A Look Back at 2000-2009, and How It Set The Stage…

For a decade that cultural historians still don’t know how to define (the “2000′s” is the front-runner, but woefully inadequate), the decade we are about to leave certainly lived up to its reputation. It took almost four years for the trends to shift into something definitively different from what the 1990s were, and even then most of us who were around for the 1980s could be excused for cries of stylistic plagiarism. Politically and economically, things weren’t much better, although the years reflected a more 1970s feel, what with the gas price jumps, economic uncertainties and Nixonian feel of the Bush 43 era.

Speaking of W., I have to agree with a friend who stated that, love him or hate him, the former President defined this decade more so than any US leader has since Eisenhower. It’s hard to believe how different things would be today had Al Gore won the 2000 election and been responsible for the US reaction to 9-11, the CO2 scare and everything else that transpired in the years between then and now. While Barack Obama currently occupies the office, he runs the risk of being a bookend between Bush Jr. and the emerging trends that will define the 45th President up.

Now for the big so what, a collection of brief, but pointed predictions on how history will be defined by this period.

First and foremost, I think its clearly emerging, albeit while most of us blissfully ignore it, that the United States is a spent cause as a superpower. Like Great Britain, it will continue to have moderate, regional influence, but historians could find a fair argument in the self-destructive and, more lately, apathetic tendencies of America over the past 50 years finally coming home to roost at the start of the 21st century. 9-11 was merely a painful symptom, but there was already warning signs when President Bush found few allies internationally who were willing to enter into legitimate cooperation with him in the first eight months of his presidency; this included former Cold War allies, and more recent friends who became used to Bill Clinton’s style of glad-handing and saw the US as just another guy in the room. In the near future, the realization will come through a reflex recession that will clearly establish Asia and Europe as the new power blocs, although the the former is prone to local instability that could shift the balance of power further.

Culturally, there isn’t much to say as there isn’t much to work with. In an era where most folks invest so much in gratification, there isn’t very far to go down, but only because we’re extremely deep to begin with. Be it iPods, or Twitter, or other tools and inventions that will define this decade, it very telling to see just how shallow our society has become. If our world ever became rough and difficult again, the people will certainly look upon an event like our 2004 election in Canada much in the same way that we look upon the story of the Roman horse who would be senator — in both cases, with both societies, the suggestion that the luxuries and liberties enjoyed by both groups of people were far from deserved would be fair comment. As if we had nothing better to define our society by. Even still, Paul Martin was no Caligula.

Finally, there are the small seeds that got planted this decade that will only come into full blossom in the years to come, though they provide a warning to the wise who chose to heed their warnings. For the academic community, living the good life off the public dime currently, the upcoming baby boom crash (when all those boomers will want extensive health care and living costs paid for through social programs) will only serve as the final straw to drastically undo the entire scholarship system as we know it. As climategate showed us just recently, there is enough membership among the public that is willing to criticize the academy if given the excuse and hiding inconvenient truths as the recipients of many a public grant for climate change research did will only serve to speed up the drying up of the fiscal well. For what it’s worth, the militant evolutionists should also take heed, especially if they too have been tampering with the evidence and employing bullying tactics as it has been suggested over the last 24 months. Continually insulting the intelligence of the voting public might make you feel smug, but it’s not good for the long-term survival of your research projects.

Education will also yield drastic results on a more direct level in the coming decades as the western world starts be overwhelmed by Indian, Japanese, Chinese and eastern European graduates who have learned more, in less time and now do more for less cash. The white collar world is in for a bit of a shock if it thinks that university degrees somehow make one immune from what has been rolling through the industrial marketplace recently. To it’s credit, North America has tons of land and natural resources that will keep some of us employed, but not everybody. If we want to compete in the economy of tomorrow, abandoning rigid standards in favour of promoting students’ self-esteem (as Ontario has been doing recently) will only lead us to serious decline, the likes of which our fair country hasn’t seen yet.

If there is to be hope though, it is that the CFL in general has been doing well as far as revenue and attendance goes, with the 2009 season easily being the best in over 20 years. For the good folks of Saskatchewan, the Roughriders seem poised to add another Grey Cup championship to the team’s credit over the coming 10 years — maybe more. The stage is set, now we just need the snow to melt! Happy New Year everyone!

The Olympics, Prorogue and the Moral Vacuity of the Conservative Party

Well, the rumours aren’t true… well, at least the part about them being rumours are no longer true.

Parliament will not resume on January 25.  It will resume in March.  On March 3rd, we’ll have a speech from the throne.  On March 4, we’ll have the joy of a budget presentation.  There is a lot of conjecture as to why Parliament will be prorogued for two months, from the trite (MPs want to go to the Olympics) to the strategic (Mr. Harper wants to send some more Tories to the senate) to the abhorrent (the Conservative Party wants the whole Afghan detainee scandal to go away).  No matter the reason, it is cynical and distasteful.

If it is all about the Olympics – whether the desire to attend or the desire to avoid a tough session of Question Period during the Olympics – the Conservatives are children playing in an adult world.  Suspending a democratic legislature for the sake of international spectacle is not what a mature nation does, not when there are important issues to deal with.

If they are doing this to stack the senate, well, then they are who we thought they were: Politicians, of the same ilk as any other cynical politician, be it Jean Chretien, Belinda Stronach or Brian Mulroney.  In such a case, they deserve not only our scorn and ridicule, but also a little – just a little – of our pity.

But I’m not an idiot.  These issues may play into the political calculations (rarely would a government act without considering a variety of implications), but there is little doubt that they are trying to make the populace forget that this government is an accomplice to torture.  The Conservative Party has attempted to thwart investigations into the question of the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan for months.  More and more evidence is appearing implicating various members of our government of, at the very least, unacceptable ignorance of torture.  As this story has grown and evolved, the government has acted all the more guilty, all the more complicit.  Where we once might have accepted a mea culpa, we must now only accept a scalp.  Sadly, not since Brian Mulroney was burned in electoral effigy, via the repulsion of Kim Campbell, has the Canadian electorate taken serious their duty to repudiate a governing party so greatly steeped in political transgression.  It is my worry that when responsible government returns in March and, later, when our current government is forced to stand before voters, the voters will shrug.

Writing at what is, generally, a fairly conservative web site, I fully expect vitriolic responses from Conservatives.  Once, reading about Levi Strauss, I witnessed him described as a conservative, in that what he wanted to conserve is liberal democracy.  It is those conservatives to whom I write.

(As always, you should be reading Scott H. Payne for insight on these matters.)

Merry Christmas!

Having freed myself from the clutches of gifts, turkey, children, in-laws, out-laws, family and friends, and with the house finally quiet while everyone enjoys a serotonin-induced nap, I wish one and all a very merry Christmas.  We trust this season finds you amongst those you love and hold dear and that your Christmas time is filled with cheer, good memories and much love.

Joey/Josie Romero has weird parents

As far as I am concerned, an adult who can look at what a 6-year old boy does as a manifestation of sexual identity is weird.

The 8-year-old’s favorite color is aqua. Her favorite toy: American Girl Dolls. And right now she’s reading a Junie B. Jones book that made her giggle when she talked about the plot.

Pink and aqua barrettes held her shoulder-length layered hair out of her face, while she drew chalk pictures of clouds on the pavement.

When her mother announced that the child would be allowed to pierce her ears next week, the girl screeched and had a huge smile on her face.

“You’ve waited long enough to live as a girl,” the mother said.

The mother is on a mission to educate the community and encourage churches to open a dialog about diversity and acceptance of all people.

She recently waged an e-mail campaign to urge her church members to place an empty envelope in the collection basket on Mother’s Day weekend. She said she wanted to send a message to the church that church members can have a voice and that they shouldn’t just blindly follow the flock.

The boy’s mother sounds like a nut.

I am sure there is a lot more to this story but anybody with half of a brain, an ounce of honesty and any experience minding children knows that children thrive on being copy-cats. I am willing to bet that the preponderance of what we do not hear in this Romero story is that the child is doing what every normal child does: please his parents. I do not believe them when they say:

“As she started to talk, she’d say, ‘I’m a girl’. We used to correct her and say, ‘No you’re a boy’.

“By the time she was four she was insisting, ‘No, I really am a girl’.”

Her father Joseph, an engineer in the United States Air Force, said: “I had mourned the loss of my son. When I came to terms with it, I knew I had gained a daughter.”

Joey Romero is following his parents’ orders. Where are the anti-circumcision advocates when we need them?

Now, a couple of disclaimers:
1) My government approved certification as a sex-therapist is in my back pocket and my Ph.D. in gender re-assignment is in my jeans.
2) Both of my sons wore hand-me-down girl’s clothing and my oldest son once said he really liked the color pink.

Australia Might Respect Women After All

After working hard to imperil the lives of women and babies, it seems that the government of Australia might do the reasonable thing and not force midwives and homebirths underground.  It’s kind of sad that we have to commend a nation for not outlawing (essentially) a basic human function and basic human freedom.  (For background see here and here.)

Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding has welcomed the decision by the Health Minister to back down on its controversial plan to drive homebirths underground.

Under the Government’s original proposal, homebirths were to become illegal unless a midwife could find a doctor willing to work in collaboration with them.

But now the government says it won’t force midwives to work in formal collaborative arrangements with doctors as a condition of insurance.

Congratulations, Australia. You’re not governed by ghouls.

Mark Carney and the aftermath of printing money

The chickens are finally coming home to roost and the lowly tax-payer is getting screwed up the yin yang.

I am dismayed, but not the least bit surprised at the recent announcement by Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of Canada:

“It is the responsibility of households now to ensure that in the future, when the recovery takes hold and extraordinary measures are unwound, they can still service their debts,” Carney said during a speech to the National Forum of business leaders in Toronto.

Last year, I warned everybody about the nonsense promoted by our federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty:

• Why is Flaherty promoting credit as an economic solution?
• No Canadian bank bailouts but “make credit available” instead?

I was right and only now our leaders are telling us bluntly that we will pay.

This monetary policy was a horrifying bait and switch. Last year, we were told that Canadians needed credit. That was a lie to cover the fact that the monetary expansion was benefiting a select few. Now, we are told that too much household credit will be a problem.

Despots at Copenhagen

When blogging, there are times when you wonder if an analogy or illustration may be over the top or so far out that it will result in a barrage of legitimate criticism and, ultimately, a retraction or correction.

Then there are times when comparisons seem downright prescient.

Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life’s work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the “hypocrisy” of its position on climate change. [...]

We have the government of China, which won’t allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is “not transparent.”

We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela’s radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western “dictatorship.” (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he’ll toss them in jail).

–National Post, an absolutely smokin’ post by Kelly McParland.

It bears repeating that this is the morally inverted world of environmentalism.

Update: Pass me the caviar and vodka, Sergei.

Liberal.ca is Now the Joke – Amateur hour at the Liberal Party Headquarters

It appears the Liberal Party of Canada didn’t heed my advice I gave the Conservative Party of Canada back in 2008 – seriously, when are the national political parties in Canada going to stop letting juvenile partisan hacks be in control of their party websites.

In the doctored photograph – which you can view here, though the image may be disturbing to some readers – Mr. Harper’s face is photoshopped over that of Lee Harvey Oswald in the famous photo that captured Mr. Ruby shooting Mr. Oswald, after the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.

The fake shot was part of a contest launched by Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, poking fun at Mr. Harper for dithering about whether attending the Copenhagen climate conference. The Liberals asked supporters to have some fun by putting the Prime Minister anywhere but in Copenhagen: “Your mission, should you accept it, is to pick an image that will haunt Stephen Harper forever,” the Liberal Party website says.

They offered prizes, including a t-shirt and coffee cup. Apparently, the Grits received about 75 submissions, including the assassination-attempt one.

This type of garbage belongs in the blogosphere, not on a national party website of a major G8 country.  I’m beginning to understand the overall state of political party communications and management in Ottawa and I’m not overly surprised at the lack of professionalism that exists in our political parties.  Considering that these types of antics seem to becoming the norm amongst our political elite, I’m willing to wager that pretty soon they will be accepted and embraced.

It’s no wonder we elect such losers to parliament, who would want to be part of team that would promote or condone such disrespectful and immature behaviour?

What is a Moderate?

Roger Scrutton has published a provocative essay on political ideology. Writing against the backdrop of modern American politics, Scrutton recites the principles that, in his view, are thought to define conservatives and liberals, respectively.

Conservatives, writes Scrutton, “recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay,” adding that:

Conservatives therefore maintain severe and — to many people — unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars — even wars in foreign parts — if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.

In contrast, liberals, according to Scrutton, “are of course very different.” How so? In Scrutton’s own words:

They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes — didn’t Dewey prove as much? — from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give — something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected — but it must “adapt” to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by “boys with their toys,” who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable — emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.

Two questions occur to me. The first is quite simply whether these are accurate representations of conservative and liberal ideology, or whether they are more correctly viewed as caricatures.

Yet there is a second, and more interesting, question. If we assume that Scrutton is correct in his description of conservatives and liberals–and I hesitate to make that assumption because I believe his descriptions leave much to be desired–what does it mean to call oneself a moderate?

When someone calls herself a moderate, is she standing on firm, principled and defensible ground? What values does she claim as hers?

When someone says he is a moderate, does that evoke a refrain as familiar as the one that comes to mind when someone calls herself a conservative, or another calls himself a liberal?

These are difficult questions that require us to peer inward at our own convictions and also to cast our gaze outward at how political ideology is framed and subsequently perceived in public discourse.

Questions of Conscience, etc.

A nurse in the US who is a practising Catholic was forced by her employer to participate in an abortion against her will on threat of losing her job and her license. I don’t really have a cogent analysis for this, so I’m putting out a series of unconnected ideas on the subject to spur further debate (if anyone has the urge to sink back into the infinite swamps of the abortion debate yet again, on this chilly December weekend.) Some of these ideas are kind of balled up, so feel free to take them apart at your leisure in our conveniently provided comments section (free of charge!). [Read more]

Next Page »