Stephen Roney's Blog, page 185

PPC Policy on Gender Issues

 

The weird thing is that this common sense position is currently considered "far right."

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Near-Death Experiences

 

If real, nothing could be more interesting or important than Near Death Experiences.

They say we cannot know what comes after death. For from that bourn, no traveller returns. 

And yet, perhaps some do. We call these “near death experiences” as a matter of definition: if you return, logically, you must not have been dead.

Frustratingly, of course, all accounts are second-hand. This makes them, in principle, as credible as sailors’ tales. If one step more credible, at least, than psychiatric case studies.

People are also naturally going to have some agenda. If your NDE shows you going to hell, are you going to tell everyone? If you’re a believing Christian, aren’t you going to want to claim you met Jesus, whether you did or not? It you are a scoundrel, aren’t you going to want to claim you got a message of “unconditional love”?

What seems common is a sense of leaving your body, of floating about it and looking down at it. People can give details of what was happening around them at this time, although they were supposed to be unconscious and even flatlining. There is a lot of corroborating evidence for this, if not quite proof in scientific terms.

Everyone says that at this point, all pain and discomfort of any kind stops. One has a great feeling of peace.

Then they turn, and see a bright light in front of them. This is featured in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. They go toward the light, and the light grows brighter and engulfs them. Some say they merge with the light.

Then they often find themselves in some natural landscape. They meet a relative or friend who has already died. This person may welcome them, or tell them they have to go back.

Someone then “looks into their soul,” many report. This sounds like a moment of judgement. But not a weighing of sin by sin, many say. Rather, it is a discerning of one’s fundamental attitude: loving or unloving. Are you a sheep or a goat? One respondent says he was asked whether he believed in God. He said no.

Many revive before this point. Few seem to get beyond this point. A few report an experience that sounds like hell, or purgatory. More report a place of perfect bliss. But beyond this point I think reports are going to be unreliable. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

A Dog's Leg in the Polls

 

It seems to me that things have been breaking the Conservative way in the last few days of the Canadian election campaign. I thought Trudeau was the loser in the debates; everyone was criticizing him, he took a few zingers, and he looked too hot for that cool medium. Jody Wilson-Raybould just released her book, and wrote an op-ed, reminding everyone of the Lavalin scandal. Former Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes announced on TV that she was going to vote Tory. Quebec Premier Legault urged Quebeckers to vote for O’Toole.  Could things have gone any better?

Yet two recent post-debate polls show the Tories dropping, and the Liberals retaking the lead.

One possibility is that they are outliers. Polling, we all know, has grown unreliable in recent years. If so, these deceptively low numbers may also be to the advantage of the Tories. They give permission to voters who prefer the NDP, but fear the Conservatives, to go ahead and vote for Singh.

Here is another possibility. The polled vote for the PPC seems to have risen at the same time, and to roughly the same extent, as the Tory decline.

The debates may have helped Bernier most of all. O’Toole’s tactic of storming the centre may have been wrong after all. People are angry, not just at Trudeau, but the ruling class. We have seen this clearly enough recently in Britain, the US, or France. This may well be a “change” election, a “send them a message” election.

In this case, hugging the middle and sounding unthreatening may not work well. If you’re really upset, why vote O’Toole? He is promising nothing will change. O’Toole benefitted earlier from being the obvious alternative to Trudeau, just as Biden, even if an empty suit, won for not being Trump in a referendum election. But over time, as voters listen, his pale persona may be wearing thin—since there is an alternative to vote for in Bernier.

By being excluded from the debate, Bernier was clearly identified as the best place to cast a protest vote.

The likely effect will be to pull enough votes from O’Toole to throw the election to Trudeau. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Hell's Bells and Preaching to the Choir

 

Friend Xerxes laments, in a recent column, that churches are “echo chambers.”

“In most churches, you hear what you expect to hear. It’s easy, even expected, to talk about God as unconditional love.”

“But I wonder,” he continues. “how much unconditional love the survivors of the earthquake in Haiti, the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, the floods resulting from Hurricane Ida, are feeling.”

Xerxes is making the same point I have made here before: the superficiality and insensitivity of the “Hallelujah chorus” sort of Christianity, that pervades mainstream Protestantism and much of current Catholicism. This is a fallen world. If we are happy in it, there is something wrong.

Xerxes uses the analogy of a temple bell, played only inside the temple. 

The local topography allowing, Buddhist temples are built on hills—so that the sound of the bell is heard from far away. The idea is the opposite of an echo chamber: the idea is to draw you out of your day-to-day way of thinking, to something beyond. And note the core concept of Buddhism is “enlightenment”: that whatever you now think is wrong. You are living in darkness. You must see everything from a new perspective.

The same is true for temples of all sorts. The Greeks built their temples on the acropolis, the “higher city,“ overlooking the agora far below. You leave the marketplace, to find a new perspective.

A high point, if available, is preferred as well for Christian churches. Mount Athos; Monta Cassino; Mont St. Michel. The church in which I was baptized is on a cliff overlooking the harbor; so is St. Brendan’s in nearby Rockport. Regardless of location, the bells are in the high steeple, so that they can be heard from the greatest distance. They would be unpleasantly loud in the nave, and serve no purpose. 

As with Buddhism, the New Testament insistently tells us we must take a new perspective, not go on with our lives. One must enter by the narrow gate. Many are called, but few are chosen. The wisdom of the world is folly in Christ. “Let the dead bury their own dead.”

Religion is meant to be the utter opposite of an echo chamber. It is to draw us away from the echoes and the groupthink, the mass delusions and the madness of crowds. If it has become a matter of merely affirming the world as it is, and the congregation in what they already suppose, it is no longer a religion. It is an anti-religion, marching participants down the primrose path to hell.

This is the criticism often levelled against “mainstream Protestantism.” Pierre Berton wrote on the theme in “The Comfortable Pew.” Much of Catholicism has the disease; I’d say most. This is why, periodically, we have religious revivals.

I’d say we’re overdue for another.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Reasons for Optimism

 

Great plagues follow the sound of the trumpet.

As civilization itself seems to crash and burn all around us, I look for hopeful signs.

1. As recently as thirty years ago, things looked much better. The Soviet Bloc dissolved; the personal computer had begun its revolution, starting in garages. This was sudden and unforeseen; especially after the dispirited Seventies. People spoke of “the end of history”; the bad guys had lost. Perhaps something like this could happen again, and in any given year.

2. The early or eventual dominance of the Chinese Communists seems to me far from inevitable. Their very actions suggest they feel themselves extremely vulnerable. It seems likely their economy is largely a Potemkin village.

3. With the fall of Afghanistan, there is naturally concern that Islamist terror will return with a vengeance. I think much of that Islamist terror was funded by oil revenues. With the decline in oil revenues in the Middle East, I suspect that may not be the case.

4. Energy from oil is becoming cheaper. We may also be on the cusp of producing cheap and clean power from nuclear fusion. Should that happen, it could be a boost to the world economy comparable to the computer revolution. No more worrying about climate change, no more worrying about running out of oil, energy almost free.

5. We may also be on the cusp of a revolution in medicine. Accelerated by the COVID crisis, we may soon have vaccines for viral diseases of all kinds—including HIV, the common cold, and cancer. With the recent breakthroughs in genetic sequencing, we may be close to a cure for genetic diseases, and even for old age. This could reverse our fears of demographic decline.

6. The incompetence and aggression we see in the clerisy just now may mean the opposite of what it appears to. It may be a result of that computer revolution. It has removed their justification and revealed their relative incompetence and mendacity, like Toto pulling the curtain on the Wizard of Oz. So they are acting out of desperation, even out of hysteria. The long-term trend may therefore be the opposite of the short-term trend: towards greater democracy and individual autonomy. This seems the inevitable logic of any greater and less restricted flow of information, and this is what the new ICT provides. Just as the invention of printing led to challenges and the ultimate decline of “priestcraft” and hereditary ruling classes in its day.

7. Christianity is vital and spreading in Africa. There are signs that, if and when the government lid comes off, it could spread rapidly in China. We could be looking at a world Christian revival. If America and Europe have lost vitality, China and Africa may be ready to take over—not as barbarian powers, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but as new centres of world civilization as we have known it.

8. Islamism may burn itself out, if it has not already. Leave aside the issue of funding from oil. Islamism looks a lot like a nativist movement formed in reaction to culture shock from growing global interaction. I note that the actual bombers are almost always Westernized, middle class, and Western-educated. We saw a similar phenomenon in Nazi Germany, reacting against foreigners, foreign elements, and “cosmopolitanism.” Perhaps too in China under Mao, or Russia under Stalin. If so, history suggests this lasts for a generation or so, then subsides as the new influences become assimilated and the alienated culture joins the emerging world culture.

9. The US is obviously in dire need of a religious revival, a recommitment to its cultural underpinnings. But it has historically gone through such periodic revivals. If this is some built-in feature of American culture, we are overdue for another one. That might blow America back onto an even keel. 

10. Multiple considerations seem to be converging on the creation of a CANZUK trade area and alliance. While the actual cultures of the CANZUK nations are in the chaos of postmodernism and self-doubt, this reconstituted Commonwealth at least brings one thing back to where it rationally ought to be, and where it was before Europe began to decline in the nineteen-teens.  Britain used to be a bastion of common sense, against the rationalist excesses of the Continent and the mass enthusiasms of America. The new union might restore the self-confidence needed to draw apart from the European and, currently, American cultural suicide. There can be new life in old empires. The ancient Hellenic world yielded to Rome, then revived as the Byzantine Empire, and carried the torch of civilization for another thousand years.

11. The papacy has failed us; but the pope is old, and has been ill. People worry that, since he has been able to choose the electors, the next papacy is likely to be as bad. But by that logic, how did we get Francis? John Paul II and Benedict must have chosen all the electors, yet Francis’s approach is very unlike theirs. Received wisdom has it that the cardinals choose the next pope in reaction to perceived flaws in the previous papacy. That argues that the net pope may be different from Francis.

12. It is at least possible that, in rapid succession over the next few weeks, Gavin Newsom will be replaced by Larry Elder, and Trudeau by Erin O’Toole. We may be talking soon of a gathering right-wing tide. Once a tide turns, it continues to rise.

And hey, if the world really is coming to an end, that's good news for the good guys, isn't it? There are worse things than the New Jerusalem, and heaven on earth.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Is Quebec Racist?

 

Yves-Francois Blanchet has shrewdly exploited his wedge issue from the recent English-language debate: the charge that Quebec is discriminatory because of its support for Bill 21. 

To be clear, Blanchet is right, and the charge of discrimination is itself reckless and prejudiced. I find myself cheering him on, because there is a wider issue here: the growing misuse of the term “racism” to describe anything you disagree with. 

Also to be clear, the moderator did not use the term “racist.” She said “discriminatory.” I think the term “racist” came from Annamie Paul; but it is the term now being used to refer to the exchange.

Quebec’s Bill 21 prohibits public servants, including teachers, police officers, and judges, from wearing any visible religious symbols while on duty.

It is obviously not racist. It addresses religion, not race. What one thinks—one’s religion—is not decided by one’s race. To suggest so is deeply racist. 

Nor is it discriminatory towards any one religion. The law applies equally to all.

Presumably the argument is that it is discriminatory based on “disparate impact”: Sikhs or Muslims wear clothing suggesting their religious beliefs; Christians do not. So it excludes Sikhs, and not Christians, from the public service.

This argument is historically ignorant. The idea of laicization, of no religious symbols in the public service, dates back to the 19th century in France. Before then, Christians did wear clothing suggesting their religious beliefs. Franciscan friars would go about in sandals and brown robes; cardinals would wear red robes; Jesuits wore black. And these members of religious fraternities were the core of the “clerisy,” the class that ran the civil service. Christians were then compelled to stop advertising their religion when acting on behalf of the state, to emphasize the separation between the two. Christians have adjusted. Like many Catholics, I wear a scapular hidden under my collar. It is meant to represent a monk’s robes. To be discrete, it has been reduced to a small square of rough cloth that nobody can see.

Jews have similarly adapted. Required to cover their heads, they wear ordinary hats, like Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan do; or tiny yarmulkes in their hair colour. Or just drop the practice.

The law is only requiring the same of other religions.

One might argue that the law is discriminatory towards religion in general. I sympathize with that argument. To banish religion from the public square is to discriminate against the religious. Blanchet’s own comments betray a prejudice against religion. He said “religion has never advanced human equality,” or something to that effect.

By all means, let’s have that discussion.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Was Trudeau's Fate Sealed Last Night?

 

Last night five of the Canadian federal party leaders held their only English-language debate. 

My scorecard:

Best zinger—Annamie Paul telling Trudeau he is no feminist.

Best overall performance—Yves-Francois Blanchet. 

Winner- Erin O’Toole

Loser- Justin Trudeau

Mr. Congeniality- Jagmeet Singh

Possibly also a winner – Maxime Bernier

The clip from the debate that is being most shown now is Annamie Paul telling Trudeau he is no feminist, and naming Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould. This cleverly reminded everyone of the Lavalin scandal, and strongly suggested that those who want to show support for Philpott and Wilson-Raybould should do so by voting Green. Trudeau made it worse with his comeback: “I’ll take no advice from you on caucus management.” By responding sharply, he tended to reinforce exactly what Paul was saying, that he was no feminist and would not listen to women. People are as likely to sympathize with Paul over her caucus problems as to blame her for them. And women outrank men socially. It never looks good when a man speaks harshly to a woman in public. Most people are instinctively uncomfortable at this. Trudeau looked ungentlemanly, and Canada is a polite society. 

Trudeau was then cut off by the moderator, so he was unable to make any further response. It left the charge by Paul standing. Torpedo taken below the water line.

Although she got in the best line, I do not think Annamie Paul profited from the debate, other than by being featured on the same platform as the major party leaders. And that may have been a problem instead of an advantage: the Greens exist as a protest vote, and it was hard to see how they were any different on the climate policy questions than the NDP, Liberals, or Conservatives. She too often made everything about herself, not policies, and kept pulling rank as a woman and a “person of colour.” Most egregiously, she offered to “educate” Blanchet about racism, and criticized him for failing to submit to this demand. One begins to sense what makes her own caucus and party dislike her. She is too openly all about Annamie Paul, and contemptuous of others.

By contrast, I really would like to vote for Blanchet, were it not for everything he stands for. He came across as though he was speaking for the rest of us against these lying politicians. It was an engaging performance. He was helped, no doubt, by the fact that the other leaders ignored him as irrelevant to the English-language debate. So he took little incoming fire. But then, when Paul tried to criticize and talk down to him, it was a terrible look for her. Perhaps, given his engaging style, it would have been a bad look for any of the other party leaders.

The debate will probably not help Blanchet much; he is indeed irrelevant to the English-language audience, since he is running candidates only in French Canada. Perhaps he will have burnished his credentials with his constituency by standing up for Quebeckers against charges of racism—that very exchange with Annamie Paul. She may have helped him and hurt herself; the implication was that Quebeckers in general needed to be “educated” by her about racism.

Erin O’Toole’s performance was, I think, ideal for his purposes, and he is the one candidate most helped by the debate. His tactic was to come across as moderate and unthreatening, not a scary right-winger who might stampede the NDP vote over to the Liberals. He did that: always smiling, always speaking in an even tone, sounding sensible. I think he also got in one good zinger against Trudeau: “you’ve never met a target.”

None of the other party leaders but Trudeau went after him, so he did not have to spend much time on the defensive. For Trudeau, he is only one of three dangerous adversaries. The BQ is their rival in Quebec, and it is as important for the Liberals to win votes on the left from the NDP as to win votes on the right from the Conservatives. So the Liberal fire was scattered. By the same token, it made sense for the NDP and the BQ to concentrate fire on Trudeau rather than O’Toole. 

O’Toole had been boosted the day before by Premier Legault of Quebec coming close endorsing him publicly. Legault is popular in Quebec. The Conservatives may not win many Quebec seats as a consequence, but this gives voters in Ontario license to vote for him. O’Toole had momentum; he had to lose the debate to break it. He did better than not lose. Nobody got a shot at him, and he looked prime ministerial.

I understand why Trudeau took the aggressive approach he did. He is on a downward trend in the polls; he needed to score some fast punches, or lose the decision. But his aggressiveness helped O’Toole, by making the latter look calm and reasonable by contrast. The moderator often stepped in and told him to be quiet, that he was speaking out of turn. This was not good optics; it made him look like a disobedient child instead of a leader.

Everyone else on the podium also came after him, forcing him onto the defensive. Good zingers do not come out of a defensive stance. 

Jagmeet Singh came across as likeable, as he has in previous debates. It may not help him much, because he was already likeable. More significant, perhaps, is that he sounded as though he were likably agreeing with the Conservatives at several points, and disagreeing with Trudeau. This makes sense for the NDP; for them, the Liberals are the main competition, not the Conservatives. And the main issue of the election seems to have become the Liberals’ calling of an unnecessary election. Singh may have helped the NDP. But in helping the NDP, Singh was also helping the Conservatives.

Maxime Bernier was excluded from the debates. I believe his followers were protesting outside the building. This was a boon for Erin O’Toole, as he escaped any sniping from the right. It may also have helped Bernier. It solidifies the impression that a vote for the PPC is the true protest vote. If you want to send a message to Ottawa and the Laurentian elite, Bernier now looks like the vehicle. Apparently, pollsters are finding a movement of Green voters to the PPC on the West Coast. Paul looked too welcome and at home on that stage. 

Some recent polls are showing PPC support as high as 10 or 11 percent, well ahead of the Greens, and in striking distance of the NDP. Other polls show it much lower. But I suspect the “shy Tory” syndrome. The higher figure is more likely to be accurate. Something may be happening. We may be faced with another minority government, leaving the big news of election night the unexpected strength of the PPC.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Jordan Peterson: Lost in a World He Never Made

 

I find Jordan Peterson’s thinking hard to follow. Should I make the effort to figure out what he is trying to say? Is it liable to be anything of substance, or will I be wasting a great deal of time?

The odds are I will be wasting my time. Being able to think clearly and being able to express yourself clearly are almost the same thing.

But I took the time to try to untangle his thinking in this brief interview with Andrew Klavan. Klavan is trying to pin Peterson down on whether he believes in God.

In the talk, I do not think Peterson is trying to be deliberately obscure. Many academics are; enough double-talk and people do not realize you are talking nonsense. Peterson is not like this. Utter sincerity seems to be his dominant trait. It is what is so attractive about him. It is why, I think, he has become so popular and famous; nobody is used to hearing an academic speak so honestly. 

His problem is that, as a social scientist, he does not have the mental tools to handle metaphysical questions, like the existence and nature of God. He almost seems to understand this himself.

“Does God exist? How would I know? I can’t know, and neither can anyone else.”

In fact, the existence of God is knowable in a dozen ways. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says 

“Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of ‘converging and convincing arguments,’ which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”

That is, there are various philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Peterson’s problem is that there are no, and can be no, scientific proofs for the existence of God—and the only thing he understands is science. There can be no scientific proofs of the existence of God, because science deals only with physical objects, and God is not a physical object.

As though to explain the impossibility, almost as if he understand the problem, Peterson goes on to speak of the objective and the subjective. 

“I don’t understand the relationship between the objective and the subjective. I don’t understand consciousness. From the objective perspective, it’s nothing.”

Because he speaks from a scientific perspective, Peterson is confusing “objective,” “physical,” and “real”; he is assuming they all mean the same thing. Science cannot tell them apart.

The objective is that which exists independently of our experience of it. It abides when we are not witnessing it. For example, the physical world does not cease to exist when we close our eyes.

The physical is what we perceive with our senses: smell, taste, touch, sight, hearing.

The real is not “what exists,” although it seems to mean that. Everything conceivable necessarily exists--as a concept, as a perception. We say something is “real” when it exists in the same category of existence we think it does. If we think it exists as a physical object, but it exists only as a concept, it is “unreal.” But on the other hand, we do not call happiness “unreal” because it does not exist as a physical object.

Peterson: 

“Religious experience is subjective, but it is a human universal. It is transpersonal, but it is subjective. We don’t have a category for the transpersonal subjective.”

It is science that does not have a category for the “transpersonal subjective.” But Peterson is wrong on his terminology. God is not subjective—he is objective. He exists when we are not thinking of him. “Transpersonal” means “objective.” By “subjective,” Peterson really means “non-physical.” 

God exists in the non-physical, i.e., spiritual, objective realm. As does heaven, hell, and the angels and saints. As does love, sin, morality, other consciousnesses, and most of what is important in life.

And Peterson, as a social scientist, cannot account for any of it. He is trapped in the world of inanimate things.

So, by extension, is psychology, and social sciences, in general.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Conservatives and the PPC

 

Not scary.

The latest poll shows the Canadian Conservatives increasing their lead. At the same time, the People’s Party of Canada is getting more attention, with the anti-Trudeau protests, and some polls show its support growing. 

This violates conventional wisdom. The fear on the right has long been that splitting the conservative vote gives the government to the Liberals forever. The Reform Party in the 1990s and 2000s split the vote with the Progressive Conservatives. While they did, the Liberals looked invulnerable. The Wildrose Party in Alberta split the vote and allowed the NDP into power.

I think this conventional wisdom may be wrong. 

The vote on the left has been split for generations, since the 1930s, currently between the Liberals and the NDP; yet the Liberals win power more often than not.

I think it matters HOW the vote is split.

The NDP actually helps the Liberals, by pulling the public debate to the left. Canadians, always wanting harmony and compromise, accordingly vote Liberal as the safe and centre, to keep the Dippers happy. For the same reason, that they always want compromise, they are eternally suspicious of the Conservatives. Aside from offending the NDPers, the Tories probably, unlike the middle-hugging Liberals, harbour some radical members with radical ideas—the frightening “hidden agenda.”

Why did the Reform Party not do the same on the left? Because the Reform Party was not ideological. The Reform Party/Alliance was not a ginger group pulling the conversation further right. It was more an expression of Western alienation. Preston Manning insisted the party was neither left not right; it was competing for the centre, nationally under the name “Alliance.” So it lacked the intent or ability to move the needle to the right. Instead, it simply split the conservative vote.

The Wildrose Party in Alberta was also not really ideologically distinct from the PCs. Rather, it existed as a right-wing alternative for those who thought the PCs were too long in power and had become arrogant and unresponsive, but could not imagine voting left-wing to oppose them. Wildrose existed to “send them a message.” It was competing for the same ideological constituency.

The PPC is more like an NDP of the right. Its platform is distinct from that of the Conservatives, and its appeal is national. Rather than splitting the vote, its existence may tend to legitimize the Conservatives in the eyes of the majority who want government from the middle: it will soak up the ideologues, making the Conservatives look less scary. At the same time, it shows that a significant body of people are upset with the current situation. The mushy middle will want to assuage their concerns. Moving the entire discourse in a conservative direction.

Look at it this way: O’Toole, Bernier; good cop, bad cop.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On the Canadian Campaign Trail

 

The loud protests that now dog Justin Trudeau’s campaign stops are reprehensible. I suspect they are also likely to work.

Canadians crave consensus. Canada is historically run from the centre. The squeaking wheel can generally get whatever they want, to preserve consensus, so long as they are not given power. The indigenous people have recently been exploiting this tendency enthusiastically; Quebec did so for decades under the separatists. The feminists have done it over abortion. If even a small minority seems very strongly against something, everyone else will back away. I suspect a lot of people are going to back away from the Liberals as a result of this.

Unless, that is, anyone can trace it back to the Conservative Party. If they can, the Conservatives have no chance of being given power.

Conversely, although his platform is without principle, and he was caught recently shifting his position on gun control even in the middle of the campaign, Erin O’Toole may have the right formula to get elected in Canada. As Bill Davis used to say, “bland works.” Or, as F.R. Scott said of Mackenzie King, the Commonwealth’s longest serving prime minister, “never do by halves what can be done by quarters." Stephen Harper, the last Conservative prime minister, was pretty buttoned-down and low-key.

Canadians want peace and quiet. 

Trudeau may have made a mistake, accordingly, by being too visible during the COVID crisis. Canadians really do not want to see that much of their politicians.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.