Stephen Roney's Blog, page 49

Why the Conservatives Will Lose?

 

Don Martin, in a recent column, repeats all the tired old talking points of the leftist commentariat on how the Conservatives are unelectable, and must change their tune and stop being conservative.

First, of course, they must “move to the centre” to appeal to more voters. Despite already appealing to more voters than any otyher party.

Obviously bad advice. If a voter is dissatisfied with the current government, they will want to vote for something different—or why are they dissatisfied? If they are satisfied with the current government and its policies, why vote for someone merely similar? If it’s just a matter of changing names or faces, why vote at all?

Then the old saw about there being nothing the Conservatives can reasonably cut from the federal budget. As soon as they get down to details on what they would do, they are bound to cut programmes that everybody wants. They must name specific programmes they will cut. If they do not give details, and name the programmes, they have a hidden agenda. It is not as though the current government could have misspent a penny.

Here are areas where the Conservatives could cut.

To begin with, the federal payroll has grown 31% under Trudeau; while ordinary Canadians have found government services declining. Demonstrably, therefore, the federal payroll could be cut by 30% without affecting services. It is bloated. Milei in Argentina has reputedly cut their government payroll by 70%. Elon Musk did something similar with Twitter, with no visible problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of fat in the bureaucracy.

Aside from numbers of employees, work hours, and measurable productivity, in principle, in order not to become parasitic on the productive economy, no one working in government should receive a pay package as high as the equivalent job would earn in the private sector. At present, they earn more.

Reducing regulations should lead to automatic savings. Every regulation requires a bureaucracy to enforce it; while reducing economic activity and therefore tax revenues.

Next, all subsidies to the CBC and to the media should be ended. This does nothing for the public but undermine democracy.

More broadly, end all corporate welfare. Government should not play favourites in the market. It never makes economic sense in the long run, always costs the common people more, and is an open invitation to graft.

Next, although it is not a direct federal responsibility, no government transfers should pay for abortion or for gender transition therapy. Neither are legitimately health care, both are discretionary, and both raise freedom of conscience issues if taxpayer funded.

Next, no government money should go to multiculturalism. This is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is offensive to immigrants. It is discriminatory. And it erodes the social fabric.

Although it might not be politically palatable, for many of the same reasons, the endless payouts in the name of “reconciliation” with indigenous groups should be ended. They are almost never required by treaty, they are discriminatory, they never achieve reconciliation, and they almost never do anything to improve the lives of actual Indians.

More generally, no government funding should go to advocacy groups. These increase government costs, create a feedback loop increasing bureaucracy and bureaucratic control, artificially skew the political discourse, and subvert democracy.

Is a Conservative government really going to institute such reforms? 

One can at least hope.

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

The Durham Byelection

 

Jamil Jivani’s win in the Durham byelection illustrates an important trend. The Liberal vote collapsed, but did not go to the NDP. The NDP vote declined even more dramatically. This defies the conventional political wisdom that Canada has a baked-in left-wing majority, and the Conservatives only win when the Liberals and the Dippers split the vote. 

People are not that ideological. People are either for or against the status quo, satisfied or dissatisfied with things as they are. When Robert Kennedy was shot during the 1968 US presidential race, the bulk of his popular support in polls went to George Wallace. It wasn’t the specific issue, it was getting the rascals out.

The left now obviously represents the powers that be; and Jagmeet Singh has cemented that with his informal coalition. Those who want change will go to the Tories or the PPC.

The NDP has made its brand that of opposing the state of things as they are; and along with the Liberals most often being the power that is, representing the powers that be, and both being on the left, that created an illusion of Canada having a permanent left-wing majority. And, conveniently, protected the powers that be from any real challenge. It was a controlled opposition.

That may be changing now. Perhaps only for a Diefenbaker moment; perhaps for the longer term.

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

The Democrats' Box

 

John Fetterman, second from the right. Kamala Harris, third from the left.

The Democrats in the US are in a quandary. They fixed the nomination last time to give it to Joe Biden. This was already a desperate choice; they knew he was old and unsteady. An op ed at the time said “just stay alive until election day, Joe.” But Bernie Sanders was even older, and not even a Democrat: he was, officially, an Independent Socialist. He looked like he was about to take the nomination. Pete Buttigieg, the next possible option, was only the mayor of a small midwestern city. Michael Bloomberg, only recently a Republican, had fizzled with the voters, despite a huge cash outlay. And nobody else was in striking distance in the party’s primaries.

So the idea was to push Biden as at least a safe pair of hands, who would be a one-term president and then pass it off to the anointed. Kamala Harris was the one they really wanted, primarily on racial and gender grounds: a black woman. But she had fizzled in the campaign. Now they would have time to coach her and to build some buzz.

Three years later, things have not worked out for them. Harris has not jelled; she does not seem capable of it. Biden is obviously failing. 

Which puts them in a box. They can’t safely run Harris; and Biden is failing in the polls. Any other candidate amounts to a rejection of Harris, and charges of racism and sexism. Nor is there another plausible candidate of sufficient stature. People speak of Michelle Obama; but she has no real qualifications for the job, reputedly has no interest in it, and her popularity would probably nosedive as soon as she started taking positions on issues and being seen as a politician. 

The essential problem here is a lack of quality candidates on the left, both in 2020 and now. Two words: John Fetterman.

The Canadian Liberals face a similar problem. Justin Trudeau is now an albatross around their collective necks; but there is no plausible replacement waiting in the wings, as there always had been in the past: no Paul Martin, no Jean Chretien, no John Turner, not even a Michael Ignatieff. No figure of independent stature around whom there is some real buzz. Mark Carney, perhaps; but he seems a faceless bureaucrat. Trudeau himself, as leader, was something of a Hail Mary pass, obviously underqualified, and there is no one else behind him. 

Why there are no leaders available on the left?

Because they seem to suppress and force out those of any leadership potential: RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Jodi Wilson Raybould. In the wider culture, Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Warren Kinsella, Stephen LeDrew. Which is to say, they cannot tolerate and force out anyone with principles and independent thoughts. This is what leadership is about, and what it requires.

This is the mark of a cult, which has some guilty secret to conceal. You cannot trust someone with principles who thinks independently; they are bound to see and mention it.

This is death to any human progress. It is death to any democracy.

Why do people still vote for the Democrats, or the Liberals, despite the lack of any real leadership?

Because they are complicit. The shared guilty secret turns them into NPCs, zombies. And they react violently to any independent thought.

The guilty secret: a foetus is a human life.

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

The Matriarchy

 

A Chinese student of mine has, for homework, written an essay advocating classes segregated by sex. He rightly points out that the research is overwhelming—both boys and girls learn faster when segregated. 

However, he illogically assumes we never knew this until recently, and that previous sexual segregation in the schools was based on discrimination against women.

Feminist dogma now apparently dominates the world—even China. And it is impossible to disprove, because it is presupposed a priori regardless of evidence.

In earliest times, my student begins, women were given no formal education, because of their low social status.

However, the European ruling classes were also, traditionally, given no formal education. Often they could not read or write. The same was true in India or China. I believe the present King Charles was actually the first member of the British Royal Family to attend university.

This was a job for clerks. An aristocrat, not needing to work for a living, was above such tedious labours.

So the fact that women were traditionally given no formal education might as well be cited as evidence of higher social status. They did not have to work, but could expect to be provided for.

My student then asserts that women were later educated separately from men because they were being discriminated against. This sounded plausible in the early days of feminism because of the US Supreme Court’s rejection of school segregation on racial grounds. “Separate but equal.” But does it apply in the case of the sexes?

It overlooks two other possible explanations. 

Firstly, the moral argument, that having boys and girls mix casually and daily past puberty and before marriage might lead to teenage pregnancy, sexual harassment, emotional upsets, sexual favours, sexual blackmail, and the entire #metoo morass that we currently have to deal with.

Secondly, the obvious one emerging again from current research, that both men and women learn faster when taught apart. The feminist case must assume that our ancestors were profoundly stupid. That is itself a form of prejudice. 

All traditional Chinese philosophy, back to the Classics, endorsed and was based on the idea of the bagua, the harmonious balance of yin and yang forces, being the key to the universe. And yang represented masculine, and yin feminine—they were meant to be in perfect balance.

He’d forgotten all about that. Feminism puts blinders on. It forces historical amnesia.

The same concept is familiar in ancient Indian thought. Perhaps not in Western thought, but I would challenge anyone to find in the Bible any clear assertion that men are superior to women.

The fact that God is portrayed as masculine? But that also implies that the human soul is feminine—as it is in Greek thought.

And if men have indeed dominated women, always and everywhere until modern times, how did they possibly pull it off?

Amusingly, the original argument, back in the early Sixties, were that men were better at cooperating in groups. This is why there was a drive to end "old boys' clubs," to desegregate all-male organizations.

Ironically, feminism now asserts the opposite, that men are naturally competitive, and women naturally cooperative. Yet they do not see that this undermines their entire argument.

It has, perhaps, been replaced by a more crassly materialist idea, than men have been able to control women because men are naturally more physically powerful—at least when it does not come to performing on the job or in a sport. Or in the movies.

But this does not work either. Yes, men are more physically powerful. But women have everywhere and always been in charge of preparing food. Poisoning is easy enough. A man must trust his wife implicitly.

Feminism is obviously false; and yet it rules the world.

Because men are too accustomed to deferring to women, whatever they want.

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

It's All for the Children. Think of the Children

 

The Trudeau Liberals’ proposed new Bill C-23, the “Online Harms Reduction Act” is supposed to criminalize child pornography online. But it also provides for preventative detention or possible life imprisonment for “hate crimes.” 

Child pornography online is already illegal. And preventative detention on suspicion of perhaps committing a crime in future, and life imprisonment for hate crimes, are unconstitutional. Not to mention an obvious violation of human rights.

What is the government up to?

Perhaps they are counting on the Conservatives to vote against the bill, as the outrageous violation of human rights that it is, and they will then propagandize this as “The Tories support child pornography!” This would be a useful counter to rightists objecting to men in women’s bathrooms, or drag queen story hours. They have used this tactic before; notably on the bill purportedly establishing free trade with Ukraine, which in reality sought to make the carbon tax impossible to rescind, as a matter of treaty obligation.

But the child pornography provisions might instead be cover for actually pushing through the outrageous violations of human rights. Although unconstitutional, it is naïve to expect the Canadian justice system to defend either the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or human rights. They have not done so in the past. After all, the Prime Minister appoints the judges. And the judges can always appeal to the rider that this or that violation of rights is “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” We are supposed, for example, to have freedom of expression. That ship left the pier long ago, with no passengers on board, when the “hate speech” laws were passed.

“Hate crimes” are inevitably in the eye of the beholder. It will be easy for the government to declare any opinion they dislike “hateful,” and lock up opponents for life. 

Nor will even silence protect you. If they suspect you of dissent, they can use preventative detention.

Can we trust Poilievre to rescind this law, and similar laws? For that matter, can we trust the present government to allow another election? I can’t even say another “free and fair” election. We have reason to believe elections have not been truly free and fair in the recent past. There seems to have been, at a minimum, Chinese interference, which the government has been covering up.

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

Why We're All Going Crazy

 

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

Murderous Family Values

 

Politicians from both sides are scrambling since the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that in-vitro fertilized embryos are human beings, and cannot be casually destroyed. This presumably makes common fertility treatments illegal. In-vitro fertilization almost always involves killing unwanted embryos.

Democrats hate this, because it implies abortion is illegal.

Republicans hate this, because it will prevent some from having a family. “Family values,” after all…

It is a useful reminder that “family values,” like nationalism, can easily come in conflict with morality. “Family values” are an idolatry.

The court decision is undoubtedly correct. The desire of an adult to have children does not trump the child’s right to life. Children are not pets, or toys, but are given to us as a sacred trust.

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

Transformers

 

Our parish bulletin is dutifully pushing the “synod on synodality.” It publishes an appeal, not written by any local pastor: “Our Church is currently working to grow as a dynamic, synodal church. … Around the world, we are asked to reflect on this question: ‘HOW can we be a synodal Church in Mission?’ In this transformation, are we open to the new and ready to let go of what has been?”

The obvious answer is, “no.” The entire point of religion is to put us in touch with eternal truth. Eternal truth cannot change. Any change is necessarily a decent into error—unless the entire enterprise has been a sham from the beginning.

All ecumenical councils can do is to discern and to clarify what is understood to have always been church teaching, if and when some issue arises. Change or letting go is never on the docket.

Vatican II may look like a departure; and it was, and remains, deeply unsettling to many. But it is conventionally understood as concerning itself only with the liturgy, not with faith or morals, and to be properly interpreted according to “the hermeneutic of continuity.”

So what can a synod on synodality legitimately consider? The liturgy? Perhaps, for example, exploiting improvements in technology to feature sermons presented on large screens during the mass, from the very best preachers and expositors, instead of by the local pastor. Perhaps a return to the Latin mass. Perhaps administrative issues like how to keep the Vatican solvent, or what should be required for an institution to call itself “Catholic.” But this does not seem to call for an elaborate consultative process. It seems more like a matter for experts in a given field.

And none of this seems to warrant the term “transformation.” The last thing a faithful Catholic wants is for the Church to “transform.” 

And what sort of transformation would cause the Church to grow in membership? After all, there are already many non-Catholic alternatives out there. Does the world really need another non-Catholic alternative? Is it crying for it?

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

God-Given Rights

 

An MSNBC guest recently expressed concern over “Christian nationalists” who believe that rights come from God, rather than from Congress or the Supreme Court.

Which of course they do, as explained in the US Declaration of Independence. “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Leftists here actually make the case for Christian nationalism. They are conceding that America was founded on Christian principles. They are conceding that if you throw out Judeo-Christian ethical monotheism, you are consenting to have governments arbitrarily take away of your rights. 

They simply want this to happen.

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

Lent According to Francis

 

Pope Francis has apparently issued his own suggestions for the Lenten fast. 

I had not heard these. I hear them now from my leftist friend Xerxes. 

Francis seems to be more popular among non-Catholics than Catholics. Within the church, he is far less liked than his two immediate predecessors, Benedict XV and John Paul II. He has stirred up much confusion and opposition.

Here are his recommendations:

• Fast from hurting words and say kind words.
• Fast from sadness and be filled with gratitude.
• Fast from anger and be filled with patience.
• Fast from pessimism and be filled with hope.
• Fast from complaints and contemplate simplicity.
• Fast from pressures and be prayerful.
• Fast from bitterness and fill your heart with joy.
• Fast from selfishness and be compassionate to others.
• Fast from grudges and be reconciled.
• Fast from words and be silent so you can listen.

I do not like these suggestions. They do not involve giving up anything for Lent. 

You are always supposed to avoid hurting words. “Anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

You are always supposed to avoid anger and grudges; it is one of the seven deadly sins.

You are always supposed to hope; it is one of the theological virtues. Despair, as acedia, is one of the seven vices.

You are always supposed to pray; not just during Lent.

You are always supposed to be compassionate—that is the chief of virtues, charity.

On the other hand, there is no virtue, as Francis seems to claim, in being happy, nor vice in being sad. How cruel a thought is that? The Christian truth is the opposite. Jesus actually said, “Blessed are those who mourn.” The Pieta is one of the great expressions of Christian art. What is striking about the earliest Greek icons, in contrast to the pagan Greek art that came before, is the expression of grief on all the faces. And Jesus wept. No compassionate person can be happy as a rule.

There is no virtue in avoiding pressures. Did and do the Christian martyrs duck the fight? St. Paul said we are to “Work out [our] salvation in fear and trembling.” If you are avoiding pressures, you are taking the broad and easy high road to hell.

There is especially no virtue in being silent. This is a denial of the Holy Spirit and all the prophets. The duty is to evangelize. Jesus said, “Let your light shine before men.” He said “Go forth and make disciples of all nations.” He declared John the Baptist, the “voice crying in the wilderness,” the greatest of saints, of all those born of woman.

Francis is all over the map, and one cannot tell where his thinking is coming from. It does not seem to be Catholic or even religious. It is perhaps from the Rotary Club. 

There is good reason for the traditional Lenten fast being from meat (and alcohol). Meat is a very tangible thing, and one is obviously either doing it or not doing it. Francis’s suggestions are just alibis for doing nothing for Lent, and actually seem to give permission to hold grudges, be selfish, and never pray the rest of the year.

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