Musings —05.08.2013 07:59 AM—
I’m on Sun News a couple times today, and the producers (who are among the best I have ever dealt with, by the by) have asked me to talk about Al Gore and Syria. Which presents a dilemma for me, The House Communist. Here’s why:
- Al Gore: I think the world have been a better place if he had become President in 2000. Then again, if he had become President, I very much doubt Gore would have been in Toronto this week, suggesting that Canada had a “resource curse,” was an environmental “open sewer,” and that we needed to get on “a better path.” I found that sort of talk over-the-top, and not particularly helpful. I also note (a) Obama hasn’t exactly blazed a green trail since 2008, but Gore hasn’t been nearly as critical about that, and (b) the gazillionaire ex-Veep didn’t ride a bicycle to get here.
- Syria: John Baird really surprised me in the emergency debate on Syria, this week. He was not nearly as bellicose as he has been in the past, for starters. Moreover, he strenuously opposed military intervention, and he even lauded the United Nations. Given Israel’s (defensible) anti-Hezbollah attacks on the weekend, and given the UN’s suggestion that Syrian rebels may be using chemical weapons – and not al-Assad – I found myself worrying that Baird had been captured by body snatchers.
Anyway, what do you think, O Learned Readers of wk.com? The Sun New Network probably wants me to defend Gore, but I’m reluctant to do so. And they likely expect me to oppose Syrian military intervention, but John Baird has already staked out that territory.
What would you do, in my liberal shoes?