Telling stories titilate all

I wonder how Canadians would have responded, if Bush said something to the effect of what Martin said last night:

"When I was young, I practically lived here in the White House. My father was president and he went to war against Iraq. He taught me that those who serve in public office have a duty to protect the integrity of government."

Telling stories is one thing, but to play into a story of nationhood that may be more a matter of mythmaking is something that Canadians have lacked in contrast to Americans.

Two rather fascinating quotes from George W Bush used at the beginning of Rogers Smith's new essay, Providentialism, Foreign Policy, and the Ethics of Political Discourse, sounds like something I'd never hear a Canadian PM say:

“We have a place, all of us, in a long story; a story we continue, but whose end we will not see…It is the American story…We are not this story’s Author, Who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty; and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.” -- George W. Bush, 2001

“We go forward with complete confidence in the ultimate triumph of freedom…Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills…History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty…we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” – George W. Bush, 2005

Rogers M Smith's thesis in the paper, I think, is:

[Bush's] ... providentialist discourse bears the hallmarks of a “story of peoplehood” that is being used politically to gain an aura of ethical legitimacy for policies that are otherwise unlikely to be seen as in accord with the nation’s dominantmoral traditions.

Though Smith is critical of the story telling, I wonder if a country can really do with out it.

For why do people find coercive force and persuasive stories convincing? You might recognize that behind the pusher and the story teller is an elite group of people who are using their power or ability to accumulate power against people, but why does it work? When pushed, why do people not just fall over and die, becoming useless to the state? When told a story, why do people not just say, "yeah, whatever"?

Political societies may indeed not be natural, as Smith says, but why is their naturally a favourable response to pushing and story telling? Is there something in Bush's story telling that does come natural? Or is the notions behind the ideas he appeals to in their linguistic context and syntax merely the product of nurture? Is there something missing in Canada persuant to the notion of an evolving story?

Paul Martin speaks for himself, but others can do it better

Not after 9/11, even though 24 of our countrymen were murdered by terrorists. Not when we joined the war in Afghanistan. Not when we declined to back the U.S. in Iraq; not when we naively rejected the U.S. missile defence program.

Not when the government refused to compensate thousands of victims of the tainted blood scandal, many of whom are dying as they continue to await justice today (despite a hasty Liberal flip-flop on the issue Wednesday night, which will change little). Not even when the government decided to redefine the institution of marriage.

No, none of those things were deemed important enough for the Liberal prime minister to address the nation.

But hey, through all of those events, the Liberals were doing fine in the polls.

Linda Williamson wins the competition for best response to the Martin address to the nation. Damian Penny comes second with his truncated version of the Martin speech:

I'm sorry, I didn't do it, I'm cleaning it up, let Gomery finish his work, I'll call an election within 30 days of the report being published, please please please please please don't call an election right now, I hung out here on Parliament Hill when I was a kid, let's get back to the real issues.

White smoke, White pope

Joseph Ratzinger becomes:

Pope Benedict ..................... 16th
Born April......................... 16th
of non-italian popes, he is the ... 16th

JONATHAN:
Christo makes an interesting point. Why don't they select the Pope like the Apostles selected one another?: through the fatalism of lots. Instead of determining the will of God through politics, why not arbitrary fate? Here is the narrative as found in Acts 1:

²³So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. ²⁴Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen ²⁵to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” ²⁶Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.