Men Are from Mars; Women Are from Alpha Centauri

 

Photo is for illustration purposes only. No actual fish were harmed in this graphic.

I recently wrote a review of a poetry book. I liked the book, and gave it a glowing review.

The editor called me up that same day. She could not run the review. She first apologized for asking me to review a book I obviously did not like. 

I explained it was a positive review; that I had loved the book.

A day later, she sent me what was essentially a new review she had written, and asked if I could put my name to it instead.

How could there be such insoluble miscommunication? Is she mad, or am I?

Perhaps we see here a difference between the male and female mind. On average, at least.

The book was nonsense verse, and I praised it in these terms, pointing out clever paradoxes. I gather she understood this as a criticism, and could not see that saying something was “fine nonsense” could be a compliment. Nor that the book was full of paradoxes, or was funny. To her, this too seemed to be a criticism. Although, to be fair, she did not seem able to articulate why she thought the review was critical.

She especially took exception to my conclusion that the collection “clears the sinuses and purges the care-filled heart.” “Purges,” she said. “That’s a bad word.” She wanted to change it to “tickles.”

She was not moved when I explained that “purge” was the English translation of the Greek “catharsis,” which Aristotle held was the purpose of art. And, to my mind, a quite accurate description of what humour does when it works. Seemed like praise to me.

No; it was a bad word.

She also objected to the word “boggles,” in the phrase “Orgasmic pussyfeathers! The mind boggles at the possibilities.”

I suspect she was really reacting to the phrase “orgasmic pussyfeathers.” But realized mid-objection that this was a quotation from the book itself. Perhaps this is why she directed her ire at “boggles.” 

“Do you realize what that word means?”

For what it’s worth, Merriam-Webster gives: “to start with fright or amazement : be overwhelmed.” So it means something is amazing. “Boggles the mind” is a pretty common phrase.

Although this is a generalization, and based here on the slightest of present evidence, I posit that this illustrates: 

1.Women generally have less sense of or appreciation for humour than men; perhaps specifically for irony and double meanings. There’s a reason why “Dad jokes” are a thing, and not “Mom jokes.” Women laugh indulgently at a man’s jokes because they find him attractive. Women rarely laugh heartily.

2. Women favour the “nice” and “pretty” over the beautiful, and are frightened by the sublime.

More evidence: over the past few centuries at least, women have had more free time than men to indulge in the arts. Many women have even risen to popular prominence in the arts in their lifetimes. Yet few, in comparison to male artists, remain high in critical estimation a century or more later. 

It is perhaps because women usually lack the sense of the sublime, and the ironic distance, that the best art requires.

One thinks of exceptions. But even a Joni Mitchell lacks the deeper sublimity found in Cohen, Dylan, or Young. Even a Saint Theresa of Avila lacks the deeper sublimity of a Saint John of the Cross. A Margaret Atwood or a J.K. Rowling lacks the deeper shadows of an Orwell or a Salinger.

Joseph Conrad has Marlowe observe in Heart of Darkness:

“It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there has never been anything like it, and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset. Some confounded fact we men have been living contentedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over.”

Interesting. But never mind; just a thought. Shall we go out and watch the sunset?

The Saskatchewan Schools Question

 

I was startled when friend Xerxes framed the current debate over SOGI (sexual orientation and gender ideology) in the schools as a matter of children’s “trans” rights over parents’ rights. After all, the parents marching are concerned about the introduction of gender ideology in the schools, and discussion of sexuality in general. This has nothing obviously to do with being either a boy or a girl, straight or gay.

Nevertheless, that is how it was framed by a court, in trying to put a stay on Saskatchewan’s policy that parents must be informed and consent if a child “changes their pronouns.” A recent CBC “At Issue” panel took this as a given. They spoke only of whether it was in the political interests of the federal Conservatives, or conservative parties at the provincial level, to oppose children’s human rights. And of course their argument was that it wasn’t. After all, voters, including “ethnic voters,” were concerned with pocketbook issues, not such distractions. 

Never take political advice from your adversaries. There couldn’t be a more important or more powerful issue for conservatives, in my opinion. Decent people care more for their children’s future than for their own welfare. This is the hill on which a parent is ready to fight, and, if necessary, die. In fact, it is the appeal on which young men do usually go to war: to protect the hearth, the women and children back home.

But let’s extend that logic. Let’s say it is a child’s human right to decide they are a boy and not a girl, without their parents having anything to say about it. If a child has a right to decide such things it must follow that society has no right to require them to attend school in the first place. This is slavery: they are being forced to work, told what to do at every moment, and given no pay. How is that not a violation of their human rights?

Child labour laws must also be abolished as unconstitutional. A child must have the right to earn a living.

In school, if parents have no right to input on the curriculum, certainly society has no right. The children must decide what they want to learn about, or indeed to do, today. Schools and teachers must demonstrate that any discussion of sexual orientation or gender is prompted by the children themselves. 

But this must also be true for reading, writing, or arithmetic. It must also be a child’s human right to decide for himself or herself, without coercion, whether 2 plus 2 equals 4; whether gravity ought to apply to them; or whether their spelling of a word is the best one.

They also have the inherent right to choose their teachers, and dismiss them if dissatisfied. 

If the left is not prepared to be consistent here, we must suspect an ulterior motive.

Could it be to advance the notion that even small children have the right to consent to sex in any form? Certainly looks like it.

How the West Was Won

 

Cornell West, who has been running for the nomination of the Green Party, has just announced he will run instead as a pure independent.

On its face this makes no sense. It is hard to get on the ballot in all the states as an independent; the Green Party already has an infrastructure and volunteers on the ground.

Here’s my guess: West is officially leaving because he was being pushed. He wouldn’t be able to get the Green nomination.

RFK Jr. is expected to announce he is leaving the Democratic party within days. Rumours have him running for the Libertarians; but the Greens would be a better fit. Kennedy has spent his career as an environmental lawyer.

There may have been talks. Even if the Greens are prepared to stick with West, it is going to be hard to get their volunteers and donors to back West against a prominent environmental crusader like RFK.

I bet RFK now announces a Green Party run.

Historic Firsts?

 

So much is going on currently, it is hard to focus on just one thing. 

Here’s one thing: I find it troublesome to keep hearing that the election of Greg Fergus as Canada’s House Speaker is “historic” because his skin is dark. The notion is itself racist. It is not more “historic” than his being the first speaker elected whose last name is Fergus.

Here’s another thing: It is equally offensive to hear it is “historic” that Wab Kinew was elected the “first First Nations provincial premier in the country.” “First Nations” people grew up alongside the rest of us, with the same cultural influences, and largely even with the same genetics. They are Canadians. The only difference is a social construct inadvertently created by the Indian Act. To make such a big deal of his supposed alienness, to declare it “historic,” is racist. 

And Kinew is not even the first indigenous leader of Manitoba. Have we forgotten Louis Riel?

What is historic, on the other hand, is the Speaker of the House of Commons having resigned, and the Speaker of the US House of Representatives being voted out of office. The first has no immediate repercussions, but will stand now as a precedent. The second might have serious short-term consequences. Who now could command a majority and get elected new speaker?

Here’s an idea: the speaker legally does not have to be a member of the House. Why can’t the Republicans unite over electing Donald Trump, thereby giving their near-inevitable 2024 nominee a public platform? It also makes sense for the country: Trump is the ultimate dealmaker, given his business background, and the job is all about making deals. It would also be beneficial, if he is again elected president, for him to have had this additional experience and made these congressional contacts—experience and contacts he was lacking in his first term. 

And one additional consideration: the speaker is second in line if anything happens to the president, after the vice-president. It makes sense to have someone there who could step in if needed, since Biden is so frail and so compromised. And there is a strong sense that Kamala Harris is not up to the job.

After the Depp-Heard Case,... More Evidence of the Terrible Harm Done by "Believe all Women."

 

Nun of the Above

 

Friend Maximus sends in a piece from the CBC, an interview with a nun picked by the Vatican to attend the upcoming synod in Rome.

The most telling thing she says is this: “We humans tend to create these dualisms all the time, don't we? Good, bad, black, white, Catholic, non-Catholic. We always create dualisms and we did it with sexuality and gender. Male, female.”

Notice the very first “dualism” she cites as human-made and troublesome is good and bad: good and evil. 

There could be no flag of a brighter crimson. She rejects good and evil. She rejects the very concept of sin. She rejects the narrative of the Bible from its first verses, in which God separates the light from the darkness, and order from chaos. The battle against sin is the entire mission of the Church, the reason for human existence, and the reason Christ incarnated and died for us. Making binary choices was the reason Adam and Eve were created. This woman who intends to legislate for believers rejects it all.

Binaries are beautiful. Duality is beautiful. Without binaries, there is no balance, and so no art. Without binaries, male and female, self and other, there can be no love. And without binaries there can be no reason, no sense nor meaning to the world. This is Aristotle’s Law of non-contradiction: a thing is either so or not so.

Rejecting the binaries is Satanic. This Catholic nun is a Satanist. As is anyone who seeks ambiguity and lack of clarity. Jesus by contrast, is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, b which we see things clearly, and see our path clearly.

She also, of course, rejects science, in rejecting the male-female binary, visible in every cell. 

Of course, her reasoning is also contradictory on many levels. For example, if dualism i bad, then she is wrong to object to it, since that creates an exclusionary, non-inclusive duality between dualism and non-dualism, with dualism bad and non-dualism good. For another example, if there is no male-female binary, how can it be a problem that there are not enough female voices in the church?

Why on earth or in hell would anyone want to throw out Christianity, the Bible, science, art, love, and reason itself? Because—I can see no other reason—these are impediments to raw self-will, and the will to power. Any law or restriction protects the weak against the strong.

She wants to be God.

Getting Scarier in Canada

 

.. and more brilliant messaging from Pierre Poilievre.

As Others See Us

 

On Nazis and Forgiveness

 

Ex-House Speaker Anthony Rota

Friend Xerxes has come out in qualified defense of the Canadian Parliament applauding for a former Nazi last week.

To begin with, he makes the valid historical point that Hunka’s actions might not have been that unforgivable, given the history of the Western Ukraine. Barring evidence of his participation in specific war crimes.

But Hunka is not the real issue; and there is a valid distinction between forgiving his actions and giving them a standing ovation.

More generally, Xerxes objects to calling anything “unforgivable.”

I agree that “unforgivable,” if it was used, is the wrong term. Apparently the NDP House Leader, at least, used the word. Nothing is unforgivable in principle. The term should never be used, here or elsewhere. “Intolerable” or “unacceptable” would be proper—requiring apology, atonement and then forgiveness.

What was intolerable, to be precise, was the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation to someone for fighting for Nazi Germany, during a state visit by the president of Ukraine. This looked to the enemies of Canada and of Ukraine like an endorsement of Nazism and an admission that the Ukrainians have Nazis among them, and they are officially embraced. Fitting perfectly with Putin’s justification for his invasion.

This being so, the people of Canada, the government of Ukraine, the Jews, the Poles, Canadian veterans, and the people of the world, are entitled to a full investigation and a clear explanation of how this happened, and apologies and atonement all round. Nothing really personal against Hunka.

The Speaker of the House has taken full responsibility, claimed it was due to his ignorance, and resigned. But this leaves too many unanswered questions. He announced to the House that Hunka fought against Russia in World War II. Anyone who knows the basics of that conflict would have known that meant he also fought against Canada; how could that not be a concern? How could that not raise further questions? Is it credible that the Speaker, and those in his office, were so ignorant? How was Hunka not also vetted by the security services, in the context of a state visit?

The situation was intolerable; meaning we cannot look the other way. We must investigate. It is likely that more people must lose their jobs, to make it clear that Canada does not support or endorse Nazism. It would actually make most sense if the entire parliament resigned and submitted themselves to the judgement of the people.

Sweet Sounds of Heaven

 

And here's a new prayer from the Rolling Stones, for anyone who still believes they are on the dark side, the side of Satan. Just released.

I think it is also significant that Lady Gaga and Stevie Wonder are on the track.

Angry

 

If you haven't heard it yet, this is classic Stones. Suddenly we're back in the Sixties. We even have a Kennedy running for president.

Come Healing

 

A prayer for Sunday. No comment could be worthy.

As We Were Saying in 1963, Before We Were So Rudely Interrupted...

 

Rumour is that RFK Jr. is going to announce an independent run, possibly with the Libertarian Party. This seems confirmed by a recent teaser video from his campaign.

He absolutely should. This is the only way around the DNC’s subversion of the democratic process. The American primary system is critical to allow for only two parties. If it is subverted, multiple parties are needed to ensure that all concerns are heard.

Some suggest this will take votes away from Trump, assuming Trump is the Republican nominee. They point to polls that show Kennedy actually more popular with Republicans than Democrats.

I think it will hurt Biden, should Biden be the Democratic nominee.

RFK is popular with Republicans. That does not mean he is their first choice. His situation is like that of Erin O’Toole in Canadian politics: the most acceptable Democrat to the other side, but not so much that they have any reason to vote for him instead of their guy.

With Trump, you are either love him, or hate him. Nobody loves Biden. The Biden vote is the anti-Trump vote. If the anti-Trump vote splits, he is in trouble.

Now picture strong runs by RFK Jr. for the Libertarians, and Cornell West for the Greens. 

In theory, Libertarians should take more votes from the right than the left: the left rejects their views out of hand while the right generally accepts them into their more tolerant tent. So Libertarianism is commonly considered to be on the right. However, proving the pudding, 2016 had a strong Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld, two former Republican governors. Trump won that race. He lost (if he did lose) four years later, when there was not a strong Libertarian ticket.

What seems to happen is that right-leaning Libertarians are happy enough to vote the Republican ticket, feeling their views are thus advanced. The Libertarian ticket is left more attractive to left-leaning Libertarians, who have no other home.

I believe it is also possible, in the current climate, that an RFK Libertarian ticket might catch fire. People are unhappy with the choice of Trump or Biden. They sense the system is broken, but may still see Trump as too reckless.  I can imagine Biden running third.

The Stolen Thrones

 

The Rolling Stones have a certain reputation. It is worth pointing out that it is all a sham.

I recently watched a documentary series on the Stones, aired by the CBC.

In in, Keith Richards refers to Mick Jagger as a very honourable man. Ron Wood refers to Richards as “a very moral guy,” and portrays him as being not just moral, but moralistic. Charlie Watts has stayed married to the same woman throughout their fame, and has avoided all the groupie action, despite the obvious and overwhelming temptations. Wood speaks of the band being guided by a “higher power”—the AA standard reference to God—and things coming to them “from above.”

It is true that members of the group have had drug problems. This is common among musicians. Apparently it is difficult to get up there on stage night after night as if you are someone special, and then have to prove it with your playing. Almost everyone seems to resort to drugs of some sort to steady their nerves. Many get addicted. Occupational hazard.

It is true that Bill Wyman, the original bassist, had a reputation for womanizing. But again, this is an occupational hazard, and another kind of addiction. Women will throw themselves at you if you perform onstage, or if you are famous. As Trump has famously remarked, and been condemned for pointing out. It would be hard for anyone to resist this temptation. And Richards has publicly scolded Wyman for giving in to it so completely.

"Sympathy for the Devil"? Listen to the lyrics. It is not on his side. Or listen to "Salt of the Earth"--a restatement of the Beatitudes. Or "Prodigal Son"; an uncritical restatement of the parable.

Jagger does not say that the “bad boy” image is wrong; it would be imprudent to do so, would damage the brand. And Jagger is a smart man and a canny businessman, someone who is able to give an interview in fluent French. But he does tell the interviewer that they are the same sort of blokes as the Beatles, and have always hung out with them. When the Beatles were marketed, at least initially, as fun-loving but essentially nice young men, the Stones management intentionally created the “bad boy” image for the Stones for marketing purposes, to distinguish the product.

In other words, it’s hype. People in general are incredibly naïve, and will usually just accept whatever hype they are fed.

Jesus Wept

 

Cohen’s “Come Healing” is a great hymn.

This in particular is a remarkable stanza. It explains original sin:

Behold the gates of mercy
In arbitrary space
And none of us deserving
The cruelty or the grace

But this is even deeper:

O, troubledness concealing
An undivided love
The heart beneath is teaching
To the broken heart above

And let the heavens falter
Let the earth proclaim
Come healing of the altar
Come healing of the name

“The Name” is how an Orthodox Jew refers to God himself. 

God himself is broken-hearted. God needs healing, and it is up to us to help. God is love, and there is no love without pain. God loves us with an unrequited love. We hurt him beyond measure, enough that he was prepared to die.

Jesus hears of the death of Lazarus.

He needs us. He created us because he needs us.

What? God has emotions? God has needs?

Of course he does. As Blake points out, the greatest thing any human can imagine is a perfect human. A being lacking emotion would be less than human, not more than human. Just a cyborg presence. God loves, he can be angry, he can be amused, he can be sad.

He is reaching out to us, like a lover,  vulnerable like a lover always is.

And let the heavens hear it
The penitential hymn
Come healing of the spirit
Come healing of the limb.

The Vaisnava Hindu metaphor of the Rasa-Lila: each soul dances with God.

Flowers for Hitler

 

These are strange days in Canada, getting stranger daily. The House of Commons recently gave two standing ovations to an unrepentant Nazi, a former soldier in the Waffen SS, of a unit implicated in some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust. How did it happen?

I think we can take as given that they did not mean to do it. Once one member stands and begins to applaud, all other members will do likewise, unless they have some clear reason not to. For they are going to be grilled by the media and interest groups over why they did not. 

The Speaker, of the House Anthony Rota, has taken full responsibility, but claiming he did not realize just who he was introducing.

This sounds improbable; incredible. This was in the context of a state visit by Vladimir Zelensky, president of the Ukraine, in a time of war. Were guests not vetted by security services? It would be insane not to do so. Even without security services, the simplest of online searches would have revealed who Yaroslav Hunka was. Just the fact that he fought against Russia in the Second World War, the reason he was honoured by speaker Rota, was incriminating enough.

Moreover, some have pointed out from the video of the moment that Rota falters a bit when he reads that Hunka fought against Russia in the Second World War. His eyebrow goes up. He seems not to have been aware of this, and suspects something. Yet it is too late to pull out; he continues.

He is reading someone else’s words, and is surprised.

Lisa Raitt noes that, if some war veteran is introduced to Parliament, his regiment is cited, and where it fought. Details are omitted in Hunka’s case; whoever wrote Rota’s remarks seems to have known they would be a problem.

Rota has taken the fall; it does not seem possible that he was responsible.

Was it someone in his office setting him up? If acting alone, I don’t see the motive.

At the same time, it does not seem possible that the Trudeau government was trying to slip this by. They had little to gain by doing so—perhaps an extra pander to the Ukrainian-Canadian lobby, on top of the cheque to Zelensky--and too much to lose.

So whodunit?

It seems to me it must have been the security service itself; or the deep state, acting collectively. They must have vetted Hunka, known who he was, and set the government, Rota, and parliament up.

The security services seem to have turned on Trudeau; it was they who leaked the information about Chinese interference in Canada. Those leaks seemed coordinated and systematic, keeping the issue hot for week after week. This may be a continuation of the same campaign.

Why is the Trudeau government not pointing the finger at the real culprits?

Because the security services are already too powerful. As Scott Adams predicted, or observed, they were inevitably going to seize power in any government. The Deep State is and always has been the Liberals’ key constituency. The Liberals cannot turn on them.

At the same time, the Deep State may not need the Liberals. They may own the Tories too. Best, then, to make it clear to the Grits just who is boss. Pull the plug on the little jerk. And their recent leaks and this incident too, seem tailored to discredit parliament and our democracy itself, not just the current government.

It is eerie, as well, that the revelation that there are Nazis living peacefully and with honour in Canada also dovetails well with recent charges from the Indian government, made in response to Trudeau’s attacks over the murder of Najjar Singh. How far does this coordination spread?

Muslims Condemn Trudeau

 

It's all coming apart.

Now who's the Islamophobe?

Fun Times in India

 

Was cocaine found on Trudeau's plane in India?

Of course, Indi has every incentive to spread such a rumour even if untrue.

One Million and One?

Friend Xerxes has come out with a column on the One Million March for Kids. Of course he is in support of the transgender ideology, but shows a bit of uncertainty now. He notes that Blaine Higgs’ requirement that parents be informed if a student decides to transition sounds, superficially reasonable, but…

As someone who marched on September 20, I assure you, gentle reader, that the protest was not about getting parental consent for changing gender. It was to remove SOGI from the schools: that is, discussion of sexual orientation and gender ideology.

Simply informing parents and requiring their consent for a change of gender is not enough. Schools should not be teaching children that it is possible to change their sex—because it is not. This introduces grievous confusion about self-image and physical reality that can lead to mental illness and suicide. It is the perfect prescription for driving a child mad. Almost 50% of those experiencing “gender dysphoria” have actually attempted suicide.

Children have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. They can imagine themselves to be a dump truck, or the old woman down the street to be a witch. This should not be exploited to confuse them. They need to be taught unambiguity what is real and what is not. Otherwise you are grooming them for schizophrenia.

In addition, openly endorsing gay sexuality in schools contradicts the religious teachings of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience requires that such subjects must be removed from public schools.

It also has the schools directly contradicting the moral teachings of the children’s parents and faith tradition—again introducing confusion and disorientation that is likely to lead to depression and mental illness. Which is a current emergency. Along with reckless drug use, depression is skyrocketing in our society. I believe it is up 28% over just the last two years.

What we call depression is a loss of direction and meaning in life. And this is also the cause of drug abuse. The schools are now seemingly systematically stripping children of all sense of reality and direction.

Xerxes argue, in defense of teaching children about sexuality in graphic detail and letting them decide to be the opposite sex:

“Children are neither slaves nor serfs. They have a constitutional right to make their own choices.”

If he really held this view, he could not require them to attend school in the first place. Or do what the teacher tells them once there. Few children want to. 

If you cannot agree to that, gentle reader, and to children consenting to sex or marriage too, and so forth, then to make an exception for choosing their “gender identity” is suspiciously inconsistent.

Among other things, it requires you to endorse pedophilia—and this is indeed where this all seems to be headed. It looks like grooming.

Xerxes then argues that, if kids are allowed to choose their own nicknames, they ought also to choose their own sex.

But words are not things. What you call yourself is a matter of choice. But nobody chooses whether to be a boy or a girl, any more than they choose whether to be a dump truck or a marmoset. If a child insisted their skin was green, they were made of glass, and they needed to drink blood, the same issue would arise. Endorsing and encouraging such claims would be just as damaging, especially if it led to “corrective surgery.” 

Xerxes writes, of the parent of a hypothetical boy who decides he is a girl:

            “If I were her daughter, I would be terrified of telling her that I thought I was in the wrong body.”

To say you are in the “wrong body” makes no more sense than declaring that gravity should not apply to you. You cannot dictate physical reality. To do so is insanity by definition.

If a child’s chosen sex is not honoured in their school, Xerxes warns,

            “It would be much easier to drop out of that school completely, and start a new life somewhere else.

            Except that a farmer’s daughter in rural Saskatchewan, or a lobster fisher’s son in New Brunswick, may not have any other place where they can start anew.”

Moving to a new town won’t help.

I cannot decide I am seven feet tall, 21 years old and handsome, either. And I still would not be in Saskatchewan. Which is why the gender dysphoric who undergo surgery are just as likely to kill themselves afterwards. The only cure is to treat the gender dysphoria, and the underlying disorientation. Which cure is being made illegal.

Xerxes:

            “Teachers may be better informed and more compassionate than parents.

            “Yes, some teachers are incompetent and biased. But even those teachers have years of training in dealing with adolescent growth. Few parents do.”

A teacher may indeed be better informed and more compassionate than the parents. But the odds are against it.

If it were merely a question of who knows best, governments would have the right to dictate to us in general, on the premise that they have access the best experts. That’s the way it works in China; but no human rights. 

We each have an inherent, God-given right to make our own choices. It is for this we were created—for the exercise of free will.

Adults do often know better than children what is best for the child; and children need guardianship or they may do themselves harm. The question then is, which adult has the child’s best interests at heart? Which adult knows this particular child’s needs best? The parent, or the state?

If you think it is the state, through their schools and their assigned teachers, you must also endorse the Indian residential schools. You simply want the same principle extended to the general population.

While there are bad parents, paternal instinct ensures that parents normally love their children and want the best for them. An unrelated bureaucrat, who is just doing a job for pay, does not have the same instincts for a mass of strangers.

Teachers also have no special knowledge in this area. Teachers do not have training in “adolescent growth,” by which is presumably meant psychology or child psychology, as Xerxes suggests; perhaps a course or two in teachers’ college. It is not their job. But even if they did, the fields of psychology and child psychology have established nothing; there is no consensus on anything within the field, only shifting theories. Children should not be involuntarily experimented on. That is a violation of human rights. Just teach the curriculum.

Xerxes then laments that those who want the decision left to the parents are “trapped in a hierarchical mindset. They still believe that power devolves downwards from the top.”

Here he is oddly arguing against himself. Perhaps we are actually witnessing a mind I the act of changing. He had only just claimed the teachers, the school and the state know better than the parents, and we “should be controlled by the more competent.” 

Subsidiarity means the decision should be left with the parents: at the lowest level possible, the level closest to the child.

Or, in the common slogan of the marchers, “Leave the kids alone!”

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

 

20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

This Sunday’s gospel reading is a bit challenging. It seems to say, and is commonly understood to say, that late conversion from a sinful life is as good as remaining faithful and doing good all life long for getting into heaven. This suggests that heaven is an up or down thing, in or out. Yet elsewhere in the Bible, and in Catholic teaching, it is not: everyone must pay for their sins in Purgatory, and some saints are greater in heaven, seated closer to the throne. So what point is being made here?

I think two details in the story may be important. First, while the owner of the vineyard promises the first batch of workers a specific wage, one denarius, he makes no specific promise to any of the later groups: they work for whatever he is prepared to pay them. He promises nothing at all to the last group; not even to pay them. Second, the late hires are not idle by choice, but because no one has hired them. They were there, seeking work. They are not in the position of sinners, and have no debt to pay in purgatory.

The distinction seems to be, not between the righteous throughout life and sinners who convert late, but between those who do the right expecting reward, and those who do the right in trust in God, because it is right. The former will get their reward, for God is just. But the latter are preferred.

In fact, this implies hierarchy in heaven: “The last shall be first” means the hierarchy is reversed, not abolished.

Those who think only of what is right, what work there is to do, rather than of advantage, shall be rewarded first, perhaps with less labour in purgatory, or with fewer actual meritorious deeds required.