August 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

The Shotgun Blog

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Pot calls kettle black

For a politician to call someone else "unethical" is (let us see which of the many adjectives that come to mind should I use) amazing, ironic, preposterous, hilarious, etc... For The Minister of Health to inject his busy-self into a purely provincial matter is even more hypocritical, given that the Tories supposedly once believed in a decentralzied country. Increasingly the new Tories are becoming the old Tories where decentralization means that Ontario tells the rest of Canada what to do, with the exception of Quebec.

The story deals with the Canadian Medical Association's support for Vanouver's supervized drug-injection site. Don't get me wrong, I am not (necessarily) in favor of such a site; I just think this is a purely municpal and provincial matter. This minister may soon be responsible for one of the largest power grabs by the federal government: Bill C-51. This bill would move from regulating food and drugs to regulating all therapeutic products, such as vitamins and herbal remedies.

Why isn't Mr. Clement concerned about the "ethical considerations" of his so-called free market government ensnaring this large industry in the web of Leviathan? What about the "ethical considerations" of invading yet another domain of provincial spheres? What about revealing his true colors as a statist stalinist socialist who doesn't understand that the market is the only true regulator of quality and quantity as demanded by the consumers and not as demanded by some state central-planner?

The move to higher fines and prison times for violators of this proposed bill is also disturbing. For those who think that poor consumers need the protection of the state, ask yourself when was the last crisis in herbal medicines that forced the state to propose enacting Bill C-51? Like banning incandescent light bulbs, taxing income trusts, ~~regulating text messaging fees~~, and not repealing the election gag laws, the only crisis is that the Tories think they need to grab more power for the state in order to get re-elected.

Posted by Moin A Yahya on August 20, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Enjoy the Summer

Here's my latest column from the Women's Post.

I try and look at the bright side of life.

Posted by Gerry Nicholls on August 20, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

CRTC approves new porn channel servi(ci)ng at least 50% Canadian content

From Reuters "Oddly Enough" news:

"Federal regulators have granted Alberta-based Real Productions approval to launch a new digital pornography channel, which promises to serve up at least 50 percent domestic content.

The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved the Category 2 pay-television service on Wednesday, allowing Northern Peaks to become "Canada's first adult video channel offering significant Canadian adult content."

"I think as Canadians there is a bit of a tiredness in seeing all American stuff," Shaun Donnelly, president of Real Productions, said during an interview on Friday.

"There is always that thrill for something that is local and you get the sense that these are people you can meet at the supermarket."

The CRTC only required 15 percent Canadian content, but Northern Peaks agreed to provide "not less than 50 percent of the broadcast day and not less than 50 percent of the evening broadcast period to Canadian programming," according to the license."

Thank goodness for the CRTC. Without them, we'd have to put up with Americans in pornos, whereas now we can see our friends and neighbours, who we might meet at a local supermarket--golly!--in erotic flicks.

And from the CBC:

"Probably between Edmonton and Calgary we'd do about 40 per cent of our Canadian content. Vancouver has always been a busy city for us. Even cities like Regina and Saskatoon, we go in and do productions there."

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on August 20, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

The Hebron Deal: Closer to Peckford's Shining Sun

A. Brian Peckford, a Tory, served as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador from 1979 to 1989. While serving as a cabinet minister in the government of Frank Duff Moores, Peckford and some brilliant policy advisers cultivated a truly powerful and meaningful vision for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. They smashed through the cancerous "inferiority-to-upalong" syndrome that had come to plague the acolytes and apologists of the tyrannical Joe Smallwood. It was our own Terra Nova version of "Maîtres chez nous!" Prosperity was to be achieved not by assuming the lie that Newfoundland and Labrador was Canada's poor sick cousin. Prosperity would come from moving away from having Ottawa plan and pamper from on high and moving towards a more independent Newfoundland and Labrador within the federation.

The vision was supported by three main policy objectives:

1. Decentralization of decision making power over fisheries (an historic cornerstone industry of Newfoundland and Labrador) though some sort of joint management arrangement with the federal government.

2. Achievement of a fairer arrangement or set of options on the transmission and sale of Labrador's Hydroelectric Power on the continent, often represented by various proposals for the option of a power corridor to get it there should it be needed.

3. Recognition of NL's legal ownership of its continental shelf and the right to treat any oil or gas or other resources on the shelf as if they were on land.

That's the short version. There are more details you can read about in several books.

Over the next thirty years Newfoundlanders and Labradorians watched five premiers and dozens of politicians recycle all or part of this policy trinity in one way or another and tried to achieve. In fairness, it's the right thing to do. Thanks to stubbornness from the "strong central government" types, to date we've achieved only partial success -- and then only on number three. After the Trudeau government insulted Newfoundland and Labrador by refusing to recognize NL's full ownership and two unfavorable court references, Peckford finally won a victory:

In 1985 the Atlantic Accord was signed between the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Canada. Among the other significant gains for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Accord guaranteed that all resources found on the shelf were to be treated as if they were on land. Shortly thereafter came the announcement of the development of first of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil fields -- Hibernia. In a stirring speech, Peckford laid out how these developments would forever change Newfoundland and Labrador when he said this:

" . . .one day the sun will shine; and have-not we'll be no more. . ."

Today the province of Newfoundland and Labrador moved a step closer to that shining sun. The Hebron oil field development was announced today. Peckford's vision looms on the horizon. It is only fair and right to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador business community, The Hebron partner companies, as well as the current provincial government for working as they did to make this happen in this way.

There are some in this country, the Dions, Mays and Laytons of the world, who would cripple or halt these offshore oil and gas developments if given half the chance. For all their other recent differences, Premier Williams and Prime Minister Harper share a more intelligent, accepting and sophisticated view of these developments and this industry. They understand the importance of these projects for the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They also understand the importance of these developments for people all over the free world.

So today we're step closer. With each step the responsibilities and pressures grow exponentially, but so too does cautious optimism and hope.

Posted by Liam O'Brien on August 20, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

85-year-old pulls out pistol and forces intruder to call 911

No, really:

An 85-year-old woman boldly went for her gun and busted a would-be burglar inside her home, then forced him to call police while she kept him in her sights, police said.

"I just walked right on past him to the bedroom and got my gun," Leda Smith said.

Smith heard someone break into her home Monday afternoon and grabbed the .22-caliber revolver she had been keeping by her bed since a neighbor's home was burglarized a few weeks ago.

"I said 'What are you doing in my house?' He just kept saying he didn't do it," Smith said.

After the 17-year-old boy called 911, Smith kept holding the gun on him until state police arrived at her home in Springhill Township, about 45 miles south of Pittsburgh.

The boy will be charged with attempted burglary and related offenses in juvenile court, Trooper Christian Lieberum said. He was not identified because of his age.

"It was exciting," Smith said. "I just hope I broke up the (burglary) ring because they have been hitting a lot of places around here."

Too bad the media doesn't always report on thefts, assaults, etc. prevented by the private possession of guns. But good on Ms. Smith and her .22.

*The photo is of Walda Cameron, a different grannie with a different beef--she shot a cardinal and wrote about it in Newsweek. Walda was a regular-old anti-gun liberal until the cardinal started harassing her. Then she got a gun.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on August 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

Jason Kenney for Freedom

The MultiCulti Sec State delivers a rhetorical two-by-four to the Shawinigan Sidewinder:

"I think it reconfirms that Mr. Chrétien and the Liberals have always pursued a policy in this area calculated to their own personal financial interests and those of rich and powerful friends . . . It's no mistake that Mr. Chrétien was calculating his retirement income in his relations in this area"

Ouch!

Posted by D.J. McGuire on August 20, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Grant Brown: World coming to an end: Women disproportionately affected!

In this week's column, Grant Brown's tackles the elusive concept of gender equality. Have we attained equality between men and women yet? How would we know?

As Brown notes, as evidence of gender inequality, feminists have pointed to the alleged gap in wages between women and men, and also the difference between the amount of housework done on average by either gender.

For example, studies have revealed that, on average, a woman employed full-time earns only 70-75 cents for each dollar earned by a man working full-time. The average woman spends more time on household chores during the week than the average man. These are the facts used to support the claim that the genders are not yet equal in our society, and that sexism must be running rampant.

With incisive logic, Brown scrutinizes these claims. His argument is that relatively benign factors can and do explain the alleged inequalities. Thus, they are not evidence that sexist employers are discriminating against their female employees, or that lazy men are making their wives do all the housework.

One thing I had to wonder after reading Brown's column is why people care so much about gender inequality -- as such -- in the first place. What we care about, I hope, is that people are not being mistreated based on their gender, or any other morally-irrelevant factor. If it turns out that women earn less than men because they tend to choose jobs the market does not reward as highly as the jobs sought after by men, why would that, in itself, be a problem?

Or, to put it another way: if women choose lower-paying jobs, or choose not to negotiate for higher salaries, why should men get the blame for their choices? Of course, if Company X is full of sexist pigs who are deliberately discriminating against women in their hiring practices, then I would want to know -- not so I could bring the government down on Company X, necessarily, but so I could boycott the company and blast it on the Shotgun, if not in other places.

Excerpts from Brown's column are below:

"Feminism is the theory that men and women are equal in every respect--except for those in which women are superior. The trick is to interpret every social indicator as though it demonstrates arbitrary male privilege or genuine female superiority. Fortunately, a little bit of ignorance is all it takes to accomplish this feat."

...

"Equality is an elusive concept, but men and women will get along a lot better when women cease to be encouraged to tout every tendentious social indicator as a sign of their oppression. The “poor me syndrome” wears thin after a while."

Chretien for tyranny

It's terribly sad that the former Canadian PM Chretien is now in tank with the oppressive Chinese Communists. The corrupt Chretien whose government was toppled during the Quebec scandal in 2006, has attacked Mr. Harper for not attending the Beijing Olympics ceremonies last week. Also, it is a known fact that Chretien himself has personal business ties with several businesses in Communist China.

The Liberals, Leftists and their ilks love the tyrants and dictatorships of the world and would do any thing to appease them for the sake of their own pockets and personal benefits.

Cross-posted

Posted by Winston on August 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Question: How do you know it's a bad day for the CCP?

Answer: When its best friend in Canada comes to its defense, only to find Canadian media use it as an excuse to interview the leading espionage whistleblower from his era.

Actually, that's not even the half of it.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on August 19, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Doctors and their Personal Beliefs

Lorne Gunter has (as usual) a well-thought out column about some recent proposals in Ontario to force doctors to provide certain treatments regardless of their religious beliefs. Lest you think that the insanity is strictly Canadian, just yesterday in California (where else), its Supreme Court ruled that doctors are required to provide all treatments regardless of their beliefs.

Posted by Moin A Yahya on August 19, 2008 at 02:27 AM
Permalink | Comments (53) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, August 18, 2008

Is Canada Post on the chopping block?

In a recent column, the national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, John Willamson, outlines a taxpayer-friendly agenda he’d like to see the Conservatives adopt. The agenda includes the privatization of crown corporations like VIA Rail, CMHC, Purolator Courier and Canada Post.

I assumed an agenda that included privatizing crown corporations like Canada Post was the equivalent to a child’s wish for a pony and world peace for Christmas.

Maybe not.

A Green Party press release on Monday claims a Conservative panel established almost a year ago has been given a very broad mandate to review the merits of deregulating Canada Post.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is quite concerned that Canada’s postal monopoly is at risk.

“The universal postal service Canadians enjoy is only made possible by the post office’s exclusive rights to letter service,” said May. “Canada is a vast, diverse country, and delivery costs for rural mail are many times higher than urban mail. Under deregulation, for-profit companies will focus on dense, profitable areas, leaving Canada Post with responsibility for delivery in costly rural areas while faced with declining revenues. This is a recipe for drastic service cuts to public postal services and increased costs to Canadians in rural and remote areas.”

Okay, so under this scenario rural people could possibly pay more for mail, while city folk pay more for...housing and parking, for instance. What’s the problem?

“The Harper government’s attitude toward Canada Post is not consistent with Canadian values...,” said May. So that’s the problem. Free enterprise is not a Canadian value.

Is indefinitely tolerating poor service by a government monopoly a Canadian value?

Answer the polling question:

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

Afghanistan Independence Day: Emerson vs Young on how to mark the occasion

Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, issued a press release today wishing the people and government of Afghanistan a happy (he didn't use that word) independence day, which is officially celebrated on August 19th.

“Canada congratulates the Afghan people and their government as they celebrate their national day. So much has been achieved as Afghans have worked to rebuild their country, fully supported by the international community and the UN-mandated mission to which Canadian men and women have so proudly contributed,” said Emerson.

“The Afghan people can continue to count on Canada as we change the focus of our engagement in Afghanistan from security to development and diplomacy, with an emphasis on Kandahar province,” continued Emerson.

The Afghan people can, in fact, continue to count on Canada, at least until 2011, when Canada’s combat mission is scheduled to end. Dennis Young, Libertarian Party leader and a veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, thinks that is too long for troops to be in the region.

“We should help the Afghans celebrate their independence by marking the national day next year by withdrawing the last of our troops from the region,” said Young. “Our presence in Afghanistan is not achieving national security objectives. It looks more and more like an expensive nation building entanglement that is costing lives.”

It’s hard to argue that nation building hasn’t eclipsed national security objectives in Afghanistan.

In his Afghanistan independence day statement, Emerson said “Canada’s ‘signature’ projects of education, polio eradication, and repair of the Dahla Dam are testimony to our enduring commitment to improve the quality of Afghan lives while deepening our partnership with the Afghan government.”

While education and polio eradication are important projects, rather than transition from “security to development” as Emerson suggests, Young is arguing that it’s time to leave altogether. “I don’t hear clear statements from this government about specific national security objectives. I hear fluffy rhetoric about development in Afghanistan -- but I don’t hear how our daily efforts in the region are making life for Canadians safer,” said Young.

Young is not the only one who’s unhappy with how the Conservatives are communicating their Afghanistan objectives. An Angus Reid poll in July showed that less than three-in-ten Canadians think the Harper government has effectively explained the reasons behind the Afghanistan mission. At the time of this poll, a press release from Harper seemed to provide good evidence of this.

In a statement on the tragic death of Corporal Brendan Anthony Downey, Harper said that "Our Canadian Forces are making an immense sacrifice to bring security to the people of Afghanistan, all the while protecting Canada's values.”

Missing from this statement, of course, is a clear reference to the national security objectives of the Afghanistan mission, which Young is calling for. Are we really in Afghanistan to bring security to the people of Afghanistan? What about our own security objectives? And is the absence of Canadian values sufficient reason to invade a foreign country and sacrifice the lives of Canadian soldiers? Canadian values are absent from most of the world.

Young was dismissive of this statement by Harper: “What’s next? Will Harper send soldiers to the Netherlands to force them to shut down their red light districts? While I would like to see Western values dominate the world, we can not and should not do that militarily. To kill someone to make them live more like us is counterproductive to say the least.”

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that in an open letter the Taliban threatened to kill more Canadians if Canadian troops do not pull out of Afghanistan.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 18, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Did McCain plagiarize one of his POW stories?

Some are now claiming that John McCain plagiarized one of the stories he told during the Faith Forum at Saddleback. In particular, it's the story of how one of the guards at the POW camp marked a cross in the dirt on Christmas Day to secretly communicate to McCain that he was also a Christian. An admittedly bad quality video of that moment in the forum is posted below.

Andrew Sullivan and someone at Daily Kos are suggesting McCain lifted it from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. author of "The Gulag Archipelago" (does this mean some leftists are actually reading that stirring work of anti-communism?) The fact that McCain has written extensively on Solzhenitsyn (did you know that? I didn't!) has heightened suspicions.

Anyway, in the Solzhenitsyn story, it's a prisoner, not a guard, who draws the cross, so it's not a perfect match. More importantly, why is it so hard for people to believe that Christians might... you know... use the sign of a cross to identify each other in hostile environments? Are some so out of touch with Christianity and its history to not realize that Christians have drawn symbols to secretly identify each other in the past?

In response to the accusation that McCain stole the story, his campaign found someone who was held in a prison camp alongside the candidate to confirm that McCain's been telling this story for a long time.

Michael Goldfarb, one of McCain's staff, also had some disparaging remarks for the "the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd" (yes, he actually said that) who have fastened on to this issue.

Meanwhile, in certain corners, Democrats are convinced that the plagiarism accusations are going to bring down McCain's campaign. I kind of doubt it. In fact, if I were them, I'd drop this issue, unless they can come up with a lot more evidence for their position.

Posted by Terrence Watson on August 18, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Corporate Welfare Alert #1 – Does it take pork to process pork?

The Minister of Canada Economic Development, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, today announced a $195,000 zero-interest loan to Charcuterie L. Fortin Ltd. The Quebec-based delicatessen has been in business for 40 years and is the largest pork processing plant in the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region.

I’m as bullish on pork as the next guy...probably more so, but why does a company with a 40 year proven track record need a $195,000 loan from the taxpayers? If Canadian banks aren’t doing a good job lending to businesses like Charcuterie L. Fortin, perhaps the Conservative government needs to open the sector to more foreign competition.

And what about private investors? Charcuterie L. Fortin has shareholders, why not bring in a few more? I know it’s hard to find investors in this market, but what if the Conservatives scraped the capital gains tax as they promised in 2006? That would help attract more investment in seemingly sound business ventures like Charcuterie L. Fortin.

But if they do insist on being in the business of corporate lending, why doesn’t the government charge interest? It costs money to lend money. First, there is the risk on not getting the money back. Then there is the cost of administering the loan. Let’s not forget the opportunity cost of not being able to lend that money elsewhere, or even the cost of not using that money to pay down the national debt. And, of course, with Canada’s central bank expanding the money supply at 12%, there is the cost of inflation. $195,000 is worth more today than it will be 10 years from now.

(I called Canada Economic Development and asked for the terms of the loan period. They didn’t know. Only a government department would announce a loan without including the terms of the loan.)

So let me now ask Western Standard readers -- does it really take pork to process pork?

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

The Olympics are past halftime . . .

. . . and in what could be a stunnig upset, the Communists are actually losing.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on August 18, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Lemieux: Abolish cultural subsidies

Government subsidies to the arts have been in the news lately. Specifically, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems committed to slashing them left and right. And many of us are saying, "About bloody time!"

In this week's column, Pierre Lemieux argues that all government culture subsidies should be abolished. Not cut. Not scaled back. Eliminated entirely. Unlike other commentators, he suggests this wouldn't only be good for the budget, but for the arts themselves.

As Lemieux points out, Picasso didn't get subsidies. True, if you go back far enough, you'll see that artists have sometimes received assistance from the state (I'm thinking of the Renaissance here.) At the same time, economic relationships were a tad different in those days, with wealth concentrated in the hands of an elite, and so it was necessary for artists back then to seek the patronage of aristocrats.

Now? Get the artists off welfare. People will pay voluntarily for the art they like. Why should the band "Holy F-ck" receive taxpayer assistance?

Nor is this a free speech issue, as some have tried to make it out to be. No one is talking about banning "Holy F-ck" or other controversial art. They retain their freedom to be as audacious and as offensive as they wish. We just don't think taxpayers should be paying subsidies to artists -- any of them.

Some excerpts from Lemieux's column:

"In what French political scientist Bertrand de Jouvenel calls “totalitarian democracy”, where the democratic state intervenes everywhere, there is no obvious answer to the question of whose culture and lifestyle the state should support. Should the majority oppress minorities or should minorities get a piece of the cake?

It is not a defensible solution to stop subsidizing this or that group of artists because the party in power happens not to like them. The real solution would be to abolish all cultural subsidies."

...

"Cultural subsidies are not much different than if each subsidized artist was given a revolver and told to collect the money himself."

Worldviews Matter

A colleague sent me this article by Michael Knox Beran for the City Journal, titled, “Obama, Shaman”. The article is fantastic, not because it is a critique of one candidate from one party, but because the insights are far broader and can be applied to nearly any political or cultural folk-heroes of today. Beran draws upon strains of thought throughout ancient and classical literature and philosophy to highlight two very different worldviews.

America has a strong tradition of the worldview that sees man as fallible and existence as including pain and discomfort. Indeed, this worldview sees any life without some form of pain being a life without cause and effect, without choice; a robotic reality that would really be no existence at all.

The other worldview, the author points out, has surfaced in various forms throughout history and is the impetus for movements that nearly always result in a great deal of concentrated power. Since man need not be fallible, giving “the right person” unlimited power to do what is good for all is not viewed as dangerous, but rather necessary. From Machiavelli to Saul Alinsky, strategists have created a playbook for an ascent to power by those believing pain can forever be alleviated if only they are given the absolute power to enact their reforms. But the strategists only lay the plan; the philosophy that engendered the belief that such a plan could (or should) actually work came first. In the article, Beran describes many of those who have championed a paradigm which makes this belief possible.

As I’ve written before, paradigms are powerful, and hard to change. The lens through which one views the world, especially the human world, will determine the conclusions drawn from any set of data. Data, sensory perceptions, are completely devoid of actionable meaning without a theoretical framework through which to interpret them. For this reason, establishing and continually re-evaluating one’s framework becomes the constant task of the honest intellectual.

All good political philosophy and economics is essentially an effort to synthesis data and extract some kind of meaning from it – to create from observations a viable paradigm of human action. Knowing human nature is the most important and foundational element of ethics, political philosophy and economics. As the old adage goes, “knowing thyself” is the best place to start. I would submit that the best place to start “knowing thyself” is to find out what your worldview is (you have one, whether you know it or not). What kind of lens do you look at the world through? What are the assumptions you take with you into every situation? Knowing this, analyzing it for logical consistency and accuracy with observations, and discarding or reforming it if need be is the most difficult, most rewarding and most necessary task of all human understanding.

Some snippets from the Beran article below should whet your appetite to read the entire piece:

“In his unfinished treatise Economy and Society, Max Weber defined charisma as “a certain quality in an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber was able to do little more, before he died in 1920, than give a pseudoscientific élan to an idea that had been kicking around for centuries. Most of what he said about charismatic authority was stated more cogently in Book III of Aristotle’s Politics, which described the great-souled man who “may truly be deemed a God among men” and who, by virtue of his greatness, is exempt from ordinary laws.

What both Aristotle and Weber made too little of is the mentality of the charismatic leader’s followers, the disciples who discover in him, or delusively endow him with, superhuman qualities. “Charisma” was originally a religious term signifying a gift of God: it often denotes (according to the seventeenth-century scholar-physician John Bulwer) a “miraculous gift of healing.” James G. Frazer, in The Golden Bough, demonstrated that the connection between charismatic leadership and the melioration of suffering was historically a close one: many primitive peoples believed that the magical virtues of a priest-king could guarantee the soil’s fertility and that such a leader could therefore alleviate one of the most elementary forms of suffering, hunger. The identification of leadership with the mitigation of pain persists in folklore and myth. In the Arthurian legends, Percival possesses an extraordinary magic that enables him to heal the fisher king and redeem the waste land; in England, the touch of the monarch’s hand was believed to cure scrofula.

It is a sign of growing maturity in a people when, laying aside these beliefs, it acknowledges that suffering is an element of life that sympathetic magic cannot eradicate, and recognizes a residue of pain in existence that even the application of technical knowledge cannot assuage. Advances in knowledge may end particular kinds of suffering, but these give way to new forms of hurt—milder, perhaps (one would rather be depressed than famished), yet not without their sting. We do not draw closer to a painless world.”

And…

“The danger of Obama’s charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure—the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty—but also a change in human nature. Obama’s conviction that it is possible to create a beautiful politics, one in which Americans will selflessly pursue a shared vision of the common good, recalls the belief that Dostoyevsky attributed to the nineteenth-century Russian revolutionists: that, come the revolution, “all men will become righteous in one instant.” The perfection would begin.”

(cross-posted on the SFEblog)

Posted by Isaac Morehouse on August 18, 2008 at 08:24 AM
Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

What is the "post-left"?

I realize I sling the term "leftist" around a lot, and I'm not the only one. Still, the question needs to be asked: what is the political left? What does it stand for?

Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr. wrote an interesting examination of what he calls "the post-left," or, more generally, "the anti-Western left." The essay is full of twists and turns and probably isn't for everyone, but in my experience its at least a fair assessment of a certain trend in modern left-wing thinking.

One fascinating aspect of Brahm's analysis of the left is how well it coheres with the diagnosis of the left often made by those who call themselves Objectivists.

According to Brahm, the anti-Western left can be characterized by the following features, along with my synopsis of Brahm's explanation of each (hence, any errors are mine, not is. I highly suggest people check out the original piece):

1. Inverted Exceptionism: that is, the idea that the United States is the root of all evil in the world.

2. Post-Zionism: Israel is also the source of much evil; its right to exist is severely questioned.

3. Third Worldism: "The wretched of the world...are not just unlucky but morally superior to the earth's beneficiaries." Everyone from Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden can be lionized as a heroic warrior fighting against the evil Americans.

4. Cultural Revolution: Redeeming the world means everything has to go, especially bourgeois culture and its corresponding moral constraints.

5. Totalitarian Ideology: This is complicated. In the absence of the patchwork of moral constraints that have evolved through the invisible hand, the post-left wants to substitute a comprehensive ideology that explains and rationalizes any phenomenon in terms of "the same demons [and] the same victims." E.g. "Is something wrong with the world? It must be those damn Americans again!"

6. Islamism: Islamism appeared as the perfect synthesis of all of the above points. It's anti-American, anti-Zionist, originates from the parts of the world the left tends to admire, aims to overthrow petty bourgeois morality in exchange for a comprehensive ideology, and provides a totalizing explanation for all the injustice in the world.

Some on the left refuse to take Brahm's rebuke lying down. On his blog, Dr. Dawg provides an extended critique of Brahm's thesis.

As for me, I'm not going to generalize. But I've spent enough time on left-wing message boards to realize that Brahm's description is not entirely inaccurate of a certain subset of the left (or those who describe themselves as on the left, anyway.)

I've also known leftists, especially in the United States, who do not celebrate Chavez and Bin Laden, and who do not think America is the source of all evil in the world. Dissent Magazine provides excellent examples of leftists of this type. So it would be wrong to take Brahm's thesis and apply it too broadly -- something I doubt he would be comfortable with, anyway.

Posted by Terrence Watson on August 18, 2008 at 07:36 AM
Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Senator Obama, Are You Now or Have You Ever Been…

At this point in time we now have compelling evidence that Senator Barack Hussein Obama was, at least at one point in his life, both a Moslem and a citizen of a nation other than the United States. It comes, from all places, the Associated Press.

Obama’s childhood school registration lists him as being a Moslem and an Indonesian citizen. Given the origins of this picture and how it meshes with our understanding of Obama’s life, I have no reason to doubt that it is authentic.

Continue reading "Senator Obama, Are You Now or Have You Ever Been…"

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on August 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives