Why, why, why do I subscribe to the National Post?

Barbara Kay does not require your apology.

Here's bits of her op-ed in the Post today...

What do incensed liberals do when their candidate loses? Some run dreadful Web sites. (One such), www.sorryeverybody.com, features pictures of people (and their babies and pets) "holding up written apologies to the planet" for Bush's re-election.

...was Bush's victory a coup by a military junta? Were the polls closed to Democrats? George W. Bush was returned to power in a free and democratic election. In whose name are these people apologizing and by what right?

(These) angry losers seem not to understand the nature of apologies. Individuals may apologize to others for their own wrongdoings. A company president may apologize on behalf of his employees for his company having caused public harm. A nation may apologize to the world through its leader, as Bill Clinton did in Rwanda, for having abdicated its moral responsibility.

But surely this is the first time in history that a group of people joined only by ideology and an unshakable belief in their own moral pre-eminence have apologized to outsiders on behalf of fellow citizens for whose actions they have neither the responsibility nor the authority to speak, simply because they freely and democratically elected the "wrong" man. These Democrats, and the Bush-hating world who find conduits to vent their rage in like-minded journalists, are really saying that 51% of Americans were more than misguided, they were guilty of thought crimes and immoral behaviour. (Italics mine.)

Apologies today, show trials tomorrow. No journalist should be celebrating this contemptible Web site. Their "apology" is illegitimate and cannot be "accepted" by anybody....

Here is the imperial liberal mindset: ...it is a virtue to spread messages of self-loathing -- for that is how the apology Web sites will be interpreted -- to America's enemies.

An apology for the choice made by your opponents -- whether it comes from the left or the right -- is an attack on the democratic process itself. As a vote of non-confidence in the will of the people, it is a subversion of the very premise of democracy, and an incipiently totalitarian impulse. (Once again, italics mine.)

I cannot imagine a similar scenario -- conservatives apologizing to the world for a Kerry win -- if the situation were reversed. All reasonable people understand... that the glory of democracy lies in neither side ever having to say it's sorry.
© National Post 2004

Pfft.

Here's what I wrote to her:

A website that features pictures of ordinary Americans offering apologetic notes to the rest of the world is "contemptible?" Come on, Ms. Kay. You don't have to agree with them, but your contempt is undeserved. Most of the rest of the world wanted Bush out. The only people who got to make the choice were Americans. Their apology may be unnecessary, but they believe someone should apologize for something. The Bush administration, which lied to its people, won't. Does their unfettered arrogance hold a key to civilized behaviour that an unsolicited apology does not? Those who voted Bush back in despite whirlwind deficits, a crumbling safety net and a faltering economy, won't either. Which is worse: self-loathing as posture, or the real thing?

As is common for the president you champion, you've gotten confused as to who your enemy is. All this website does is offer a simple connection between real Americans who tried to elect Kerry, and the rest of the world who in large part wished they'd succeeded. Your writings on the subject are about as conscionable as someone ripping up a get-well card for a co-worker they don't like.