to each other, even if you hate each other."

Interesting, but wait…George Galloway is an extremely vocal critic of Israel. Not only does he support the international Israel boycott campaign, he believes Israel is a terrorist state and he is in full support of any and all anti-Israel resistance. As he claims on his website: “I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheik Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.” It’s important to note that Nasrallah’s mission is not to talk through his problems with his neighbour to the south; his mission is to destroy Israel.

And here’s where we get to the part about imbecilic hypocrisy. Galloway is lambasting Harper for his inability to diplomatically deal with China, yet he openly supports the Israel boycott and “glorifies” groups who aim to destroy Israel. Why would political attempts at diplomacy be appropriate when dealing with countries like China (deplorable human rights record, repressive communist regime), but not appropriate for countries like Israel (democracy, vigorous and even activist judiciary)?

I'm the first to admit that Israel is responsible for egregious human rights violations in the occupied territories, and discriminatory practices towards its Israeli Arab citizens. But I would argue that like China, these problems must be dealt with diplomatically. If George Galloway (and for that matter all the lefty, anti-war "peace" activist white folks he represents) does not see the glaring bias implicit in his calls for diplomacy with China, he’s either a fucking moron or a total hypocrite.

Democrats sweep, yet U.S. still very very messy

So, in case you live under a rock, the Democrats have swept both Congress and the Senate. If these results had occurred within a parliamentary system, it would have amounted to a non-confidence vote, and the government would have been thrown out. Instead, Rummy gets the boot (and by “gets the boot” I mean he will likely be taking up a very lucrative position related to either weapons contracts or reconstruction in Iraq; in other words, he will continue to reap the spoils of his oh-so-proficient war efforts.)

That being said, he’s out, and the American people have spoken. They have quite clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. You’d think a lefty like me would be pleased, yet for some reason, I’m not all that impressed. Perhaps it’s because the Democrat victory is solely based on the misjudgments, miscalculations and ineptitude of the Bush administration. Has anyone heard anything other than politicking and sloganism from any of the successful Democrat candidates? (If you have, by all means, let me know!) Is there a Democrat out there that can provide an intelligent strategy for Iraq? Immigration? Health care? Pensions? One can't help but think that this is a victory by default, and in my opinion, such a victory does not inspire much confidence in the Democrats.

What it comes down to is this: As a result of the Republican disaster in Iraq (which, by the way, many Democrats actually supported in the first place), the Democrats now hold the balance of power, yet it seems unlikely that they have even the slightest inkling as to how to clean up the mess.