POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Very poor effort, Mr. Simpson.
"One stunning triumph does not a visionary make"
That's just a cheap form of straw-man argument.
Jack Layton never claimed to be a visionary, and the people who mourned his loss, too, did not for the most part see him as a visionary.
Indeed, the truth is quite the opposite.
Here was a man concerned with down-to-earth realities, with making life better for average people, a man who was an effective politician in trying to get at least some modest accomplishments, a decent and happy man, and a man who kept a civil tongue in his head.
That all may not sound like much, but it is more than any of our recent leading politicians can claim - indeed, it is pretty much the polar opposite to that dark bulk we now call our prime minister.
As for visionaries, well we've likely had too many of those, because generally visionaries are rather like religious fanatics. We see them on silly television talk shows, we see them playing the fool in our education system, their books on self-help of every description are puked out from the publishing industry, and we read of them in useless business books.
And who were the truly large visionaries of the last century in politics and world affairs? People like Henry Kissinger, Lyndon Johnson, and Tony Blair – war criminals every one trying to reach the immortality of the Maos and Stalins and Hitlers.
I've learned to immediately tune-out as soon as someone is called a visionary or even uses the word. It’s as tiresome as hacks in the arts who talk about everything being “incredible,” and far more dangerous.
____________________________________
"Even in death, Layton's a media wh0re." - redneckgal
You sure picked an appropriate pseudonym.
But why take half measures and not go all the way?
I suggest you tell it as it is.
Lay claim to Big Fat Ignoramus.
