A couple of days ago in an opinion article in the Toronto Globe and Mail this was the lede:
In the past few months, we have seen a serious deterioration of the situation in Darfur, which has now reached into neighbouring Chad. Massive militia attacks against civilians and displaced people have been reported, as well as indiscriminate aerial bombing of villages on both sides of the border.
Whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan or Darfur, why does it seem that for years we have "seen a serious deterioration of the situation" "in the past few months."
We already have the appropriately named "a Friedman" to indicate the "critical period" of next six months, beginning at the moment the column or post is written, whenever that may be. Perhaps we need a simple term to refer to "a serious deterioration of the situation in the past few months."Nothing says "a serious deterioration of a situation" more than Donald Rumsfeld, and, besides, we need something to honour his outstanding performance as the Secretary of War now he as been relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history. So it would be like, In Iraq there has been a Rummy and we have a Friedman to turn it around.
Much easier to type every couple of weeks.
(btw, in the column cited above the writer, Jean-Francois Thibault states:
But what was until recently a serious, yet limited, humanitarian crisis has now developed into a regional crisis threatening to extend farther into the Central African Republic and even, on the other side of Chad, to Niger, where Chadian rebels are seeking recruits to fight in Darfur.
Of course, a regional crisis would be worse and whenever the MSM notes the ongoing tragedy in Darfur that is positive. But, what exactly is Thibault's definition of a "limited humanitarian crisis?"
In September I noted how a study indicated that there could be 400 000 killed in Darfur, never mind the hundreds of thousands who have had to leave their homes. I really don't believe "limited" is the right word there.)
Comments