Stephen Roney's Blog, page 72

Fun Times in India

 

Was cocaine found on Trudeau's plane in India?

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

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

One Million and One?

[image error]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving to a new town won’t help.

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

Xerxes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liar, Liar

 

The latest Liberal meme has Poilievre’s photo and the tagline “How to Spot a Liar.”

This, interestingly, is the same tag used down south where the paw paws grow against Donald Trump. As previously noted here, the striking thing about Trump is that he speaks the truth. This complaint against Trump is a perfect example of confession through projection. Perhaps in Poilievre’s case as well.

Let’s examine their claims, about how to spot a liar, about Poilievre, and applied to Trump and to Trudeau as well.

 1. Deliberately vague on details.

With respect to lying, this does not fit. Being vague on details is as likely to be an honourable attempt to avoid lying—to avoid promises one may not be able to keep. If one is lying, one is surely just as happy to lie about details.

It is true that Poilievre has not given a lot of details about what the Conservatives would do in power. This is typical of an opposition party this far out from an election. To do so would be to give the government unnecessarily ample time to prepare their counter-arguments. Poilievre is merely playing the game as it is always played. He has made specific and striking promises: to defund the CBC, to tie federal money to housing starts.

Trump is generally vague or even wrong on details when he speaks. This has to do with speaking extempore, not from a teleprompter like most politicians. He is also not a policy wonk by interest and temperament, but a manager. On the other hand, he was more specific than other candidates when running for the Republican nomination: for example, he would build a wall on the southern border. And he did everything to fulfill that promise.

Trudeau is also not detail-oriented. “The budget will balance itself.” “Housing is not primarily a federal responsibility.” He is always vague, even though he is in power, and responsible for getting things done.

2. Uses embellished language.

This does ring true: a liar will try to buffalo the public or the opposition with word salads and impressive-sounding, official-sounding words.

This is the opposite of the case with Trump, who deliberately uses street language. They might have a case if they said he exaggerates, but that is not the claim. “Huge” or “incredible” or “nobody ever imagined” are not embellished language. Nor are they tailored to mislead.

Poilievre, too, always uses simple and straightforward language: “my home, your home, our home, let’s bring it home. “The common sense of the common people.” “Just answer: Yes or no.” This is his most obvious talent.

Trudeau is the clear offender here. Only a few days ago he seems to have invented a word, “biphobia,” in order to buffalo listeners. This, along with his other favoured terms “Islamophobia,” “transphobia,” and “homophobia,” are fake medical terms intended to sound scientific. How about the ever-evolving “2SLGBTQ+”? How about “peoplekind”? Trudeau likes big, important-sounding words and word salads.

3. Exaggerated emotional displays.

True for liars in general. Partly because they are actors; partly because the act of lying tends to get you agitated, as lie detectors know. I think of O.J. Simpson saying he “absolutely” did not kill his wife.

Trump seems oddly serene when attacked. He never seems to lose his temper or make an emotional appeal to his audience. “But that’s okay.” His appeals are humorous, which is broadly the opposite, an intellectual, rational appeal.

It is striking that Poilievre, too, always keeps an even tone, and never seems agitated. His voice is oddly monotonous, in the literal sense. He conspicuously avoids sounding emotional.

Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, often expresses anger, outrage, if faux outrage, in speech.

4. Relies on derogatory labels.

This is perhaps not lying per se, but it is not legitimate. It is ad hominem. Amusingly, this is exactly what this current Liberal meme is doing, in calling Poilievre a liar rather than addressing his arguments.

Trump indeed does it a lot. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and so forth. It is, to my mind, his worst characteristic.

Poilievre doesn’t seem to do it.

Trudeau does it as his standard first line of attack in debate. Opponents are always homophobic, misogynistic, Nazi sympathizers, racist, Islamophobic, far right, extremists, white supremacists, a radical fringe element, anti-vaxxers, and on and on.

5. Overuse of sarcasm/humour.

This is the opposite of the truth, and exposes the Liberals. Liars and miscreants have no sense of humour. Jokes are too likely to expose them. 

"Those who do not laugh have bad consciences." - Brothers Grimm, "The Twelve Brothers."

This is why courts used to deliberately employ court jesters—to keep the king and court honest.

Conversely, it is hard to imagine convincing an honest person that there is “too much” humour in the world.

Trump is a great stand-up comedian. It is characteristic of his opposition that they cannot see this, and actually “fact-check” his jokes and call them lies.

Poilievre is extremely witty, and generally responds to attacks with good humour.

It is, conversely, hard to imagine Justin Trudeau pulling off a joke; even scripted. I have seen no evidence he even has a sense of humour.

What, indeed, does this tell you?

6. References undefined “they.”

This is a fault—although blaming an undefined “they” is still better than falsely blaming, say, “the Jews,” or “men,” or “whites.”

Trump might be accused of this. He identifies “they” only as “the swamp in Washington” or “the Deep State” or “Antifa.” The problem here is that “they” refuse to identify themselves. They are, in the standard phrase, “faceless bureaucrats,” who avoid personal attribution and work behind the scenes. And then there is Antifa, who always wears masks. Trump cannot be blamed for their anonymity.

Poilievre blames “the Trudeau government.” That is realistically as specific as he can be. And his job as opposition leader.

Trudeau generally endorses conspiracy theories blaming men, whites, and Christians. He also blames everything said critical of his government on unspecified “foreign agents,” or “white supremacists,” or “American millionaires,” or the like; most often all of them working together. Always some amorphous conspiracy supposedly behind the people we see.

7. Assigns thoughts and motives.

This, if not lying as such, is also illegitimate in debate. It is close kin to lying.

Does either Trump or Poilievre do it? Not conspicuously, surely. Trump will do it, then draw back and point out that he doesn’t really know.

This is most obviously characteristic of Trudeau, who invariably attributes misogyny, homophobia, racism, white supremacy, Nazi sympathies, and so on, to any opposition.

8. Talks/changes topics quickly.

Two different things are conflated here: changing topic, and talking quickly. They are unrelated.

Changing topic is an illegitimate debate tactic: a red herring.

I don’t see either Trump or Poilievre doing this beyond what any politician will do when asked a loaded question. One cannot directly answer “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Trudeau and his ministers invariably use red herrings in question period. They will respond to difficult question by raising an entirely different issue. It is so ridiculous the Tories have resorted to counting the number of times in succession that Ministers of the Crown have failed to answer the same direct question.

On the other hand, talking fast is a sign of high intelligence; it is a sign of how quickly the brain is working. In fact, a liar will be more likely to speak slowly, because he must guard and measure his words.

Poilievre is extremely quick in speech, and quick-witted. So is Trump; although is actual speech is fairly slow, he is fast enough on his feet to come up with devastating quips in debate, or to speak for two hours extempore.

Trudeau speaks relatively slowly, with many conspicuous “ah’s” as he thinks about what he is about to say.

A sure sign of a liar.

9. Presents his own opinions as facts.

This would be lying indeed.

The issue is clouded, perhaps, by the realty that the postmodern left does not believe there are any facts. In the immortal words of The Dude, “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.” So whenever Trump or Poilievre actually state a hard fact, a statistic or the wording of the constitution, say, they are, in the minds of the modleft, presenting their opinion as a fact. Can’t win on that one.

I can, however, on the other hand, by either the traditional or the postmodernist definition, see examples of opinion presented as fact in the case of Trudeau. Claiming that men can be women, or women men. Claiming that the science is settled on climate change. Claiming that gays or trans are born this way. Claiming that Canada has no mainstream culture. Claiming that India assassinated a Canadian citizen. Claiming that the truckers of February were trying to overthrow the government. Claiming there were mass graves near or under the residential schools. Examples could be multiplied.

10. Projects extreme confidence.

This again is the opposite of the truth. Lie detectors operate on the principle that one is never fully confident in a lie. The convention of the duel, or the joust, as well, are based on the psychological wisdom that the hand of the unjust will falter in the crisis.

Jesus Christ projected extreme confidence in the crisis. As did Churchill, as did Martin Luther King.

Trump is indeed supremely confident—conspicuously more than most politicians. He has been tested more. So is Poilievre—certainly more than other recent Conservative leaders. 

Trudeau? He seems confident enough; but since he has been in power for almost all of his political career, he has not really been tested. To my mind, there is usually fear in his eyes.

What do we learn from this?

The Liberals have nothing on Poilievre. They have no arguments.

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

Fourth Day Running!

 

Another anti-government protest rally in Toronto today.

https://www.youtube.com/live/bQxtm3ZJm84?si=byhbt8Q3ixfEG9gN

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

More than a Million March?

 

Last Wednesday I attended the One Million March for Children locally. The march was exhilarating. Muslims and Christians marching together, young and old; everyone waving the Canadian flag and singing “O Canada.” We were all one, and all friends. It was marred, it is true, by a small group of counter-protesters waving rainbow flags. But that evening, I was discouraged. I saw the hateful posts by Jagmeet Singh, Justin Trudeau, and our local city hall, declaring the parents bigots.

Singh:

“The rise of hate towards the 2SLGBTQI+ community is deeply alarming.

All people deserve safety and freedom to be who they are.

Today and every day, New Democrats stand with the trans community in solidarity.”

Trudeau:

"Let me make one thing very clear: Transphobia, homophobia, and biphobia have no place in this country. We strongly condemn this hate and its manifestations, and we stand united in support of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians across the country – you are valid and you are valued."

City of Saint John:

“The City is aware of the '1 million march 4 children' taking place today throughout the city, including at various school locations.

While the City supports people's rights to organize and protest, we stand by, and with, our 2SLGBTQIA+ community and their right to live their lives free of hate, harassment and discrimination.”

The city then changed their Facebook page photo to show a largeish crowd waving pride flags.

And silence from Poilievre and the Conservatives. It seemed the concerned parents, kids, and, indeed, teachers like me, were just going to be slimed, their concerns falsified, and nobody was going to listen. 

I was heartened when I got off the bus the next day. I saw that the kids at the high school next door were staging a large walkout in support of the march. Word had gotten out, and they were encouraged to follow suit. Bullhorn, placards, no counter-protesters. Maybe this thing will grow.

Then yesterday, I see on YouTube, there was another big rally at three schools north of Toronto, including some prominent speakers.

And now Pierre Poilievre has at last chimed in:

“Justin Trudeau always divides to distract from all he has broken. This time, he is demonizing concerned parents. 

Parents should be the final authority on the values and lessons that are taught to children. Trudeau should butt out and let parents raise their kids.”

Poilievre is a politician first and last. He was not going to sacrifice himself for principle. If he has now come out for the protesters, he has made the calculation that this movement is growing. He is calculating he will get more votes by supporting it than he will lose.

The snowball may have begun its slalom downhill.

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

One Hell of a Hangover

 

Buddhist Bardo

Friend Xerxes declares, without details, that he came to a “rational conclusion” long ago that there is no afterlife. 

Yet he then presents evidence from his own experience that there is an afterlife. He hears his late wife’s voice; he feels her move beside him in the bed.

He dismisses it only by denying Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction, which is the foundation of all rational thought. He says there is no “either/or,” only “both/and.”

In other words, his belief that there is no afterlife is unmoveable by either reason or evidence. The phrase “long ago” here is telling: he, like many another, has his heart set on no life after death, and will not permit himself to think any more about it. It is a doctrine in literal denial of both reason and evidence. On what basis, then, does h hold it?

The New Atheists commonly claim that belief in an afterlife is wish fulfillment. “Pie in the sky when you die.” This is projection. Most people do not want there to be an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, we can do as we please here and now and get away with it.

The concept of an afterlife comes with the concept of cosmic justice, and always has, world-wide. We will one day stand naked before God, all our acts revealed. We must submit to a higher authority than ourselves. According to the Ojibwe, wild dogs will tear us apart for our sins. In Hindu or Buddhist terms, we must pay our karmic debt. Merely ceasing to exist, to break this cycle, is the ultimate Buddhist or Hindu hope: “nirvana” means non-being.

As with so many, Xerxes does not believe in an afterlife because he does not want there to be an afterlife. There is nothing to fear in simply going sleep and never waking up; there is nothing to fear in being blown out like a candle.

On the other hand, his love of his late wife is saying something different. Love speaks of the eternal. Or his wife is herself calling him, out of her love for him.

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

A Fishy Tale

 

Friend Xerxes, the left-listing columnist, explains recently to his readers that the Catholic Lenten fast is actually because, in late winter and early spring, all the meat was likely rotten, and in older times our misbegotten ancestors had to make do with vegetables. Poor sots.

This is of course ridiculous. Livestock does not die off in the fall, nor do they migrate south. Any peasant who could afford meat at other times of the year could have fresh meat in spring if they so wished. Not to mention the various means of preserving meat without modern refrigeration: smoking, drying, salting. It is fruits and vegetables, the very things permitted by the fast, that would have been in short supply in early spring.

We also have the testimony of early church fathers, St. Jerome, St. Leo the Great, St, Cyril of Alexandria, St. Isidore of Seville, that the Lenten fast was passed down to us from the apostles.

A similar familiar claim is that the Friday and Lenten fasts were a scheme to support the fishing industry. 

But even in pre-Christian times, religious fasts allowed the eating of cold-blooded animals. Taxonomies were different; in effect, the line then was set at cold versus warm blooded, whereas modern Western vegetarians set it at whether the creature has the ability to move, the plant/animal distinction. The rule in Buddhist vegetarianism is, you do not eat anything that recognizably has a face.

There is, clearly, a general desire to discount fasting as a religious or moral practice. It is reflected in my own experience: people want to believe I am vegetarian for health reasons. They become subtly hostile when they hear it is for moral reasons.

People fear morality. This is the eternal battle.

Have a great Friday.

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

UK Backs India

 

UK PM Sunak publicly backs India against Canada in the Khalistan row.

Who could have imagined it even a year ago? Trudeau has lost Canada support from its oldest and closest ally, the mother country, beside whom and in whose defense we fought in the two World Wars.

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

The Season of Creation

Friend Xerxes alerts us that in the month of September, “Christians around the world join in the Season of Creation.”

“For far too long, Christian churches have ignored the environment we live in. Indeed, we have used the words in Genesis as excuses to ‘multiply’ and to ‘subdue the earth.’”

            “The Season of Creation challenges us to recognize that we are part of this earth, not separate from it.”

Good of Xerxes to let me know. This “Season of Creation” does not appear in the Catholic liturgical calendar, and it has never been mentioned at a parish I attend. 

Indeed, it is hard to see how it fits in: the liturgical calendar traces the process of salvation, from anticipation of Christmas to the Feast of Christ the King. It is not about creation and the time before the Fall. Nor is celebrating rivers and rocks the concern of religion in general. That is more the purview of empirical science.

Which our culture is perhaps inordinately concerned with, on the whole. It is the ethics and the salvation and the next life we tend to forget.

Which I guess justifies Xerxes’s assertion that Christian churches have ignored the environment. Indeed, the Bible tells us to be “in this world, but not of it,” and the Church warns against the temptations of “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” 

Moreover, Exodus tells us “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” One ought not, in sum, to worship nature. This is the great temptation, the great idolatry.

In Genesis 1, as Xerxes admits, God’s prime directive to mankind is “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” God, apparently, is making “excuses.” For yeah, what we really all want is the guilty pleasure of working hard, raising a family, and bettering the world, instead of lying back and admiring the sunsets.

The point of man is to take the clay and breathe spirit into it: to spiritualize the raw material of creation to build the New Jerusalem. Moreover, the essence of morality is the struggle against our natural instincts.  That is what raises us above weasels and wolverines.

So it seems we have a choice: either follow God, the good, the wisdom of the ages, the reason for our existence, and the spiritual universe of art and culture; or follow Xerxes, Mother Nature, and the World Council of Churches.

We have come to the crossroads.

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