Posts
The movement the Conservatives need to win this election just may have begun.
George Bush's poll numbers are up in the US: up eight points in two weeks, apparently because of the success of the Iraq election.
This is what was needed: it has been Bush's unpopularity that was the main drag on the CPC.
And, Bob's yer uncle, up the CPC poll numbers are coming already. Or rather, the Liberals are coming down. Liberals 33, Conservatives 29. Within striking range now. I think Harper is also very clever to be pushing the idea of the Conservatives as a federalist alternative in Quebec. Surely there's an opportunity right now to take over that banner from the discredited Liberals. And, perhaps, an obligation, for the sake of Canada's future. If he can close a sale on that in Quebec--something that can happen quite quickly in Quebec--it could have massive implications for Ontario as well. Ontario bases its vote in large part on who it thinks can "handle" Quebec.
Remarkably, seat projections based on the latest poll suggest Paul Martin could actually lose his own seat. Should that happen, even if the result of the vote was not otherwise decisive, he would probably have to resign. And that too would be good news for the Tories. Frankly, Paul Martin seems to me to be the best they've got.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Paul Martin Comes Out in Favour of Canada
“I will defend the Canadian position and I will defend our values and I will defend our interests against anybody." Paul Martin.
"You are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question." Paul Martin.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.
Jean Chretien was a past master at wrapping himself in the flag. But the growing tendency to do this, to dwell on supposed "Canadian values" and anti-Americanism, growing through the Chretien and now the Martin years, is a direct measure, as such nationalism and anti-Americanism is in the Third World, of the growing corruption in Canadian government and in Canada's elite.
How long are the Canadian people going to be suckered by it?
"You are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question." Paul Martin.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.
Jean Chretien was a past master at wrapping himself in the flag. But the growing tendency to do this, to dwell on supposed "Canadian values" and anti-Americanism, growing through the Chretien and now the Martin years, is a direct measure, as such nationalism and anti-Americanism is in the Third World, of the growing corruption in Canadian government and in Canada's elite.
How long are the Canadian people going to be suckered by it?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
I Can't Bear to Look
Sorry, folks, I'm still too depressed to comment much on the Canadian election. Still no sign of movement in the polls.
I think the problem is that the current unpopularity of George Bush is actually hurting Canadian Conservatives. Canada follows the US politically in lock-step, with about a five to seven year delay, except, if by that point the American move is not looking like a good idea, Canada balks.
Canada is balking on swinging right.
Meantime, I'm vacationing in an undisclosed secure location in Sri Lanka, and trying to forget about it all.
Worst case scenario: this election ends almost the same as the last. Stephen Harper will probably have to step down as leader. I suspect Ralph Klein will be waiting to take over, and he could be formidable federally. There is nobody else on the Liberal side as strong as Martin. If he steps down instead of facing another minority-- doubt he will--that would be all to the good for the CPC.
I think the problem is that the current unpopularity of George Bush is actually hurting Canadian Conservatives. Canada follows the US politically in lock-step, with about a five to seven year delay, except, if by that point the American move is not looking like a good idea, Canada balks.
Canada is balking on swinging right.
Meantime, I'm vacationing in an undisclosed secure location in Sri Lanka, and trying to forget about it all.
Worst case scenario: this election ends almost the same as the last. Stephen Harper will probably have to step down as leader. I suspect Ralph Klein will be waiting to take over, and he could be formidable federally. There is nobody else on the Liberal side as strong as Martin. If he steps down instead of facing another minority-- doubt he will--that would be all to the good for the CPC.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Concerned Voter Writes
A recent discussion on an email list brings out some popular misconceptions:
Concerned voter:
Unless you want to be paying for health care out of pocket, tax cuts are undesirable.
Abbot:
If there were no government health plan, it is unlikely that most Canadians would be paying for health care out of their own pockets. Anyone who was employed, and their family, would probably be covered by an employer’s plan. This is the case in other developed countries that do not have government-run health care plans.
We’ll get to taxes a little further on.
Concerned voter:
People argue that government is wasteful; but if these services were performed by for-profit businesses, we would not only have to pay for the basic cost of the service, but also for the profits collected by a corporation's shareholders.
Abbot:
Sounds good in theory, perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. When, in the past, we’ve had government-owned enterprises competing directly with private concerns--Air Canada vs. CP Air, CBC vs. CTV, CN vs. CP, and so forth—the government entity has usually required big subsidies to hold its own in the marketplace. How come?
The discipline of the market forces efficiencies that more than make up for the profit margin. The profit taken by shareholders is nothing compared to what an established bureaucracy can squander in empire building and feathering its own nest.
Concerned voter:
What about the cost of running their marketting and advertising departments which, in a for-profit company, suck a good portion of the operating costs to ensure profitability?
Abbot:
Advertising is not a drag; it is a legitimate service to the public. It is educational; what you do not know about is not available to you.
As to the cost, do you really find that the cost of long distance services has gone up, and the quality declined, since Bell Canada lost its monopoly and the various providers had to start advertising and marketing?
Discipline of the market.
Concerned voter:
It is meaningless to speak of tax cuts without talking about program cuts. If you want to pay lower taxes, then look at the federal budget and decide what you would like to cut out.
Abbot:
Not so, according to the current “supply side” economic theory. (Not so according to Keynesianism, either.)
First, if the government has been running surpluses, as it has, it follows that you can cut taxes immediately without cutting services.
Second, according to the theory, if you cut taxes, you stimulate the economy. Greater economic activity means that your revenue stream does not go down—it is more likely to go up, over time. You will collect more, not less, money in taxes.
Third, by privatizing the provision of some services, thereby introducing market discipline, you can probably provide the same services at lower cost. This would be an argument for things like school vouchers, the Conservative plan to remit money for child care directly to families, or allowing more private provision of medical treatment.
Concerned voter:
We need more, not less, money in government services. Look at the long waits for medical care.
Abbot:
Simple rule of economics: when you fix prices, you get shortages. You are short-circuiting the supply and demand equation.
Concerned voter:
True, in a private hospital, you won't wait as long. Then again, unless you're well off, you won't get inside either. That's what makes them "efficient".
Abbot:
No, it isn’t. A survey in Manitoba actually showed that the wealthy are no more likely than the poor to resort to private provision of medical care. Again, it depends on what is covered in your employer’s plan.
Concerned voter:
…Promises to cut taxes are cheap. Promises to cut spending better reveal the true intentions of a candidate.
Abbot:
There’s truth in that. But to be fair and balanced, you need to remember the corollary. Promises to improve services are cheap. Promises to raise specific taxes better reveal the true intentions of the candidate.
Concerned voter:
Unless you want to be paying for health care out of pocket, tax cuts are undesirable.
Abbot:
If there were no government health plan, it is unlikely that most Canadians would be paying for health care out of their own pockets. Anyone who was employed, and their family, would probably be covered by an employer’s plan. This is the case in other developed countries that do not have government-run health care plans.
We’ll get to taxes a little further on.
Concerned voter:
People argue that government is wasteful; but if these services were performed by for-profit businesses, we would not only have to pay for the basic cost of the service, but also for the profits collected by a corporation's shareholders.
Abbot:
Sounds good in theory, perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. When, in the past, we’ve had government-owned enterprises competing directly with private concerns--Air Canada vs. CP Air, CBC vs. CTV, CN vs. CP, and so forth—the government entity has usually required big subsidies to hold its own in the marketplace. How come?
The discipline of the market forces efficiencies that more than make up for the profit margin. The profit taken by shareholders is nothing compared to what an established bureaucracy can squander in empire building and feathering its own nest.
Concerned voter:
What about the cost of running their marketting and advertising departments which, in a for-profit company, suck a good portion of the operating costs to ensure profitability?
Abbot:
Advertising is not a drag; it is a legitimate service to the public. It is educational; what you do not know about is not available to you.
As to the cost, do you really find that the cost of long distance services has gone up, and the quality declined, since Bell Canada lost its monopoly and the various providers had to start advertising and marketing?
Discipline of the market.
Concerned voter:
It is meaningless to speak of tax cuts without talking about program cuts. If you want to pay lower taxes, then look at the federal budget and decide what you would like to cut out.
Abbot:
Not so, according to the current “supply side” economic theory. (Not so according to Keynesianism, either.)
First, if the government has been running surpluses, as it has, it follows that you can cut taxes immediately without cutting services.
Second, according to the theory, if you cut taxes, you stimulate the economy. Greater economic activity means that your revenue stream does not go down—it is more likely to go up, over time. You will collect more, not less, money in taxes.
Third, by privatizing the provision of some services, thereby introducing market discipline, you can probably provide the same services at lower cost. This would be an argument for things like school vouchers, the Conservative plan to remit money for child care directly to families, or allowing more private provision of medical treatment.
Concerned voter:
We need more, not less, money in government services. Look at the long waits for medical care.
Abbot:
Simple rule of economics: when you fix prices, you get shortages. You are short-circuiting the supply and demand equation.
Concerned voter:
True, in a private hospital, you won't wait as long. Then again, unless you're well off, you won't get inside either. That's what makes them "efficient".
Abbot:
No, it isn’t. A survey in Manitoba actually showed that the wealthy are no more likely than the poor to resort to private provision of medical care. Again, it depends on what is covered in your employer’s plan.
Concerned voter:
…Promises to cut taxes are cheap. Promises to cut spending better reveal the true intentions of a candidate.
Abbot:
There’s truth in that. But to be fair and balanced, you need to remember the corollary. Promises to improve services are cheap. Promises to raise specific taxes better reveal the true intentions of the candidate.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Canadian Election
Now is the time, no doubt, for all good men to come to the aid of the party. Yet I am still silent. My apologies. This has a lot to do with getting ready for Christmas and more to do with getting ready to go off on vacation to an undisclosed location in Sri Lanka.
But it is also that the Canadian election is just too depressing. As the polls sit, it will just be another Liberal minority about as before. The only movement I've seen so far is between the Liberals and the NDP. And the media have begun their usual full-court press against the Conservative leader and his message.
Of course, things could change after Christmas, once people begin focusing more on the election.
Hey! That could go for me as well!
But even if Harper gets a minority, it isn't enough to break through. He'd have to count on the support of the BQ for legislation, and there is very little those two parties have in common. I can see the Liberals losing the election, yet still hanging on to power by making a formal coalition with the NDP. Or another short minority like Joe Clark's.
I have already voted, by the way. Kudos to Elections Canada for making it possible. The ballot arrived from Canada by courier.
But it is also that the Canadian election is just too depressing. As the polls sit, it will just be another Liberal minority about as before. The only movement I've seen so far is between the Liberals and the NDP. And the media have begun their usual full-court press against the Conservative leader and his message.
Of course, things could change after Christmas, once people begin focusing more on the election.
Hey! That could go for me as well!
But even if Harper gets a minority, it isn't enough to break through. He'd have to count on the support of the BQ for legislation, and there is very little those two parties have in common. I can see the Liberals losing the election, yet still hanging on to power by making a formal coalition with the NDP. Or another short minority like Joe Clark's.
I have already voted, by the way. Kudos to Elections Canada for making it possible. The ballot arrived from Canada by courier.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Filipinos for Harper
The Liberals may have trouble this time playing the racism card.
A recent Globe poll points out that support for the two parties among visible minorities is now just about the same as it is in the general population.
It’s about time. In terms of policies, those of the Conservatives have long been more favourable to recent immigrants than those of the Liberals. And the Conservative stance on moral issues is much closer to the views of most immigrant and visible minority families.
The Globe theorizes that the ongoing Tory-ward shift among visible minorities has a lot to do with the corruption issue. It could well be. Nobody knows better than folks who have grown up in the Third World how devastating government corruption can be.
Personally, I suspect a lot of it has to do with what was called, in the recent American election, “values.” Not just corruption, but gay marriage, abortion, and secularization.
I also think visible minorities must have become sick of being patronized by the Liberals, with their “Boys’ Book of Empire” concept of smiling brown natives dancing in colourful traditional costume that was “multiculturalism.”
The Globe story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/dsme8
A recent Globe poll points out that support for the two parties among visible minorities is now just about the same as it is in the general population.
It’s about time. In terms of policies, those of the Conservatives have long been more favourable to recent immigrants than those of the Liberals. And the Conservative stance on moral issues is much closer to the views of most immigrant and visible minority families.
The Globe theorizes that the ongoing Tory-ward shift among visible minorities has a lot to do with the corruption issue. It could well be. Nobody knows better than folks who have grown up in the Third World how devastating government corruption can be.
Personally, I suspect a lot of it has to do with what was called, in the recent American election, “values.” Not just corruption, but gay marriage, abortion, and secularization.
I also think visible minorities must have become sick of being patronized by the Liberals, with their “Boys’ Book of Empire” concept of smiling brown natives dancing in colourful traditional costume that was “multiculturalism.”
The Globe story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/dsme8
The Family Compact
If anyone doesn’t believe that the Canadian political elite is a small, incestuous clique, note that Jack Layton’s Liberal opponent in Toronto Danforth in this election is Pierre Trudeau’s former mistress, Deborah Coyne. Layton’s wife, Olivia Chow, is running in nearby Trinity-Spadina. Layton is the son of former Mulroney cabinet minister Robert Layton.
I won’t get into the McKay—Stronach—Desmarais—Chretien—Mulroney crossovers.
This kind of intermarried clique is just not healthy in a democracy. It tends to the establishment of an aristocracy, and a government neither by nor for the people.
We need fresh blood. I’d say Alberta, the West, and the Tory Party is our greatest hope for that. The old Red Tories are as nepotistic and elitist as anyone; but the CA faction is pretty open to newcomers. Of the three main leaders outside Quebec, Stephen Harper is the only one whose father was not also a prominent politician. And the Tories have the most diverse caucus.
I won’t get into the McKay—Stronach—Desmarais—Chretien—Mulroney crossovers.
This kind of intermarried clique is just not healthy in a democracy. It tends to the establishment of an aristocracy, and a government neither by nor for the people.
We need fresh blood. I’d say Alberta, the West, and the Tory Party is our greatest hope for that. The old Red Tories are as nepotistic and elitist as anyone; but the CA faction is pretty open to newcomers. Of the three main leaders outside Quebec, Stephen Harper is the only one whose father was not also a prominent politician. And the Tories have the most diverse caucus.
Romantic Love Lasts One Year
Romantic love is a crock. Real love comes only after marriage, and with time. The following story confirms this yet again:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3268292
The sad thing is how many marriages break up because one or the other partner has been swindled into thinking that romantic love is essential, and the real thing. Then when it fades, they think something is wrong.
Here's the kick: romantic love is a delusion based on a misreading of Medieval Christian allegories. They used romantic, or erotic, love as an allegory of the love between the soul and God. Eros was used as a metaphor for agape. Too many took the whole thing literally, and missed the referent.
Romantic love is a type of mental unbalance. They might as well have used the allegory--and did--of wine, or the dream.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=3268292
The sad thing is how many marriages break up because one or the other partner has been swindled into thinking that romantic love is essential, and the real thing. Then when it fades, they think something is wrong.
Here's the kick: romantic love is a delusion based on a misreading of Medieval Christian allegories. They used romantic, or erotic, love as an allegory of the love between the soul and God. Eros was used as a metaphor for agape. Too many took the whole thing literally, and missed the referent.
Romantic love is a type of mental unbalance. They might as well have used the allegory--and did--of wine, or the dream.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Genocide League Tables
Historian R.J. Rummel has tried to put figures on the great genocides, and comes up with Mao as the greatest murderer of all time.
The tolls:
Mao: 77 million killed
USSR: 62 million killed
Hitler: 21 million killed
Hitler was a relative piker; and Mao beats not only Stalin, but all the leaders of the USSR combined--remembering that Lenin also had a good many people killed.
Most remarkable is that, although Hitler is considered the personification of evil along world-wide, Mao is nevertheless socially acceptable. Not just among leftists in North America and Europe: he is still extremely popular in China. From the Chinese view, he put the nation back on its feet, after centuries of humiliation; and it perhaps took someone utterly ruthless to do this.
Makes you wonder how everyone would now think of Hitler had he won the Second World War. It's always easier to flog a dead horse.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616
The tolls:
Mao: 77 million killed
USSR: 62 million killed
Hitler: 21 million killed
Hitler was a relative piker; and Mao beats not only Stalin, but all the leaders of the USSR combined--remembering that Lenin also had a good many people killed.
Most remarkable is that, although Hitler is considered the personification of evil along world-wide, Mao is nevertheless socially acceptable. Not just among leftists in North America and Europe: he is still extremely popular in China. From the Chinese view, he put the nation back on its feet, after centuries of humiliation; and it perhaps took someone utterly ruthless to do this.
Makes you wonder how everyone would now think of Hitler had he won the Second World War. It's always easier to flog a dead horse.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616
Boycott Quantas
An example of how far prejudice against men has gone: apparently Quantas and Air New Zealand will not sit an unaccompanied minor next to a man.
The logic seems to be that all men are child abusers, and no women are. Any any man is liable to molest a child in any public place, given half a chance.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200511%5CFOR20051129a.html
The logic seems to be that all men are child abusers, and no women are. Any any man is liable to molest a child in any public place, given half a chance.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200511%5CFOR20051129a.html
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
I Left My Heart in St. Francis
Why do we write “Vienna,” and not “Wien”; and yet we have switched “Peking” to “Beijing”?
Okay, you may not care. But I am, among other things, a professional editor.
It is a puzzlement. The proper rule is this: if a place name has an established spelling in English, that spelling is authoritative. How the people who actually live there, who speak a different language, say it in their language, is not relevant. This is the same rule followed by other languages: the French say “Londres,” not “London.”
The English name for a number of Indian cities has also changed: Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Poona to Pune, and so forth. But this is defensible: a significant number of people living in those places speak English, and their usage therefore arguably changes English usage.
But what is the argument for changing “Peking” to “Beijing”? Or, to cite other recent examples, “Burma” to “Myanmar,” “Ivory Coast” to “Cote d’Ivoire,” “Congo” to “Zaire,” “Saigon” to “Ho Chi Minh City,” or “Cambodia” to “Kampuchea”?
What do all these examples have in common? (Other than most of them having been changed back a few years later, adding to everyone’s confusion.) Hint: think left-wing dictatorships.
The chattering classes in the West are too ready to bend over, frontwards or backwards, for any leftist dictatorship in the Third World.
And have been for some while. English-language publications generally also swallowed St. Petersberg to Petrograd to Leningrad, in its day.
Okay, you may not care. But I am, among other things, a professional editor.
It is a puzzlement. The proper rule is this: if a place name has an established spelling in English, that spelling is authoritative. How the people who actually live there, who speak a different language, say it in their language, is not relevant. This is the same rule followed by other languages: the French say “Londres,” not “London.”
The English name for a number of Indian cities has also changed: Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Poona to Pune, and so forth. But this is defensible: a significant number of people living in those places speak English, and their usage therefore arguably changes English usage.
But what is the argument for changing “Peking” to “Beijing”? Or, to cite other recent examples, “Burma” to “Myanmar,” “Ivory Coast” to “Cote d’Ivoire,” “Congo” to “Zaire,” “Saigon” to “Ho Chi Minh City,” or “Cambodia” to “Kampuchea”?
What do all these examples have in common? (Other than most of them having been changed back a few years later, adding to everyone’s confusion.) Hint: think left-wing dictatorships.
The chattering classes in the West are too ready to bend over, frontwards or backwards, for any leftist dictatorship in the Third World.
And have been for some while. English-language publications generally also swallowed St. Petersberg to Petrograd to Leningrad, in its day.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Enter, Pursued by Bear
People make a lot of fuss about the violence kids are exposed to these days on TV. But was it ever thus?
Innocent Victorian children’s rhymes were perhaps not that innocent after all. This one is from Edward Lear’s Book of Nonsense:
There was an old person of Tartary
Who divided his jugular artery;
But he screeched to his wife
And she said “Oh my life!
Your death will be felt by all Tartary!”
I can’t see that one getting past the average contemporary nursery school teacher.
How about this one:
There was an old man of Jamaica
Who suddenly married a Quaker;
But she cried out “Alack!
I have married a black!”
Which distressed that old man of Jamaica.
Or this:
There was a young lady of Clare
Who was sadly pursued by a bear;
When she found she was tired,
She abruptly expired,
That unfortunate lady of Clare.
The truth is, as Disney knew well, kids love being scared. And they love anything that seems a bit subversive. Rob them of this, and you are robbing them of some of the best fun of childhood. I suspect you are also stunting their souls. They need to ponder these questions.
Pleasant dreams, kids!
Innocent Victorian children’s rhymes were perhaps not that innocent after all. This one is from Edward Lear’s Book of Nonsense:
There was an old person of Tartary
Who divided his jugular artery;
But he screeched to his wife
And she said “Oh my life!
Your death will be felt by all Tartary!”
I can’t see that one getting past the average contemporary nursery school teacher.
How about this one:
There was an old man of Jamaica
Who suddenly married a Quaker;
But she cried out “Alack!
I have married a black!”
Which distressed that old man of Jamaica.
Or this:
There was a young lady of Clare
Who was sadly pursued by a bear;
When she found she was tired,
She abruptly expired,
That unfortunate lady of Clare.
The truth is, as Disney knew well, kids love being scared. And they love anything that seems a bit subversive. Rob them of this, and you are robbing them of some of the best fun of childhood. I suspect you are also stunting their souls. They need to ponder these questions.
Pleasant dreams, kids!
Sunday, November 27, 2005
What Was Fascism Really All About?
Among the many falsifications of history, none is more dramatic than the way our memories of the Fascists have been falsified. For example:
* Currently, too many folks see any sort of rules and regulations, and cry “Fascist.”
Fascism was not excessive order: it was chaos. It was the elimination of all settled rules and regulations, replacing them with the personal whims of a leader.
When Hitler came to power, he abolished the German constitution and instituted personal rule. He also made no provision for a transfer of power on his incapacity or death. “He deliberately destroyed the state’s ability to function in favour of his personal omnipotence and irreplaceability,” writes biographer Sebastian Haffner.
Similarly, on the level of personal morality, Fascism rejected conventional ethics, as “sermonizing hypocrisy and Philistine stuffiness.” The German and the Japanese government supplied their elite troops with whores.
A settled government of laws is the very opposite of Fascism.
* Many folks also think that Fascism was all about an elite oppressing the vulnerable. They forget that the original idea of Fascism was that the Germans, or the Italians, were the oppressed. In this, it presents uncomfortable parallels with, for example, feminism, or Quebec nationalism. Mussolini called Italy a “proletarian nation.” Hitler called Versailles “the vilest rape that nations and human beings have ever been expected to submit to.” The Jews, conversely, were seen as an international elite—rather like men, or white men, or Anglos, today. The average Jew was indeed wealthier and better educated than the average German or Pole. In Berlin during the Weimar Republic, writes Haffner, “they even formed something like a second aristocracy.”
* Many now claim Fascism was right-wing. But Mussolini and Hitler both claimed to be socialists. Recent Hitler biographer Haffner agrees: “Hitler undoubtedly was a socialist—indeed a very effective socialist.”
Conversely, it was the conservatives, both inside and outside Germany, who presented the stiffest opposition to Hitler. Churchill was a conservative. De Gaulle was a conservative. Stalin was, until directly attacked, his ally; Mitterand collaborated; in Spain, according to George Orwell, the communists formed Franco’s boasted “Fifth Column.” In Germany, Haffner writes, “the only opponents or rivals whom Hitler had to consider seriously and whom at times he had to fight in the domestic political arena between 1930 and 1934 were the conservatives. The liberals, the Centre people, or the Social Democrats never gave him the least trouble, and neither did the communists. And this is how things remained…” It was conservatives who attempted his assassination in 1944.
* Many—like John Ralston Saul—try to make Christianity responsible somehow for the Holocaust. But Hitler was no Christian: “He was,” writes Haffner, “not only irreligious himself, but also had no perception of what religion can mean to others.” As a movement, Nazism was enthusiastic about reviving German paganism and similar “New Age” ideas. Hitler emphatically did not see Jews as a religious, but as a racial, group.
* Currently, too many folks see any sort of rules and regulations, and cry “Fascist.”
Fascism was not excessive order: it was chaos. It was the elimination of all settled rules and regulations, replacing them with the personal whims of a leader.
When Hitler came to power, he abolished the German constitution and instituted personal rule. He also made no provision for a transfer of power on his incapacity or death. “He deliberately destroyed the state’s ability to function in favour of his personal omnipotence and irreplaceability,” writes biographer Sebastian Haffner.
Similarly, on the level of personal morality, Fascism rejected conventional ethics, as “sermonizing hypocrisy and Philistine stuffiness.” The German and the Japanese government supplied their elite troops with whores.
A settled government of laws is the very opposite of Fascism.
* Many folks also think that Fascism was all about an elite oppressing the vulnerable. They forget that the original idea of Fascism was that the Germans, or the Italians, were the oppressed. In this, it presents uncomfortable parallels with, for example, feminism, or Quebec nationalism. Mussolini called Italy a “proletarian nation.” Hitler called Versailles “the vilest rape that nations and human beings have ever been expected to submit to.” The Jews, conversely, were seen as an international elite—rather like men, or white men, or Anglos, today. The average Jew was indeed wealthier and better educated than the average German or Pole. In Berlin during the Weimar Republic, writes Haffner, “they even formed something like a second aristocracy.”
* Many now claim Fascism was right-wing. But Mussolini and Hitler both claimed to be socialists. Recent Hitler biographer Haffner agrees: “Hitler undoubtedly was a socialist—indeed a very effective socialist.”
Conversely, it was the conservatives, both inside and outside Germany, who presented the stiffest opposition to Hitler. Churchill was a conservative. De Gaulle was a conservative. Stalin was, until directly attacked, his ally; Mitterand collaborated; in Spain, according to George Orwell, the communists formed Franco’s boasted “Fifth Column.” In Germany, Haffner writes, “the only opponents or rivals whom Hitler had to consider seriously and whom at times he had to fight in the domestic political arena between 1930 and 1934 were the conservatives. The liberals, the Centre people, or the Social Democrats never gave him the least trouble, and neither did the communists. And this is how things remained…” It was conservatives who attempted his assassination in 1944.
* Many—like John Ralston Saul—try to make Christianity responsible somehow for the Holocaust. But Hitler was no Christian: “He was,” writes Haffner, “not only irreligious himself, but also had no perception of what religion can mean to others.” As a movement, Nazism was enthusiastic about reviving German paganism and similar “New Age” ideas. Hitler emphatically did not see Jews as a religious, but as a racial, group.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Klein for PM?
It sure looks like Ralph Klein wants the Conservative leadership. Considering his track record, it is hard to believe he has tripped Stephen Harper up twice, in two different election campaigns, inadvertently. It looks instead as though he is doing what he can to ensure Harper does not get a majority, so that the party may turn to him--Klein--as its saviour later.
Stockwell Day may, after all, have been his stalking horse, intended to keep the federal seat warm for him. Day was his lieutenant in Alberta, after all.
And what's this about doing a national tour to "promote Alberta" on the eve of a federal election campaign? Including a foray into Quebec to test the waters?
Klein has, after all, announced his intention to retire as Premier. He's done all he can provincially. And he enjoys politics too much; he is too much of a political animal, I suspect, to retire voluntarily to a quiet private life. His type of politician rarely does: populists like Diefenbaker, Chretien, Caouette.
Could he win?
I think so. We are overdue for a Conservative and for an Albertan as PM. People are afraid of the Conservatives; but Klein's folksy image is very reassuring. He is the sort of personality the Conservatives need right now; genial in the way Reagan was in the US. If he took the Conservative leadership, I would expect a Conservative sweep in the next election.
Of course, he is not bilingual, and that would hurt in Quebec. But the BQ will probably ensure that the Liberals are not too strong in Quebec either. If he can storm Ontario, that should be enough; enough even, perhaps , to get Quebec to come on board too, as they did for Diefenbaker.
It looks as though he is now consciously remolding his image to fit the national stage; just as he recreated himself in the move from mayor of Calgary to provincial premier, going from a "progressive" Liberal to a right-wing Tory. Hence the national tour. Another heavy hint: he has declared Harper "too right-wing" to win.
It's going to be interesting if Harper does not win this time.
Stockwell Day may, after all, have been his stalking horse, intended to keep the federal seat warm for him. Day was his lieutenant in Alberta, after all.
And what's this about doing a national tour to "promote Alberta" on the eve of a federal election campaign? Including a foray into Quebec to test the waters?
Klein has, after all, announced his intention to retire as Premier. He's done all he can provincially. And he enjoys politics too much; he is too much of a political animal, I suspect, to retire voluntarily to a quiet private life. His type of politician rarely does: populists like Diefenbaker, Chretien, Caouette.
Could he win?
I think so. We are overdue for a Conservative and for an Albertan as PM. People are afraid of the Conservatives; but Klein's folksy image is very reassuring. He is the sort of personality the Conservatives need right now; genial in the way Reagan was in the US. If he took the Conservative leadership, I would expect a Conservative sweep in the next election.
Of course, he is not bilingual, and that would hurt in Quebec. But the BQ will probably ensure that the Liberals are not too strong in Quebec either. If he can storm Ontario, that should be enough; enough even, perhaps , to get Quebec to come on board too, as they did for Diefenbaker.
It looks as though he is now consciously remolding his image to fit the national stage; just as he recreated himself in the move from mayor of Calgary to provincial premier, going from a "progressive" Liberal to a right-wing Tory. Hence the national tour. Another heavy hint: he has declared Harper "too right-wing" to win.
It's going to be interesting if Harper does not win this time.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Happy Fall Feast
PBS has apparently rechristened--sorry; redubbed--Thanksgiving "Fall Feast." I guess giving thanks might imply a higher being. And the spirit of thankfulness has been replaced with the more communal-minded "spirit of sharing."
No kidding:
http://pbskids.org/clifford/caregivers/activities/act_p119a.html
No kidding:
http://pbskids.org/clifford/caregivers/activities/act_p119a.html
Christianity Resurrected in Britain
A recent BBC poll shows a sudden increase in the percentage of people in Britain identifying themselves as Christian—almost a doubling in the past year. The figures now stand at 59% of men and 75% of women; 67% overall. It seems the winds of revival, so evident in the US, may be beginning to blow in Europe as well.
This might be a reaction against militant Islam. But perhaps not: even fifty percent of British Muslims, in the survey, endorsed the notion that Britain should base itself on Christian values. It looks more like a revival inspired by Islam than a revival provoked by Islam.
More likely, it merely springs from the same original source: an awareness, deep down, that secular humanism is off the rails; and a rebellion against what has become its suppression of religion.
This might be a reaction against militant Islam. But perhaps not: even fifty percent of British Muslims, in the survey, endorsed the notion that Britain should base itself on Christian values. It looks more like a revival inspired by Islam than a revival provoked by Islam.
More likely, it merely springs from the same original source: an awareness, deep down, that secular humanism is off the rails; and a rebellion against what has become its suppression of religion.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Larry Summers in Winter
A report on the Larry Summers affair appears in the latest newsletter from the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship.
You may recall, Larry Summers, former US Secretary of Commerce and current President of Harvard, got into hot water by suggesting factors other than discrimination may account for the shortage or female professors in the hard sciences.
According to the report, from one who heard the speech, Summers discussed two possible reasons, other than sex discrimination, for the disproportion here:
First, that women may more often avoid “high-powered” jobs that require long hours and total dedication to career.
Which of course they do.
Second, that there are more men than women who are extremely adept at math, physics, or chemistry.
This is empirically so; at more than 3.5 or 4 standard deviations above the mean, in standard tests on these subjects, men outnumber women 5 to 1. It should follow, on this factor alone, that men should outnumber women 5 to 1 on science faculties, if there is no discrimination at that level.
Feminists, of course, are now the first to insist there are real differences between men and women. Women are more “nurturing,” and so forth. But even if this were not so, even if this were all caused by social expectations or discrimination against younger women, it is still impossible to correct it at the level of university faculty hiring. You necessarily have a much smaller pool of highly-qualified female candidates from which to choose.
But, of course, all hell broke loose. Summers was obliged to apologize repeatedly, reputedly almost lost his job, and was obliged to announce $50 million in new funding to get more women into such jobs.
“The good academic value,” Summers said, “of challenging and provoking thought just went where it should not have gone.”
I guess that says it all.
Some things we are not allowed to even think.
You may recall, Larry Summers, former US Secretary of Commerce and current President of Harvard, got into hot water by suggesting factors other than discrimination may account for the shortage or female professors in the hard sciences.
According to the report, from one who heard the speech, Summers discussed two possible reasons, other than sex discrimination, for the disproportion here:
First, that women may more often avoid “high-powered” jobs that require long hours and total dedication to career.
Which of course they do.
Second, that there are more men than women who are extremely adept at math, physics, or chemistry.
This is empirically so; at more than 3.5 or 4 standard deviations above the mean, in standard tests on these subjects, men outnumber women 5 to 1. It should follow, on this factor alone, that men should outnumber women 5 to 1 on science faculties, if there is no discrimination at that level.
Feminists, of course, are now the first to insist there are real differences between men and women. Women are more “nurturing,” and so forth. But even if this were not so, even if this were all caused by social expectations or discrimination against younger women, it is still impossible to correct it at the level of university faculty hiring. You necessarily have a much smaller pool of highly-qualified female candidates from which to choose.
But, of course, all hell broke loose. Summers was obliged to apologize repeatedly, reputedly almost lost his job, and was obliged to announce $50 million in new funding to get more women into such jobs.
“The good academic value,” Summers said, “of challenging and provoking thought just went where it should not have gone.”
I guess that says it all.
Some things we are not allowed to even think.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Les Canadiens Errant
According to CP, the Canadian government is planning a new drive to convince “highly-skilled” Canadians living and working abroad to return home.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to simply involve ads run in the media worldwide.
The Liberal government has a fondness, after all, for ad companies.
But is it likely to work?
Highly skilled probably means well-educated. What is an ad going to tell them about the advantages of Canadian life that they do not already know?
According to government figures, seven percent of Canada’s most educated now work abroad: 500,000 Canadians. Among developed countries, only Sweden and France have more high-end expatriates.
As a result, we are forced to bring in more immigrants to make up the loss.
But why are so many Canadians eager to get out?
One obvious answer: we are overtaxed. That would explain Sweden as well.
Another, as I have noted in this blog, is the repressive Canadian political climate.
Another, no doubt, is winter.
Another is the boredom and loneliness of Canada’s vast distances.
Is a newspaper ad going to change any of this?
Unfortunately, the plan seems to simply involve ads run in the media worldwide.
The Liberal government has a fondness, after all, for ad companies.
But is it likely to work?
Highly skilled probably means well-educated. What is an ad going to tell them about the advantages of Canadian life that they do not already know?
According to government figures, seven percent of Canada’s most educated now work abroad: 500,000 Canadians. Among developed countries, only Sweden and France have more high-end expatriates.
As a result, we are forced to bring in more immigrants to make up the loss.
But why are so many Canadians eager to get out?
One obvious answer: we are overtaxed. That would explain Sweden as well.
Another, as I have noted in this blog, is the repressive Canadian political climate.
Another, no doubt, is winter.
Another is the boredom and loneliness of Canada’s vast distances.
Is a newspaper ad going to change any of this?
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Canada: It Was Fun While It Lasted
According to this blog
http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-canada.html
several Canadian provinces are already more economically integrated with the US than with the rest of Canada, and the integration with the US is growing.
The pocketbook is not the only issue, but the pocketbook will argue increasingly in coming years for preferring full membership in the United States to the continued separate existence of Canada. Moreover, separation of Quebec (or Alberta) would matter far less economically to the rest of Canada now than it might have a few years ago.
http://futureuncertain.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-canada.html
several Canadian provinces are already more economically integrated with the US than with the rest of Canada, and the integration with the US is growing.
The pocketbook is not the only issue, but the pocketbook will argue increasingly in coming years for preferring full membership in the United States to the continued separate existence of Canada. Moreover, separation of Quebec (or Alberta) would matter far less economically to the rest of Canada now than it might have a few years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)