Start with a caricature (the Bush administration always eschews diplomacy, seeks unilateral military solutions to every problem, and wants to invade everybody); point out some illustrations of the caricature's inaccuracy; call this a "policy shift." Offer sober analysis. (Of interest only if you really thought the plan was to invade North Korea, Libya, Palestine, and Iran in the next few months.)
(Incidentally, while pawing through the Guardian, I came across another great Guardian moment in the midst of a windy op-ed on immigration policy, the pros and cons of open borders, the history of the early Church, the joyous holiday season and "the deep-rooted dualism between body and soul, spirit and matter, which permeates western thinking and is alien to the Jewish and Christian bibles." Among other things, not necessarily relevant to one another, but awfully nice nevertheless. Anyway, I presume it's at least partially tongue-in-cheek, though it's so hard to tell with Brits:
according to the nativity story, Jesus's parents took refuge in Egypt in order to save him from Herod's henchmen. Presumably, if tougher immigration laws had been in force at the time, Jesus could have been killed as a child, and Christian history could have taken a quite different course.Rather an iron-clad argument for or against some thingummy or other, what?)
UPDATE: I had intended to comment on this one, too, but Norm Geras has covered it. What he said.
Posted by Dr. Frank at January 3, 2004 04:28 PM | TrackBack