Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Friday, April 30, 2004
Do conservatives want to win power or minds This has been said often before but people need reminding. Jonah Goldberg writes: "Conservatives are committed to a constellation of ideas and traditions that sometimes war with each other. Yet, at the end of the day, people who identify themselves as conservatives first tend to be more dedicated to their principles than their party. Meanwhile, Republicans, even very conservative ones, are more often team players, organization-oriented as opposed to ideas-oriented. The former wants to win arguments, the latter, votes." I think in Canada, the confusion is worse because the ostensibly conservative parties are much less conservative than the Republican Party in the United States. However, the Liberal Party seems to be a much more dangerous party to have governing than the Democrats, so conservatives sell their vote more easily to the Conservative Party (or, before, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties) to prevent a more statist alternative. All this discussion is about is the debate between power and principles (or what the "pragmatists" deride as purity) or what Goldberg calls winning over voters and winning arguments. I maintain that gaining power at the cost of dumping most of one's conservative principles is not worth the price of admission to the halls of power. Why do pro-aborts get so upset at being compared to terrorists? The American Spectator's George Neumayr says it is because it hits a little to close to home. Writing about Feminist Majority leaderette Eleanor Smeal's reaction to President George W. Bush advisor Karen Hughes' comment on CNN last week that the "fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life", Neumayr says: "There is a good reason that they [pro-aborts] see themselves in Karen Hughes's condemnation of the 9/11 terrorists. They have made America a dangerous place for children. But Hughes didn't accuse them of damaging the country like the terrorists. She didn't have to." Minimizing the minimum wage The Heritage Foundation's Dan Mitchell debated the issue of the minumum wage on CNBC last night and wonder "Well, why not make it $70 an hour? Why not make it $700 an hour?" Yes, even France and Germany are not that ambitious and caring, but if $7 or $8 or $10 is good for low-wage workers and the economy, $700 an hour must be unimaginably fantastic. Those liberals supporting anything less than $70 an hour really don't care about the plight of the poor. Public service is corruption Okay, that is not quite what Theodore Dalrymple writes in this week's The Spectator, but reading his assessment of bureaucrats in the system, I think it needs a stronger condemnation that the public service is full of corruption: "Were earnestness of demeanour a guarantee of efficiency, Britain would have the finest public services in the world. Alas, such earnestness is a guarantee of nothing except lack of sense of humour. And a very high proportion of public servants know perfectly well that they are parasites, that their so-called work would be much better left undone, and that it is nothing but outdoor relief for the unimaginatively ambitious, which is why their earnestness is combined with furtiveness and an inability to look you in the eye. Of course, if asked about their work they would claim to ‘care passionately’ about its ostensible aim, because the verbal expression of passionate concern is now the sine qua non of promotion. The public services are thus rife with institutionalised lying. They have become an instrument of clientelistic politics." And while Dalrymple is writing about England, it sounds remarkably close to Canada. These are foreign policy experts? Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski were on the Canadian international affairs show Diplomatic Immunity and inthenationalinterest.com reprints a part of their exchange. There is nothing particularly insightful or new in their comments. Indeed, it sounded like standard, run-of-the-mill Time magazine analysis of international affairs. Kissinger: "The most long term threat is the evolution of the international system where, on the one hand, you have shifts in the definition of great powers and, on the other, you have the creation of vacuums within countries which make it possible for terrorist groups and other non-state organizations to threaten the international system without the restraints of the international system." Yawn. Zbigniew Brzezinski: "It only took three American divisions three weeks to overthrow that regime. And yet, a year later, we?re up to our necks in problems and the reason is that we have transformed a military success into a political setback because we?ve been unwilling to engage others with us - the United Nations, our principal allies and so forth." Any CNN reporter or news-reader could have mouthed those words. Thursday, April 29, 2004
From the About Time file The Security Council of the UN has unanimously passed a resolution designed to keep terrorists away from WMD by requiring all countries to pass laws to prevent terrorists from buying such weapons. While France and China voted for the resolution, they intend to ignore it. Wednesday, April 28, 2004
George W. Bush worse than Joe Clark Timothy Carney writes at NRO that ostensible conservatives President George W. Bush and Senator Rick Santorum helped RINO Senator Arlen Specter win the GOP Senate nomination over conservative, pro-life Republican Rep. Pat Toomey. In fact, were it not for the endorsements of the two ostensibly conservative, ostensibly pro-life, candidates-for-RINO Bush and Santorum, Specter would have likely lost (he won 51%-49%). I say that Bush is worse than Joe Clark because Clark sold out his party but not his principles; Clark was long been a man of the centre-left and his endorsement of Paul Martin and Ed Broadbent do not betray his leftish views on international relations, the environment, social policy and the role of the state. Bush, on the other hand, has become the establishment man and his conservative principles are sold too easily. I still support Bush over John Kerry but only because of the war on terror; on the domestic front, W. is his father's son. Cheney is not going Conspiracy theorists and journalists who get easily bored with election campaigns suggest Vice President Dick Cheney will be replaced before the November election by (fill in your favourite: Rudy Guiliani, Condi Rice, Colin Powell). Condi is now viewed as damaged goods, Powell is on the outs and will probably leave the administration after the November election, and Rudy will cheese off conservatives because of his positions on abortion and homosexuality. Pejman Yousefzadeh has another reason why Cheney will go to the prom with Bush: "Ditching Cheney would be a sign that Republicans are panicking, and there certainly is no reason to panic. It would also be a tremendous act of disloyalty--one that would enrage conservatives." Anyway, Cheney is less a hindrance to election to Bush than Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) is to Senator John Kerry. Gay brownshirts get political EGALE has a blacklist of unsupportable candidates, i.e. candidates who oppose same-sex marriage, i.e. candidates sane people can support. Toronto Star has the story. Importing Tehran, Lagos and Ridyah Or a little bit of sharia will go a long way. The Washington Post reports on sharia arbitration coming to Toronto. Yippee. Send hate mail to... paul_tuns@yahoo.com. Apparently enough of you scrolled down to find where to send your missives after reading my comments on Bush and Clark. Note: friendly email can be sent, too. Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Incredibly low even for Bush-haters The Washington Times reports that the Thunder Road Group, a Democratic consulting firm accused Lynne Cheney became pregnant in 1965 to help her husband get a deferment from the draft to avoid serving in Vietnam. Quote of the day Re-reading my Chesterton, I came across this wonderful line from The Everlasting Man: "When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." Importing Jamaica Trudeaupia offers a sobering and truthful analysis of Toronto's crime problem. Warning: the politically correct will be offended. "In spite of the media’s best attempts to bury the fact, even the most casual observer can see the overwhelming disproportion of both victims and perpetrators are from a couple of immigrant groups, especially Jamaicans. This should not really be a surprise, as Jamaica has a murder rate approximately twenty times that of Toronto, so you have to expect that heavy legal and illegal immigration from Jamaica would import some of these problems. The code of silence and hostility with the police is part of their cultural heritage, not ours. Rather than indulging in multicult bromides and mindless celebration of diversity we need to open our eyes to reality and notice that certain aspects of cultural diversity are not worthy of celebration. A combination of law enforcement and sterner immigration enforcement needs to ensure that this aspect of Jamaica’s crime problem doesn’t become permanently imported to Toronto." Monday, April 26, 2004
Joe Clark's hair Adam Daifallah posts two photos of Joe Clark and wonders if he tints his hair. I think so. I also think that he parts its further left. Clark is a big fat idiot watch The CBC reports that Joe Clark said "he's prepared to support candidates from all parties, including an old political rival, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who is running in Ottawa." Reserve your copy now! Bill Clinton's originally titled My Life is coming out in June and I'm sure it will be as honest and humble as Hillary's novel Living History. The AP story reports that it will do well, in part because booksellers love the Clintons: "'A lot of booksellers love the Clintons,' said Chuck Robinson, co-owner of Village Books in Bellingham, Wash., and a former president of the American Booksellers Association. 'Politically, booksellers lean more in the Clintons' direction, and, of course, they're both people who clearly care a lot about books'." By that standard, whores must love the Clintons, too. Sunday, April 25, 2004
From the annals of victimless crime For all those who say a little porn never hurt anyone, consider this AP story that begins: "A Canadian porn actress found dead last month may have been killed while shooting a film in which a killing is simulated during sex, prosecutors said." Anthony Frederick is being held for trial on first- and third-degree murder charges. His lawyer, Daniel-Paul Alva said "We don't know who killed her. What we do know is that my client is in the unsavoury business of photographing women in very compromising positions. But that kind of business was entered into voluntarily by the victim." A daughter, an endorsement, whatever will get him ahead He must really want a Senate seat. Joe Clark endorses Paul Martin over Stephen Harper for Prime Minister but urges Canadians to vote based on their local candidate. I didn't know Paul Martin was running in Calgary. Appearing on CTV, Clark said "I am that concerned with the imprint of Stephen Harper, not only what he stood far in the past, but the way he has led this party." The imprint of Stephen Harper? What the hell does that mean? It sounds like something someone says to sound smart. Some specific problems Clark has with the new Conservative leader: Harper is deffecient on human rights and environmental issues and he is upset that "Stephen Harper's senators" are preventing passage of C-250. But Harper has never appointed a senator, not even a Conservative one, unlike Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. And, by the way, the leading opponent of C-250 is Senator Anne Cools, an appointee of Pierre Trudeau. Clark is out to lunch -- a forty year lunch. Hypocrisy watch Blogger Peter Ryan finds last week's Globe and Mail story about three conservative Christians running as candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada quite worrisome. His initial post on this subject, in its entirety: "Nice to see that the Canadian Tories are practising the politics of inclusion..... NOT!!!!!! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040420/CONS20/National/Idx These people make me want to vomit." Ryan is so worried about inclusion, he wants "these people" who make him "want to vomit" excluded from the CPC. Now Ryan is a "big (Paul) Martin fan" but does inclusion really require that he mention his distaste for Christians partaking in the political process twice in one week. Commenting on the fact the Conservatives said non to BQer running under their banner, Ryan says "Say what you want. I say that the tories need to apply the same logic to the bible-thumpers they seem intent on recruiting." CBC bias Kate McMillan notes at The Shotgun: "I am listening to CBC radio's perenially insipid Definitely Not The Opera. Funny of the hour: 'DNTO listener picks for Worst Canadian Ever.' A wavery, high pitched female voice that streams past vocal cords like warm meat in a sausage making machine announces the 'top 5'. In ascending order: #5 David Frum #4 Don Cherry #3 Conrad Black #2 Ben Mulroney #1 Brian Mulroney" I don't expect DNTO to include Pierre Trudeau or even Jacques Parizeau, but this in a country that produced Paul Bernardo. If it's Sunday the quote of the day has to go to Steyn Today's Mark Steyn Chicago Sun-Times column on how Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) could be falling in the polls when all the news seems to be casting President George W. Bush in a negative light begins with this paragraph that should be required reading in every university political science class: "It's a good rule of thumb that so-called moderate opinion is several degrees to the left of popular opinion. You can test this for yourself easily enough: pick a subject such as, say, illegal immigration and compare the position of every Democratic senator, the majority of Republican senators and 90 percent of the media with the position of the American people." Paulitics Weekend Paulitics: GOP worry about Louisiana and Stop the Presses -- Kerry beating Bush in California polls. Saturday, April 24, 2004
Predicting the next election Yes, it's a fool's game but some fool has to do it. My thoughts on the coming federal election at The Shotgun. Elsewhere on The Shotgun I have a number of other posts today and yesterday, including links to Rabble discovering political blogs, the Iraq-terror connection and more on the Liberal government's future. Great headline This is London: "Leslie Ash breaks rib having sex." The story is less exciting. The British actress broke her ribs when she hit the bedside table. Police arrested her husband and former football player Lee Chapman although he was released when his wife said she did not want to proceed with charges. (Hat tip to Neale News) The meaning of Columbine New York Times columnist David Brooks has a great column on the poor, misunderstood Columbine killers. We misundertand them -- and human nature -- by viewing them as the victims, the target of bullies who just broke under the pressure and went on a shooting spree, instead of agents of evil, individuals who committed wicked acts of violence. The money 'graphs are near the end when Brooks says: "Now, in 2004, we have more experience with suicidal murderers. Yet it is striking how resilient this perpetrator-as-victim narrative remains. We still sometimes assume that the people who flew planes into buildings ? and those who blew up synagogues in Turkey, trains in Spain, discos in Tel Aviv and schoolchildren this week in Basra ? are driven by feelings of weakness, resentment and inferiority. We cling to the egotistical notion that it is our economic and political dominance that drives terrorists insane. But it could be that whatever causes they support or ideologies they subscribe to, the one thing that the killers have in common is a feeling of immense superiority. It could be that they want to exterminate us because they regard us as spiritually deformed and unfit to live, at least in their world. After all, it is hard to pull up to a curb, look a group of people in the eye and know that in a few seconds you will shred them to pieces unless you regard other people's deaths as trivialities." Blowing up a bus full of innocents or shooting up one's school-mates is not a cry for help but is a violent, criminal and immoral act which we should neither excuse or explain but rather condemn and punish. Modern man seems incapable of such sober-mindedness. Kristof's hypocrisy New York Times blowhard Nicholas Kristof says: "I've argued often that gay marriage should be legal and that conservative Christians should show a tad more divine love for homosexuals. But there's a corollary. If liberals demand that the Christian right show more tolerance for gays and lesbians, then liberals need to be more respectful of conservative Christians." He then proceeds to mock Christianity. "Granted, the Bible denounces male homosexuality, although it strikes me as inconsistent not to execute people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and not to crack down on those who get haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or wear clothes with more than one kind of thread (Leviticus 19:19). But there's no clear objection in the Bible to lesbianism at all. And since some fundamentalists have argued that AIDS is God's punishment for gay men, it's worth noting that lesbians are at less risk of AIDS than straight women. So if God is smiting gay men for their sin, is he rewarding lesbians for their holiness?" Respecting Christians should include understanding them (or, more properly, Christian teaching) -- something that Kristof shows no interest in doing. His next paragraph includes this sentence: "And in polite society, conservative Christians — especially Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses — are among the last groups it's still acceptable to mock." Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses hardly qualify as Christians. But they -- and real Christians -- are acceptable targets of mocking, especially in the pages of the New York Times and even by columnists excoriating others not to do so. Michelman on the state of abortion 'rights' In an interview with Seven Oaks, a "progressive" online magazine, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman is asked about the state of abortoin "rights" in America. She responds: "Today, women's rights generally, and our right to choose in particular, are threatened as they have never been before." Yes, abortion is in a precarious state with women able to exercise their right to kill the developing human life inside them more than some million times a year. So I ask Ms. Michelman: in terms of one's rights, would she rather be a woman seeking an abortion or an unborn child seeking its right to escape from the womb unharmed? Life is like that Or at least when the abortion industry lets life go on. National Review's Jay Nordlinger has this delicious item in his Impromptus column: "Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky of Princeton University sent me something funny. It was a notice of a speech by Alexander Sanger, 'chair' (of course) of the International Planned Parenthood Council. He is described as 'the grandson of Margaret Sanger, who founded the birth-control movement more than 80 years ago.' But the funny part? Carlos's comment to me: 'Isn't it strange that the chairmanship of Planned Parenthood should be a semi-hereditary position'?" Of course, Ramos-Mrosovsky and Nordlinger miss the point: abortion is not for everyone, just those who aren't the Sangers' kind of people. Friday, April 23, 2004
Maybe if they turn gay and cry for the cameras all will be forgiven The Ottawa Sun reports that the Tenant Action Group, a Belleville, Ontario anti-poverty activists, will protest the Ontario government's refusal to increase welfare payments with a "steal-a-thon." The story quotes TAG's press release: "TAG is organizing unannounced 'food grabs' where people in need will enter local grocery stores en masse and help themselves to what the provincial government refuses to provide." Kerry, the half-billionaire man of the people The Washington Post reports that Senator John Kerry (UltraD, People's Republic of MA) is trying real hard to paint himself as the common man, the candidate who shares the hobbies, interests and concerns of 250 million other Americans. You know, he hunts, his wife has bad hair days. (Every day is a bad hair day for Donald Trump but no one would imagine packaging him as a commoner because of it.) This is not the first time the paper reported on Kerry coming up short on his one-with-the-people schtick. Last August the Post discovered that Kerry had ordered a Philly cheesesteak with Swiss cheese instead of the customary Cheez Whiz or American cheddar and proceeded to nibble it daintily. The Post got the reaction from Craig LaBan, food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Obviously, Kerry's a high-class candidate, and he misread the etiquette ... Throwing fistfuls of steak into the gaping maw, fingers dripping -- that's the proper way." At least Kerry didn't eat his sandwich with a fork and knife. The State vs Christian parents The Vancouver Sun reports: "Home-schooling parents are fuming after the B.C. Education Ministry ordered thousands of them to stop using faith-based materials -- or any other 'unofficial' resource -- when teaching their children at home." Today religious books in the home school, tomorrow prayers at meal-time. Very scary. Thursday, April 22, 2004
Stop the self-described Fisking Jonah Goldberg on the phenomenon of declaring one has fisked another: "'Fisking.' I know the word began as something of a mode of criticism based upon critiques of Robert Fisk. But it has come to mean something else. I think Ramesh nailed this perfectly when he defined it as 'criticizing with an unjustified air of having crushed the other side.' In this sense, I don't mind 'fisking' as a process or an adjective. What I detest is when it is self-declared. If fisking now means to humiliate through criticism and fact-checking or some such, fine. But it is in the minds of the audience to decide whether someone has been 'fisked.' This should be abundantly clear if you replace the word with its synonyms. I would sound fairly presumptuous if I declared 'I've crushed Glenn Reynolds argument today.' I get emails from bloggers telling me they've 'fisked me' all the time and, putting aside the fact this sounds like something unpleasant in a prison shower, when I read what they wrote I usually just think they've criticized me in fairly unimpressive ways. Leave it to the readers to decide who's been 'fisked.' None of this is particularly directed at Sullivan, but he may not fully appreciate the degree to which the meaning of the word has changed." Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Objectivity in time of war, Part II I posted an item at The Shotgun in which I said, in essence, journalists can be cheerleaders in war -- they are citizens first, journalists second and (I didn't post this part) if they can't cheer on the good guys against the likes of Saddam Hussein, then journalism is lousy profession taking the side of evil because it refuses to take a side at all. There were a number of comments but Kathy Shaidle's is worth repeating: "I caught that Paul, great job. And as a panelist on the same show, I've raised a similar point. One (muslim woman) journalist expressed her support for Al Jazeera's CRTC application because then we could "hear from the other side". I responded that a) if we get Al Jazeera, I want FOX News and b) during WW2, did we get to listen to Japanese State Radio or watch German propaganda newsreels? More importantly, did we even WANT to? Of course not! We need to PICK sides in times like these, not 'listen to both of them' (which inevitably means listening only to the one we agree with already). Of course, she was baffled. But her viewpoint is shockingly common. One thing that blew me away and more firmly to the Right after 9/11 was that that very day, I read messages on career related newsgroups I belonged to, saying, 'Now remember: we need to keep an open mind and consider both sides of the story!' When I posted outraged messages in response, I got the typical sucky lefty answer: 'Oh dear, I didn't mean to offend anyone' which is their way of trying to say, 'Golly, I didn't actually think I'd ever encounter anyone who disagreed with Perceived Liberal Wisdom, and boy am I speechless'." I'm glad that nine times out of ten, I'm on Shaidle's side. The libertarians, on the other hand, accused me of licking my oppressor's boots. Journalists who support the war, they say, love the state (or, going the German route as many do, The State). Whatever. When all else fails, go negative Writing in the Montreal Gazette, L. Ian MacDonald exposes the Liberal game plan: "...the Liberals have a secret weapon - Stephen Harper, and a clever plan to demonize the Conservatives as a bunch of right-wing nutcases. According to the Toronto Globe and Mail, Liberal pollsters were asking voters last week 'if they were more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if you knew they had been taken over by evangelical Christians.' If the Liberals are going to lean into their attitudinal data, why be so subtle? Not just any bunch of evangelicals, but a bunch of gun-toting, war mongering, gay-bashing, anti-French evangelicals at that." But going negative and doing so dishonestly is a sign of desperation, as today's National Post editorial notes: "Desperate to stem the tide against them, the Liberals will continue to find Conservative bogeymen to demonize -- and their cheerleaders in the media will no doubt follow suit." And, as MacDonald says, "if the only thing on offer from the Liberals is scare tactics, it doesn't say much for their version of Canadian values. And just because Martin has an agenda for health care and aboriginal rights doesn't mean the sponsorship scandal will disappear." MacDonald's prescription for Harper is to follow the lead of Ronald Reagan who dismissed the alarms about the former actor being all gun-ho about blowing up the planet. He predicted the unfair and untrue accusations and then blew them off. There are much worse political models than Reagan. He won by a land-slide. Cheney on Bush's compassionate conservatism US Vice President Dick Cheney at the National Right to Life Committee annual awards dinner yesterday: "President Bush has often expressed his conviction that in a compassionate society, every child must be welcomed in life and protected in law. America still has some distance to travel before that hope is realized." Surprisingly, the New York Times story seems to present what Cheney said without any real editorializing and without a reaction from a vehement pro-abortion femiNazi. Some editor must have been asleep at the switch at the Times last night. Who is responsible for September 11? It should be obvious but just as a reminder I'll note Joshua Muravchik's column about the 9/11 commission in which he concludes: "In short, the list of those now being held culpable before the commission has spread from Bush to Clinton to the bureaucracy to the Congress and now to the commission itself. In the end, we will probably learn that the real culprit of 9/11 was who knew it was at the outset--a tall, bearded man hiding somewhere in a cave on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border." Checking out Chelsea For years, the media was exhorted not to examine the family life of Bill Clinton and to especially respect the privacy of the First Daughter, Chelsea Clinton. At the same time, the outstanding phenom that is Chelsea Clinton is praised as an example of the Clintons' wonderful parenting. (Bill has served well as an example of the type of men his daughter should avoid.) Tim Graham of the Media Research Centre and regular blogger at The Corner has had enough of the double standard of privacy and praise for the former first fam: "It's bad enough to have to watch Hillary plug the new paperback edition with Larry King. ('Cleveland, hello, you're kissing Hillary Clinton's ring.') Did CNN have to follow-up with Rep. Jane Harman (Bill Bennett's dark horse for the veep spot) telling King how amazing Chelsea has turned out, what great parenting she received? Repeat after me: it is unfair to declare the press off limits to this teenager/young adult for eight years and more, killing the chance of any critical articles a la Dubya's Tequila Twins, and then turn around and exclaim about her model (censored) behavior as a way of puffing her parents as wonderful people. If they were such wonderful parents, maybe they would have stayed in Arkansas, or skipped the intern Olympics. Chelsea may be a doll. She may also be a drunk. (I bought the Globe -- the supermarket tabloid, not the Boston bulletin board for liberals -- with Chelsea looking quite kablooey on the cover, since it was a refreshing step away from the Model Child propaganda.) My distaste really has nothing to do with her, but about the manipulated image of her for her parents' never-ending political ends." Goodden on reciprocated tolerance London Free Press columnist Herman Goodden writes a column that concludes, quite rightly, "Many of us wish the promotion of tolerance regarding sexual orientation was more of a two-way street." Read this column after you read the post below. Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Hateful, hate-filled, gay bigots Warning: not appropriate for young children, old ladies or the otherwise faint of heart. Freedominion received this email: "Biil c250 will pass. Your group will be the first one we go after. You are nothing but a group of hatefilled bigots. How dare you use a name like freedominion, free for who, right wing a**holes. I was in Edmonton last week and I enjoyed f***ing Lorne Gunters son in the a**. Tight. I am headed down to parliament hill later to slap that bitch Anne Cools[bible thumping nigger] and to f**k your hero Steve Harper. I'll bet he likes the taste of sp**m. Talk to you later redneck c***lickers." This is true bigotry, true hatred and something, I doubt, police will do much about. As a friend noted when we saw this email this afternoon, the sender obviously thinks that social conservatives are shocked by such language; sadly, many of us are not. In my day job as editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, I routinely receive email such as this. Many homosexual activists have given up debating the issue and resorted to such attempts to shock and threaten that discussion with them is not only impossible but undesirable. Should Christians even be allowed to run for office? That might be the question the Globe and Mail asks considering the tenor of their coverage of three socially conservative Tory candidates for the upcoming, yet-to-be-called election. Over at The Shotgun, Adam Daifallah has this to say about the Globe and Mail article outing Christian conservatives: "I was just waiting for this: the Globe has an article this morning 'outing' religious candidates who've been nominated for the Conservatives. They make it sound as though these people have no right to run. And I love this line: 'The moves have led to warnings that the party not push a moral-values agenda as it tries to show a moderate face for the coming election campaign.' Ya, 3 out of 308 candidates (less than 1%) is real cause for concern." Nicely put Adam. One of the comments to his post made the following observation: "Can you imagine the furor if they started pointing out which candidates were Jewish? Double-standards are great, aren't they?" Relapsed Catholic Kathy Shaidle says succinctly: "'Religious activists set to run for Conservatives' announces a panic stricken Globe & Mail. And guess what: if their views are unpopular, they won't get elected. Of course, what really scares the Globe & Mail is that their views are popular..." Joke making the rounds The steps at the Parliament Hill building needed some repairs so bids are taken from contractors from across the country. First a contractor from Toronto looks it over. After a session of measuring and figuring he presents his bid. "I can do it for $19,000, he says. I'd need $9,000 for materials, $9,000 for my crew, and $1,000 profit for me." Next a guy from Winnipeg does his measuring and calculating then says, "I'll do it for $17,000. $8,000 for materials, $8,000 for my crew, and $1,000 profit for me." Last a Liberal-friendly advertising firm from Montreal steps up. Without even looking at the job site he says, "I'll do it for $57,000." Surprised at how high it is, the man taking the bids asks him to explain it. "It's simple, he says. $20,000 for me, $20,000 for you, and we hire the guy from Winnipeg." I question Vanunu's right to exist The Daily Telegraph reports that Israeli traitor Mordechai Vanunu is questioning Israel's right to exist, calling Judaism a "backward religion" and calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. Obviously 18 years was not long enough. Or that his treachery deserved more than jail. Apparently this passes as real commentary in Kentucky At the end of this incoherent, unfair and hysterical column on homosexuality and SSM and political scape-goating, is this identifier: "Henry Riekert is a Jessamine County farmer and free-lance writer." And all around nit-wit. Writing in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Riekart finds that any opposition to homosexuality or SSM to be discrimination against the (warning: inflated figure alert) 10 per cent of the electorate that is homosexual. Furthermore, not only is such discrimination wrong, it will be, Riekert predicts, ultimately politically unwise: "I wouldn't be so quick to write off Lexington's large gay community and its even larger block of highly educated and progressive-minded voters." I wouldn't bet on Lexington having a large gay or progressive community and certainly they are not constituencies that the Republican candidates are going to attract. The is full of such sophmoric analysis and it employs terms such as "anti-gay" when less incendiary and more accurate terms (including anti same-sex marriage) could be used. One wishes that the editors of this daily paper were more discriminating. John Kerry might have a better claim to being 2nd black prez than 2nd Catholic president I never thought I would favourably quote Patrick J. Buchanan but his recent comments on John Kerry's line "My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic Church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices ..." are good for as far as they go: "Thus did John Kerry rebuke fellow Catholics who are demanding that the bishops sanction him for supporting abortions and homosexual unions. Katharine Seelye of the New York Times graciously points out that Kerry surely meant John XXIII, as there was no Pius XXIII. The gaffe does suggest, however, that Kerry is about as conversant with Catholic doctrine as Cardinal Ratzinger is with hip-hop." However, Cardinal Ratzinger need not know hip-hop. Kerry, ostensibly a Catholic, should know the teachings of the Catholic Church and a little about its recent history. Conversant or not, Kerry demonstrates the seriousness with which he takes his faith. From now on, can we refer to Kerry's Catholicism in ironic quotes? Billionaires benefit from Democratic victory Insight Magazine (via WorldNetDaily) reports that George Soros, Warren Buffet and other assorted lefties want big government liberalism. While the media paints Richard Mellon Scaife as a right-wing ideologue, Soros and Buffet are philanthropists who often espouse views that are contrary to their economic well-being. But is that necessarily true? The article finds that Buffet has insurance companies that benefit from the estate-tax and that Soros wants IMF and World Bank policies changed so that the economic situation in countries like Russia will improve and he can stop taking a huge financial hit on his currency speculation. These issues are never examined by the New York Times, CNN, NPR and Toronto Star, perhaps because they are too difficult to understand. Or perhaps it just doesn't fit their worldview. Monday, April 19, 2004
Looking forward to December 1 That's Tom Brokaw's last day to read the news. And then we can begin to hate Brian Williams. Taking anonymous sources (and liberals) seriously Bob Woodward says in his new novel about President George W. Bush's war planning that the Saudis promised to manipulate the price of oil to benefit the prez's re-election. David Frum has doubts about this story: "Ask yourself this: Who could have been Woodward’s source for this claim? Only one person: the canny Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States and a frequent purveyor of titillating items to selected journalists. Next question: If such a deal existed, what motive could Prince Bandar have for revealing it? The revelation could only hurt Bush, the candidate Bandar was allegedly trying to help. Logical next thought: If, however, Bandar wanted to hurt Bush, then the revelation makes a great deal of sense. But why would Bandar want to hurt Bush? Don’t a hundred conspiracy books tell us that the Bush family are thralls of Saudi oil money? Perhaps the Saudis don’t think so. Perhaps they see President Bush’s Middle East policy as a threat to their dominance and even survival. What could after all be a worse nightmare for Saudi Arabia than a Western-oriented, pluralistic Iraq pumping all the oil it can sell? In other words, if what Bob Woodward reports is true, then the Saudis are meddling to defeat Bush, not elect him." So liberals have a choice: they can either believe Woodward's claim (and John Kerry apparently does) and abandon their belief that the administration and Bush family are too close to Saudi Arabia, or they can keep a hold of their fantasies about the American and Saudi dynasties but denounce Woodward's "journalism." But they cannot have it both ways. The Shotgun Make sure you drop by The Shotgun. Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant has joined the melee. My most recent posts include journalistic objectivity in times of war, GO spending! and politics made easy. Learning from Belinda Driving my 13-year-old son Patrick from school today we were talking about politics and other current affairs, as well as his future plans. Or, more accurately, my plans for his future. He wants to work in politics so I suggest he go to law school not only because many MPs were formerly lawyers but because many backroom advisors are lawyers in their day jobs. Patrick says there are many other ways to get into politics and suggested that like Belinda Stronach, "I could become a single mother and then make the jump into politics." What role model she is for the next generation. Sunday, April 18, 2004
Paulitics is back Paulitical is back with sporadic posting. Check it out if you are interesting in US political news. Steyn on Richard Clarke Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column is bang-on in wondering where is Richard Clarke's apology for something he might have been able to do something about: Rwanda. I don't think that anyone but the Hutus who brutally killed the Tutsis are responsible for the genocide but certainly the United States and the United Nations could have acted to prevent the scope of the tragedy. The importance of 'the' George F. Will's Washington Post column on American policy regarding Israel says that the US has finally properly read UN Resolution 242. Will says: "Passed after the 1967 Six Day War, 242 required the withdrawal of Israel 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict.' Not from 'the territories.' Israel insisted on deletion of the 'the' because it implied, as Arab and other powers acknowledged by vehement opposition to the deletion -- withdrawal from all territories." It is time for Palestinians to give up the dream of regaining all of the West Bank and Gaza (or, for that matter, Israel) and accept this compromise that, for once, actually will move the peace process in a meaningful direction. Which is likely why President George W. Bush supported Ariel Sharon this week. President Bush also supports Sharon's policy because it is good for Israel, a fact demonstrated to the president when he was still governor of Texas. As Will reports: "In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, visited Israel and was given a helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place where Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home, Bush said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host in the helicopter was Sharon." Without parts of the West Bank, Israel is too vulnerable to attack from its neighbours, including an independent Palestine. That is precisely why Israel will not give up all of the territory he won in 1967 and why many of her neighbours want her to. Me on TV Tonight I am on Behind the Story on CTS discussing such issues as the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, how the media covers the war for Iraq and anti-Semitic hate crimes in Canada. Apparently, the show will now be available in southwestern Ontario reaching for the first time beyond the GTA/Golden Horseshoe broadcast range. Saturday, April 17, 2004
Iraq is not Vietnam and other reasons for American resolve Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer says that Iraq is not Vietnam or at least not where it really matters -- on the ground. It is there that there are few similarities, the most important being that the United States has the support of most Iraqis in that at least the Iraqis wanted to be liberated, that it has control of most of the country and that the terrain is different. But Iraq is Vietnam in the mind of both wars' opponents. If the administration and the media does a better job of relaying the realities on the ground, the thinking might change and the comparisons to Vietnam stop. At least that would be true if the critics of both wars were honest enough to admit reality into their worldview. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson addressed the issue of Iraq at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this week and he said that the most important lesson of Vietnam is to not do Vietnam again -- i.e. don't abandon those countries you had previously committed to help: "If America were to reenact Vietnam, there would be plenty of losers: Those in Iraq who had the courage to trust us will be cut down, just as they were in 1991. Those in Iraq who had the hope of finally living in freedom will be trampled, as will others in the Middle East eager to see a model of democracy in their region. But the biggest loser of all would be the United States. We would be seen as an unsteady ally and a weak enemy. We would prove for once and for all that we don’t have the courage to fight for the things we believe in, or to protect the long term interests of this country. Our enemies would believe that if our intelligence isn’t 100 percent certain (and it never is); if we can’t win every battle (and we never will), then we will not fight." And to borrow an overused and often misused cliche, if the US abandons Iraq, the terrorists will have won: "And a coherent strategy for victory does not mean suggesting we escape our responsibilities in Iraq by turning them over to the United Nations or unnamed international allies. Our enemies recognize that this is a call to cut and run. And they are heartened by it." Wall Street Journal runs Ahmad Chalabi's one-year after the liberation look at Iraq which concludes "A year after Saddam was deposed, the Iraqi people are grateful for liberation but tired of occupation and delayed promises. Only sovereignty, democracy and justice will satisfy us now." Great but sovereignty, democracy and justice do not pop out of thin air. The question is how does Iraq obtain these attributes. But are the so-called "occupation" and delays incompatible with sovereignty, democracy and justice? I think not. The United States wants to guarantee that S-D-J is safe in Iraq and only a fool could truly believe that the United States wants to become an imperial power and occupy Iraq; the US must remain and play an important role in Iraq until S-D-J is safe. Friday, April 16, 2004
Osama bin Laden's olive branch offer to Europe rejected Jonah Goldberg knows why: "Some may be shocked that they've declined Osama Bin Laden's offer to surrender. But my sources say their holding out for a better offer. Maybe something involving actual kowtowing." Thursday, April 15, 2004
Not Catholic enough A bunch of pro-choice, liberal Catholic politicians in the US decide upon their own criteria to come up with a rating that makes them look more Catholic than pro-life Republicans. Partial-birth abortion votes count but other abortion-related votes do not; partial-birth abortion vote is equal to raising the minumum wage. Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Charest: One year later The must-read on Jean Charest's first anniversary in power is Polyscopique. Very long and very worth it for anyone with even a passing interest in Quebec politics. Lots of poll numbers, lot of analysis of what those polls mean and some comment on the Liberal government's policies. Most insightfully it discusses the futility of trying to accommodate the unions when it must amend the Labour Code to make the province more business friendly (in this case, by making outsourcing easier): "The Charest government can well try to appease the FRAPRU or the FFQ by throwing them a bone, but they will not receive anything in return except for a good word or two plus a laundry list of demands." McGuinty gets something right A rare moment of courage and (political in-)correctness from Ontario's pointy-headed premier. The Toronto Star reports Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said, "What I would say to Mrs. Khadr in particular is that with the rights of Canadian citizenship come certain fundamental obligations, and I would argue that one of those is to reject and denounce terrorism and suicide bombing, for example." Take that Trad Catholics Mark Shea skewers anti-ecumenism Traditionalist Catholics after reading this Christianity Today blog reporting that American evangelicals have a more favourable view of Pope John Paul II than they do of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson: "It's not your father's Ecumenical Movement. And will Trad whiners please stop telling me that the Church's moves toward ecumenism have been barren and fruitless? Excuse me, but the tidal wave of converts to the faith from Evangelicalism over the past fifteen or twenty years is a slight indication that your analysis is a bit off. And those converts (you know, compromising losers like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Ros Moss, Sherry Weddell, and fifty jillion other gung ho, orthodox, on-fire, Catechism-believin', Bible-knowin', articulate, educated and apostolic preachers, teachers, and go-getters) seem to be the leading edge of a wave of second generation converts who are now coming up through the ranks. There are good things happening. Very good things!" Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Daifallah on golf Adam Daifallah had a piece on the Masters in NRO yesterday and he has an ability to make golf sound more interesting than it really is. My only complaint with his column is the opening: "What really defined this year's Masters golf tournament, which ended Sunday, was its emotional extremes. Not in a long time has one of golf's majors (or any sporting event, for that matter) taken fans on such an emotional rollercoaster, from extreme sadness to extreme joy, in such a short period of time." In any sport? I would bet Tiger Woods earnings for 2004 that no Chicago Cubs fan would agree with the assertion that not in a long time as any sporting event taken fans on such an emotional rollercoaster. If you don't remember you can watch Steve Bartman's game-costing interference here. Sunday, April 11, 2004
Happy Easter from the President Here is President George W. Bush's Easter message including this wonderful line: "Through His ministry and sacrifice, Jesus demonstrated God's unconditional love for us. He taught us the importance of helping others and loving our neighbors. His selfless devotion and mercy provide a remarkable example for all of us." And here's what Canada's Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin had to say to mark Easter: Happy Easter I pray that everyone has a Happy Easter and for those who are traveling, that they arrive at their destinations safely. My family has come to Toronto for the weekend so I will not be posting here at Sobering Thoughts until Tuesday. Drop by The Shotgun where I will be posting every once and while over the rest of the long weekend. Saturday, April 10, 2004
Religionless America The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger has a column ostensibly about The Passion of the Christ (including a bit on his generation's The Passion, Ben-Hur) but which is actually about the secularization of America. Henninger says that The Passion is not of our time, which is true and which is probably why Mel Gibson needed to make it. Henninger says: "Mr. Gibson's real problem in the U.S. is that fervor is out of favor. As a political matter, intense religious belief has come to be associated with people who are thought to threaten the ability of others to participate in established secular sacraments, the chief of which is abortion. Religious fervor is so feared by some today that, incredibly, we have a Supreme Court case considering whether children speaking the Pledge of Allegiance may also say 'under God'." We may forget about the crucifixion but we continue to shed innocent blood. In the United States, more than a million unborn children a year are killed by abortion and in Canada the number is around 115,000. Do we do the latter because we have done the former? Just wondering. But forgetting the lessons of Sunday school and the lessons of Sunday service has consequences beyond what our modern society considers the usual "moral issues." Henninger continues: "Religion still has its uses. Many in the business community cut many corners the past 10 years, which suggests that letting each individual decide what is right and wrong may not work. Maybe in this holiest of weeks for Christians and Jews, it would be good if more businessmen saw merit in going to church on weekends. Being reminded of the rules of the game while in church strikes me as easier, and less costly, than learning them from a prosecutor." Why are we surprised that as religion becomes less important to more people, more people are behaving badly? When we live in a society, do your own thing is an unworkable commandment. Friday, April 09, 2004
Condi Rice Only two things to point to. First, check out the New York Post cover. Second, check out New York Post columnist John Podhoretz who says that the Democrats beat up on Rice to score points against the President because they have to develop their "plot line" that Bush could have prevented September 11. Put aside that looniness, which, as Podhoretz reminds readers, even Richard Clarke said was implausible. The more important question is this: is the Democratic assault on Rice any way to treat a lady? Taxes drive successfulness away This post from Samizdata's Paul Marks is worth reposting in its entirety: "The claim is being made (by various people) that the founder of the IKEA company, Ingvar Kamprad, is now the richest man in the world (supposedly Mr Kamprad has overtaken Mr Gates). In the British media (both electronic and print) Mr Kamprad is described as 'Swedish'. Now he may well still be a citizen of Sweden, but Mr Kamprad has been a resident of Lausanne, Switzerland since 1976. Sweden is not doing badly economically at the moment, but I do find it interesting that the taxes of Sweden mean that its most successful businessman is unable to live there." The net was something to satisfy every strange fetish Terry Teachout blogs: "By way of Bookish Gardener (new in 'Sites to See,' and very highly recommended) comes this link to a Dutch Web site devoted to paintings of women reading. I’m not quite sure why I think this is so cool, but I do." I'm not surprised Michelle Malkin's column provides the evidence for her conclusion: "When it comes to smearing America, as Tawana Brawley taught us all so well, the end always justifies the manufactured means." Anyway there are two interesting points, one short and merely an aside, the other longer and central to Malkin's argument. First, Malkin notes that Tawana Brawley, who with the aid of Al Sharpton fooled New York into believing she was assaulted by white cops, now calls herself Maryam Muhammad. Second, is this case that isn't a case: "The latest case of apparently manufactured racism involves left-wing academic Kerri Dunn. On March 9, the Claremont McKenna College visiting professor of psychology claimed she discovered anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-woman epithets ('kike,' 'nigger lover' and 'whore') spray-painted on her 1992 Honda Civic. The car's windows were smashed and the tires slashed. Dunn had been a vocal critic of other alleged racist incidents on campus. After she reported the incident, administrators and students rallied around Dunn – classes were cancelled at all five of the Claremont Colleges; local and federal authorities launched an investigation. Things started smelling funny when so many students didn't even know what 'kike' meant that the campus rabbi had to put out an explanatory press release. Dunn, for that matter, isn't even Jewish. She is a Catholic "considering" converting to Judaism. So how did Dunn's purported assailants know this? She explained that the attack – which she called 'a well-planned-out act of terrorism' – must have been committed by her own students, who knew of her plans to convert. More irksome questions arose. How did the assailants know which car on the campus parking lot was hers? The students must have followed her, Dunn said. And what about the $1,700 in property she told police had been stolen, which mysteriously turned up in Dunn's possession? No explanation. The final blow to Dunn's credibility came when Claremont police and the FBI concluded that Dunn the victim was also the victimizer. Giving new meaning to the phrase 'auto vandalism,' two witnesses told investigators that they saw Dunn drive her car – adorned with the offending graffiti – into a parking lot and smash the car's windows and slash the tires herself. Investigators and administrators say the witnesses are credible and (unlike Dunn) have no agenda. As is typical in these cases, the perpetrator and her loyal supporters are in denial. Dunn, who was involved in past tangles with the law over shoplifting charges, blames the police for being irresponsible and 'irreparably damag[ing] her reputation and emotional health.' Minority students shrug at the fraud. 'I'm not concerned with whether it's a hoax or not,' said Pomona College junior Adam Briggs of the Pan-African Student Association." If this was terrorism, as Dunn claimed, then I guess Dunn is a suicide bomber. (Hat tip to Relapsed Catholic) Thursday, April 08, 2004
Shotgun I have a number of posts over at the Western Standard blog The Shotgun. I haven't quite figured out what I'm going to post where. Posts include Toronto city council's budget balancing act, Steyn on Kerry and Democratic derangement and strange bedfellows. Bring it on John Kerry gets tough. With President George W. Bush, of course. The Associated Press reports: "During a question-and-answer session with the audience, the daughter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, Susan, warned Kerry about opposition from independent candidate Ralph Nader. She said many in Wisconsin want to hear "strong statements" against Bush's foreign policy and environmental record. 'You tell me if this is strong enough,' Kerry replied. 'George Bush and the Republicans in Washington today have run the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country'." Now, it is the rest of the world that needs getting tough with. But Kerry wonders "Why is the United States of America almost alone in carrying this burden and the risks which the world has a stake in?" Perhaps it is because the United States is the only country willing to carry this burden and take the risks. Of course the rest of the world has a stake in what happens in Iraq. It's just that France, Germany, Canada and others are on for the free ride. Or hope to be. If Kerry becomes president, they'll get away with it, too. Joe Clark to the Senate? Ezra Levant writes that it is a possibility. Clark to the Senate and other Paul Martin abuses of the West in this week's Levant Calgary Sun column. About Clark, Levant writes: "Will Paul Martin stick his thumb in Alberta's eye by appointing Joe Clark to the Senate? It wouldn't be a surprise. After all, during Alberta's historic Senate election of 1998, Jean Chretien interfered by appointing another Red Tory, Doug Roche, to the Senate right in the middle of the election campaign. That was not just an insult. That was vote-tampering, democracy-smashing, Trudeau-salute-style contempt for the West. So of course it appeals to Martin." Levant says that just because Clark, like Martin, "likes to awkwardly wear a cowboy hat and chortle 'howdy' for the cameras," that doesn't mean he is Western. After all, Levant reminds us, it was Clark who killed Senate Reform in 1992. Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Where are the Christian suicide bombers? Dennis Prager writes a decent column examining why are there no Christian terrorists. He doesn't adequately answer the question but there are some choice 'graphs nonetheless. To introduce a section of his column on the Palestinian cause being co-opted by militant Muslims in their quest to destroy Israel and the rest of the West: "About 25 percent of Palestinians are Christian, yet if there are any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, I am unaware of them. Now why is that? Don't Muslim and leftist apologists incessantly tell us that the reason for Palestinian terror is 'Israeli occupation and oppression'? Why, then, are there no Palestinian Christian terrorists? Are Christian Palestinians less occupied?" How (nearly) all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terror: "Third, there is a terrible long-term price that Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians in particular are paying for the minority that engages in terror and for the majority that says nothing about it or supports it." Gay agenda We're told that everything blogged at The Shotgun will soon disappear when they change the format. I'll reprint Kathy Shaidle's post in its entirety because it is so darned good on whether or not there is a gay agenda, what it's like living among the gay "community" (I used to be two blocks removed), and gay culture. The gay culture line is so good, you'll get it twice: "A bitter, shallow, life-hating, drug-obsessed, self-descructive aura surrounds this 'community' and anyone who can't pick up on this is getting their ideas about gayness from Will & Grace." Now for the post: 2 A.M., Cruise the Public Park Posted at: 6:53 AM Posted by: Kathy Shaidle Anyone who doubts the existence of a "gay agenda" hasn't picked up a copy of Xtra lately. Editorials and articles call for the lowering, or outright elimination, of age of consent laws. Simply must keep that fresh, untainted meat coming down the pipe for years to come! Or watched the Gay Prom Boy story with much interest. Etc. Jay, I live in Toronto, and while your friends may be quite happy with the homosexualization of downtown (Gay Pride is now, what, Gay Pride MONTH at this point, complete with Labatt's sponsorship?), not all of us (and I'm 39 this year) share your sangfoid. My last leftist friend moved out of our Church and Wellesley neighbourhood after having her first child. Some of her best friends are drag queens. Her sister is a lesbian. But she doesn't want her kids growing up in view of 11 x 17 posters featuring full frontal nudity ("Mommy, what's 'Bear Night at Woody's'") A bitter, shallow, life-hating, drug-obsessed, self-descructive aura surrounds this "community" and anyone who can't pick up on this is getting their ideas about gayness from Will & Grace. Is there a "gay agenda" with, like, secret meetings and hand signals (write your own joke here)? Of course not. But that sort of glib comment, while allowing one to maintain one's membership in urban cocktail party society, simply diverts valuable attention the larger issue. I'm reminded of the liberals who scorned McCarthy for "looking for Communists under every bed" when he was actually looking, quite rightly, for the ones working in the State Department. (There is no conspiracy to insert left wing bias into the mainstream press, either. But the bias exists based on the fact that liberals believe their worldview is self evidently and de facto correct, and patriots and Christians are mocked openly in newsrooms. Such a bias exists among lawyers and judges, too) As it stands, gays are among the most protected and privileged in our society. Christians, not so much. Let's remember what the judge said in the case involving the 'Homosexuality is a Sin' ad. In deciding against the guy who took out the ad, the judge ruled that it wasn't the "no" sign (the red circle with the line through it) over the pictogram of 2 men holding hands that was the problem. No, the ad was hateful because it quoted a Bible verse. Just the chapter and verse citation, mind, not even the actual words (from Leviticus). He reasoned: 'God is love, and this ad is hateful, therefore this ad isn't 'religious' and so isn't protected by the Charter.' Ponder that for a moment. Then try to convince me that things won't get worse rather than better under C-250. Gay groups can mobilize quickly to ruin lives. Of all the printers in Toronto, a professional gay organization chose Scott Brockie deliberately, to make an example of him, and put him out of business. Who spoke up for him? Oh, right: just a bunch of right wing hicks. Not "cool" people, so their opinions don't matter. 50 loathsome New Yorkers Just 50? The New York Press has the list. Or to start at number 1, instead of 50. Included are director/director's daughter Sofia Coppola (50), leftie pundit Eric Alterman (39), national director of Anti-Defamation League Abe Foxman (37), Major League Baseball Commish Bud Selig (36), New York Times reporter Judith Miller (31), comedienne Joan Rivers (30), the Hilton whores (26), Diane Sawyer (23), celebrity economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs (of $@%#), liberal activist actress Janeane Garofalo (9), The Donald (8), Howard Stern (7) -- it says a lot about a city when Trump and Stern are not even top 5 material -- and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (1). Where's Bloomberg? He'd be my number 2. Others: #48 - Rapper 50 Cent: "WHAT UP, GANGSTA? Look at you, up from the underground with mix tapes and DVDs in hand, riding the coattails of Jam Master Jay's murder into the TRL ether. We probably could have handled the Teen People cover, but the Teen People centerfold was off the cliff: You posed in a bulletproof vest for a glossy magazine aimed at 12-year-old girls. Did you know that the press release for your Grammy performance had you next to Celine Dion and Richard Marx? Time to go get fitted for a pair of MC Hammer pants and bring your act to Foxwoods." #47 - Drew Barrymore & Fabrizio Moretti "CUPID SHOULD BE flamb?ed for piercing this female-condom poster ho and her pubic-haired li'l drummer boy. This is the kind of celebrity couple one dreams of razoring into bite-sized nibbles and feeding to baby pigs. If they're not strolling through Soho, stopping every 10 feet to tongue wrassle, they're sticking their hands in one another's ass pockets, making Fab's 15 minutes extra super special. We acted like this, too?in junior high." 40 - Ad man Donny Deutsch (you'd know him if you saw him) "DEUTSCH REPRESENTS THE latest trend in that most loathsome of New York traditions: the selling of adolescent greed, egomania and narcissism as charisma and depth of character. The chief of David Deutsch Associates says he only hires 'Jews, chicks and fags,' and is known for tearing off his shirt during office hours and saying?without irony?things like, 'I can kick the ass of any CEO in advertising!' Think Steven Seagal meets Charlotte Beers. The 'Elvis of Advertising' has been dabbling with a CNBC talk show and even told New York magazine that he'd consider running for mayor. Qualifications: good at selling shit, does lots of pushups. Look out, Bloomie." 4 - Senator Charles Schumer "The Senator puts even his peers to shame with his media whoritude ... Always trying to protect us from ourselves by pushing for laws to ban anything that seems dangerous in the slightest, but at the same time doing everything he can to help car owners, cellphone users and his friends in the (formerly) Big Five accountancy firms. His weekly Sunday press conferences never amount to anything?except in those cases in which he's taking credit for someone else's legislation..." 25 - Lenny Kravitz "WHEN IN PUBLIC, neo-hippie glam rocker Lenny Kravitz?aka Moe Ron?has been known to employ a man to follow him around and carry the flowing tail of his royal cardigan sweater. According to Vice magazine's Jesse Pearson, who once witnessed this crime with his own eyes, Kravitz's sweater chauffeur carries the hanging garment at an appropriate distance, 'like a bridesmaid.' We knew Leonard Albert Kravitz was a lip-glossed prima donna who spent two hours a day touching himself in front of a full-length mirror?but a bridesmaid for a boutique cardigan? That's 51 percent loathsome, 49 percent humiliating?for all of us. Don't stop fucking yourself, Lenny." 21 - Cast of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy "... Kyan Douglas, Ted Allen, Carson Kressley, Jai Rodriguez and Thom Filicia have taken the self-conscious, hyperstylized stereotypical homo to the next level. Their show's popularity doesn't signify growing acceptance?it just makes it easier for America to see gay men as effeminate fashion snobs. There's no other way to say this: The 'fab five' are the most annoying faggots we've ever seen on television." My personal most loathsome New Yorker is their #13, not-sexy-in-any-city Sarah Jessica Parker "WHEN GIRLS THINK another girl is beautiful, but guys know she isn't, call it the Sarah Jessica Parker syndrome. Parker is a dual monument to millennial American female vanity and inanity. Spoiled and groomed to the point of psychosis, Sarah Jessica Parker is the final dead-end in the American feminine odyssey. She dresses like a drag queen, a slave and sometimes a clown. Her hair is bleached and processed literally to the breaking point: A hairdresser revealed that all of Parker's hair once broke off beneath her ears. The actress speaks like an 11-year-old girl and has less to say; lacking utterly in charm, she compensates with screamy clothes and pointy shoes. Now that she is at long last gone, we're hoping new icons will spring up to replace her, and we're hoping they'll be wearing no-name jeans, going light on the eyeliner and reading a newspaper every once in a while." (Hat tip to Kelly Jane Torrance) Shotgun Lots of comment and back and forth at The Shotgun on hate crimes. Actually about including homosexuals for special protection on hate crimes. I was largely unavailable yesterday and today after starting the dust-up but thankfully Kathy Shaidle (the excellent blogger behind Relapsed Catholic) was there to take care of the socon side of the debate. If you haven't wondered over to The Shotgun, you should. Kathy is joined by Mark Cameron, Kate (Small Dead Animals), Trudeaupia, The Meatriarchy, David Mader (MaderBlog), Rick Hiebert, Jay Currie, Nicholas Packwood, Damian Penny, Terry O'Neill, Kevin Libin and Kevin Steel. Sorry if I'm missing anyone. Really a great collection of libertarian/conservative bloggers. Tuesday, April 06, 2004
This is not satire CNSNews.com reports that some really wacky environmentalists say Palm Sunday is not sustainable: "The Commission for Environmental Cooperation and the Rainforest Alliance put out a press release on Friday, reminding Christians about the "unsustainable practices often used to harvest the 30 million chamaedorea palm fronds delivered to Canadian and U.S. Churches" for Palm Sunday services." It isn't Clinton's impeachment but ... Kenneth Starr is named Dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law. Liberal Air David Brooks has a hilarious column in the New York Times on Air America, the liberal radio network for Americans who hate everything America stands for. He uses the metaphor of an airline to explain the radion network and here are some choice 'graphs: "The way I see it, every flight on Liberal Air (motto: Your Grievances Are Our Grievances) will take off 45 minutes late, or whenever people feel like leaving, with the ensuing late arrivals blamed on Karl Rove. The planes themselves will be designed by a really interesting fuselage cooperative in Oregon. Seating will be divided between coach class, working class (mostly screenwriters in flannel shirts) and faculty." And: "After the safety teach-in, mandated by the F.A.A. ('All bike messenger bags must fit in the overhead rack . . . in case of a water landing, your moral vanity may be used as a personal flotation device . . .'), there will be an inflight entertainment program, eliciting the complete range of highly attractive liberal emotions: rage, anger, disgust, contempt, pessimism, gloom and despair. For a full hour, passengers will watch Michael Moore movies; then for the next hour they will congratulate themselves for having a nuanced view of reality." Good news for the unborn And in California of all places. The California Supreme Court expands the rights of the unborn by saying that crimes committed them are crimes even if the woman did not know she was pregnant. That is, if there are two victims, there are two crimes. Shotgun Lots of morning blogs by yours truly at The Shotgun: reality is optional for liberals, the War for Iraq, Dave Stonewall and more. The second decline of The Atlantic The Atlantic Monthly was once a good magazine that, it seems, sometime in the 1960s or 1970s became reliably left-libbish. Under the late Michael Kelly a few years ago it became very good. It was fresh with a nice mix of writers and topcs that included P.J. O'Rourke and David Brooks and Jonathon Rauch among others. Because they were included in the mix of writers that included leftovers like James Fallows or Michael Lind, Fallows and Lind were tolerable. But not any more. Ditto for me everything that Jonah Goldberg says about The Atlantic which is reverting to its pre-Michael Kelly knee-jerk liberalism. Goldberg makes an important point about three articles in the current issue by Jonathan Chait, Ryan Lizza and Joshua Green which can be made about most of liberalism in general: "They're not particularly partisan pieces, and they're all good. But they contribute to the continued Slateification of the magazine, by which I mean that 'post-partisan smart' is defined as a certain kind of enlightened liberalism which enlightened liberals see as simply correct, not liberal." That is why many liberals don't consider the evening broadcast news or CNN or the New York Times liberal. They're "simply correct, not liberal." Liberal radio just slightly better than dead air: listeners Byron York finds that although the media likes Air America, the liberal radio network for Americans who hate everything America stands for, listeners are tuning out. Not that many have the chance to listen. As York reports: "The management of Air America originally said the company would purchase a group of stations which would broadcast the liberal network, but, at least so far, that has not happened. Instead, Air America is heard on five stations: WLIB in New York, KBLA in Los Angeles, WNTD in Chicago, KPOJ in Portland, Oregon, and KCAA in Inland Empire, California. That means the network's programming is on the air in five of the 285 radio markets in the United States. It is also available on the Internet and on XM radio." Also, a station in Minneapolis plays Al Franken's show. Franken is originally from Minnesota. Five markets plus and all are liberal markets (New York, LA, California, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oregon's Portland). All they're missing is Boston, Burlington (Vermont) and San Francisco and they'll have the entire liberal market. More importantly, however, is that the five stations each have small audiences, ranking very near the bottom of listenership in their respective cities. It is also telling that the New York station provides Caribbean-music programming and the Chicago and LA stations are Spanish radio stations. Station owners know that Air America will not fly with listeners. I've said it many times before: Americans who want liberal spin already have the three major networks' evening and morning news programs, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, local talk radio programs, the New York Times and most major dailies, a bunch of magazines such as The New Republic, the Washingtonian, Washington Monthly and, of course, the internet. Conservatism rules talk radio because there are few other outlets. Liberalism will not get much of foothold on the AM dial because liberals can get their news and views elsewhere. Monday, April 05, 2004
Tuns at The Shotgun Posts today on Spanish bishops knowing who are the good guys in the War on Terror, dreaming about a Liberal caucus of two and Kinsella bails on the Martin Liberals. Read my posts and others at The Shotgun. I'll post an item or two on Sobering Thoughts later this evening. Read The Shotgun I'll be posting at The Shotgun as well as here at Sobering Thoughts. Future of Paulitics is now in doubt. Truth be told, once the Democratic nominee was decided, the blog became less interesting to maintain and the few Senate primary races do not produce enough news to warrant regular coverage. Should heat up again in late summer when the poll of the day matters more and the Senate nominees are all known. But I want to know, should Paulitics stay, go or just go on an extended hiatus? Weigh in at paul_tuns@yahoo.com. Anyway, my first post at the Western Standard's group blog is on the selective honesty of a British journalist held up as an example by a certain Toronto Star columnist. Sunday, April 04, 2004
Kerry's honesty problem An aide to former President Bill Clinton said his former boss was the type of leader who, when he saw a fork in the road, took it. As for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (Ultra D, People's Republic of MA), it's not that he's not honest, it's that he always takes the fork in the road. Mark Steyn writes in today's Chicago Sun-Times about Kerry likes to have it both ways: "I'm not one who thinks it helpful to characterize a policy difference as a 'lie.' So, when John Kerry says he supports the Kyoto Treaty even though he voted for a bill that declared the United States would never ever ratify it, that doesn't mean he's a 'liar,' it just means that, well, to be honest, I haven't a clue what it means, you better to take it up with him, now he's out of the hospital after his elective surgery. 'Elective surgery' means you vote to have the operation, and then spend the next year insisting you've always been strongly opposed to the operation." Next, Steyn discusses Kerry's claim that he's fascinated by rap and hip-hop: "Anyway, as I said, I wouldn't call Sen. Kerry a liar. But I did get the vague feeling in the following exchange that, if it had gone on a minute or two longer, the candidate's nose would have cracked my TV screen, extended across the coffee table and pinned me to the wall." Yet, many eat this kind of stuff up (the pandering to youth by claiming to understand or even enjoy their music). The easily swayed think to themselves "sure he's stiff and plays classical guitar but he 'gets' me because he understands the complexity of ghetto music." Give me a break. The state of Canadian conservatism [sic] Andrew Coyne notes the total disregard for the free market from three outposts of Canadian conservatism [sic], led by three individuals whom, Coyne observes, "some folks wanted to make federal Conservative leader." The Ontario Tories, formerly led by Mike Harris, criticize market hydro pricing; Quebec Premier Jean Charest's finance minister brings in a "social democratic budget"; New Brunswick Premier Bernard "the future face of the Conservative Party of Canada" Lord's committee on auto insurance calls for nationalizing the industry. Shame on them all. Saturday, April 03, 2004
The latest stupid idea for a law So many to pick from but in today's print edition of the Ottawa Citizen John Robson captures the stupity of one idea that shouldn't be going far: "An Ottawa city councillor wants to hold landlords legally responsible if their tenants are growing marijuana. Yeah, that should really help. And while we're at it, if they rent to students who don't study, let's fail them." Abortion to be shown on British TV And its the pro-aborts who want it shown. The Observer reports that independent film maker Julia Black, daughter of the founder of the Marie Stopes clinic in England, says that she wants abortion advocates to be able to fully understand the issue and counter pro-life arguments that utilize pictures that illustrate the humanity of the child in the womb. BPAS: Abortion Care welcomes the 30-minute television show, which will present both sides of the issue. "We have to be honest," said Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS. "We do not believe that women who request abortions are ignorant about what abortion is." That is quite important and demonstrates where the debate is today. Many pro-lifers insist on arguing that the "thing" being killed is a human being. No doubt it is and pro-aborts have known this for a long time even if few have been honest enough to admit it. Naomi Wolf was one of the few honest ones and in 1995 wrote an important essay on the issue in The New Republic (available at the Priests for Life website).What she said should have changed the abortion debate. Wolf said it is callous to pretend that the life that is killed by an abortion is anything but a human child but that this fact doesn't matter. The rights of the woman, Wolf argued, supersede the rights of the child. So, instead of being stuck in the Dark Ages will a medieval understanding of fetal development, abortion advocates return to unenlightened times when some lives were considered morally superior to other lives. In the 1970s, George F. Will wrote that the abortion debate is not about when life begins but when life becomes protectable. The debate is not about biology but philosophy. It is about moral judgments. Perhaps the televising of images of aborted human beings will help Britons make better moral judgments; more than 180,000 abortions are committed in the UK every year. Or perhaps our societies have so lost their way that even understanding the aborted child is a human being just won't matter. Is Islam immune from criticism? Andrew Stuttaford comments about a Telegraph review that raises the issue whether religion can be poked fun at or criticized in art. (Of course it can). Stuttaford says: "In an open society there ought to be nothing wrong, or – and how I hate that word-'offensive' about debating, satirizing and even ridiculing the religious beliefs – or the lack of religious belief – of others. Islam, however, seems to be exempt from this exchange. Criticizing that faith is somehow defined as 'Islamophobia,' a nonsense notion invented with only one purpose – to stifle the criticism of a religion that is long overdue a great deal of criticism. And soon. What a joke. What an insult." Friday, April 02, 2004
The voices of Muslim moderation Yes, there are some. And as David Mader has said, we should highlight them when we become aware of them. The Toronto Star has a column by Raheel Raza who says: "Recently, when the Jewish community was victimized, Muslims stood by them and supported them in their cause. There was hope on the horizon. That hope is dashed every time a Muslim is allowed to indulge in hate propaganda and polemics. There is a problem when my university-going son asks why Muslim student associations spout venom against non-Muslims. There is cause for concern when anti-American rhetoric becomes the flavour of the month and justifies a different kind of polemic." But then comes the "but"; with Muslim "moderates" there always seems to be a but: "The Muslim Council of Britain has taken the unprecedented step of writing to every British mosque, urging people to help in the fight against terror. A Rand report published last week says that Americans must give precedent to progressive and moderate Muslim voices. In Canada we have to do the same. But this effort must come from both sides. Officials dealing with terrorism have to ensure that they have the evidence and that due judicial processes are followed." Why, whenever there is a plea by "moderate Muslims" for Muslims to eschew terror or hate, is there also a demand for the terror-fighting agencies to be more sensitive and respectful of civil and human rights? Or when there is a criticism of terrorism, it is almost always accompanied by criticism of US foreign policy? I was once on a television panel with a Muslim woman who criticized anti-Semitism in Europe but who then went on to say that Israelis are absolutely beastly to the Palestinians. Why not just criticize the anti-Semitism? I don't see how the two are related. Raza does have a fascinating comment, though, about here experience of Islam in Canada: "One person asked me how difficult it is to practise Islam in Canada. I told her that as a Muslim woman I can practise my faith more easily in Canada than I can in many Muslim countries where extremism and a warped ideology have taken over the norms of respect and tolerance." It seems that the need for greater sensitivity and tolerance for Muslims is in Muslim nations. Steven Hayward's next book This sounds really, really good: The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry. Comes out in March, Amazon.com is taking orders. Scrappleface on Kerry vs. the Pope Satire genius Scott Ott (Scrappleface) on John Kerry's criticism of Pope John Paul II's un-nuanced abortion position: "I pray for an America where rosary beads are sold in abortion clinic gift shops," said Mr. Kerry. "But I won't be a Catholic president, or even, as John F. Kennedy called himself, 'a president who happens to be Catholic'. I will be a president who happens to say he is Catholic but doesn't feel constrained by the black-and-white teachings of a church which is the bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am." Mr. Kerry made the remarks as he left Sunday Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Flexible Doctrine. Boot on South Africa Max Boot has a balanced column in the Los Angeles Times on South Africa, 10 years after aparthied. They have a long way to go but they've also come far. And honestly who among us really thought that violence against whites or between various tribes would not have been the norm for the past decade? Boot writes: "Instead of bashing the white minority and stealing their property, the ANC, led first by Nelson Mandela and now by President Thabo Mbeki, has tried hard to win the confidence of the largely white business community. No Zimbabwe-style land grabs here." Thursday, April 01, 2004
What I want to know is, was Lord Milner Jewish? Frank Johnson writes in the current Spectator that George W. Bush is a lot like Lord Salisbury and that Salisbury had his own neocons: Lord Milner and Joseph Chamberlain. Cute but no dice. Johnson is just plain wrong to draw the parallels he does and he gets some facts wrong, such as claiming that candidate George W. Bush never mentioned regime change for Iraq before becoming President George W. Bush. That said, there is one good line that does show a similarity Chamberlain to the neocons: "Chamberlain was a former Liberal. He had broken with Gladstone's Liberal party when it had embraced Irish Home Rule. Like today's American neoconservatives, he threw in his lot with the right-of-centre party, and soon came to believe that it was not right-of-centre enough." |
