More From Abroad

I think I love Le Monde. Is it because I don't really speak French, so I think it's saying what I want it to say? Or is it that I've finally understood French because I understand (but I mean, really understand, you know?) what they're saying?

In his analysis of the inaugural address, Eric Leser notes that GW never mentioned "Iraq," "weapons of mass destruction," "terrorism," or "human rights," but he mentioned "liberty" 27 times. Leser cites Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, the challengingly-named Zbigniew Brzezinzsky, as hearing in this a call for a global Crusade, one in which we no longer talk about "terrorism," but about "tyranny."

The Guardian reports its reaction to the address, with the suggestively ominous headline "Smiles for the family, A fiery warning for the world." In what Julian Borger calls "arguably the most combative inauguration speech for 50 years," he also calls GW's terminology "messianic." "The speech, steeped in religious language, was addressed first to the world and only secondly to the American people. Mr. Bush portrayed a planet consumed by the struggle between tyranny and liberty in which the US would not stand aside." Borger notes that the language of evangelical Christianity drew the loudest cheers from the crowd.

The fact that the world perceived this speech as a combative warning is very troubling, especially when the mainstream media in the US seems to have spun it as something else.

Talking about Condoleeza Rice's confirmation hearing, Jon Stewart asks Steven Colbert of CR's comment, "the time for diplomacy is now," "Is this a sign that this White House is moving away from a unilateralist, some would say more arrogant approach to diplomacy?" And Colbert replies that what she means is that the time for diplomacy is during the hearing. Afterwards, diplomacy will no longer be necessary. It seems that this kind of empty, in-the-moment, self-serving rhetoric is what's being heard by many listening from abroad to the inaugural day address. Behind that rhetoric, the threat is clear. Scary.

The News in Canada

Inauguration Day.

If only it were an apocalyptic action-adventure movie, which it almost sounds like it could be, instead of our lives.

I thought it might be appropriate for us Virtual Canadians to glance at the views of the lucky outsiders as they look in us on inauguration day in the US, 2005. I shiver a little as I write that. Notably, GW's inauguration is the leading news article on every website I checked. I'm going to look more widely later, but I thought I would post some of my initial findings, as it seems that somehow vigilance is particularly necessary today.

The Guardian reports, in a poll of 21 countries, that "a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years." In an article about GW's speech, it notes that he never once named Iraq in his inauguration address.

La Repubblica, a center-left newspaper from Rome, links from the main headline to an article on the Bush team, and calls "Donald" and "Condoleeza" the "fedelissimi del presidente," (the superlatively faithful of the president), key players in what it calls somewhat ominously a Post-Powell era (an era inaugurated today along with the prez).

I think Le Monde's main line suggests that his speech had "messianic overtones," mentions its many religious references, and I certainly understand its disparaging suggestion (and Proustian reference?) when they say that the Democrats are "a la recherche d'un projet."

How sad, and how humiliating.

What are you doing on January 20th?

I can't believe that now two months have passed since November 2nd. I just can't believe it.

Have you heard about Not One Damn Dime Day? I'm posting the email which has beeng circulating in the hopes that we can contribute a significant non-contribution. The idea of consumer rebellion, as many of you know, is one near and dear to my heart. I wonder what effect significant participation in something like this might have? What if 1% of US citizens spent no money for a day? 10%? Could the dollar, I wonder, wobble on its axis?

Not One Damn Dime Day, Jan 20th

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to alter the retail economy.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent thecorporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way.Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home.There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing.You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.