Are conservatives intellectually incurious?

Over at one of my other blogging haunts, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, blogger Jaybird has an interesting post on The Talk – the discussion that African American parents have with their kids about, well, surviving the often racist outside world:

So I asked an African-American friend at work if he got The Talk and, after clarifying “which talk are you talking about?”, he answered “Oh Yeah.” …

I realized that I didn’t know what was in the talk. I mean, I had heard such things as African-Americans being told “you’ve got to work twice as hard” but never in the context of an entire “here’s how the world works” speech. So I asked Parker “can I ask you what was in The Talk?” and he told me I could… so we set some time aside and I was able to ask. “What was in The Talk?”

Generally, I consider seeking the insights of others – especially those who have more experience with a subject than I – useful. Someone who has grown up with a certain degree of white privilege are not going to be able to fully understand the experience of being  a black person. Talking, discussion, curiosity, greater understanding – these are good things.

Or maybe not. Enter Five Feet of Hate‘s Kathy Shaidle:

I read the League every day, to try to keep up with the ever changing “principles” of the over-educated, helmet-wearing, “moderate” American beta male, and wonder at their ability to talk like they do, with presumably straight faces.

…

While you guys at the League are at “work” — which seems to involve a lot of talking about non-work topics, and “walking around the building” — your wives and girlfriends are masturbatingwith a book about a rich bastard who spanks them silly and doesn’t talk about semiotics and paradigms all day. I bet he doesn’t even recycle.

Five Feet of Fury is in our blogroll. Does anybody read it and enjoy it? Do you agree with this feeble-minded crap? Would you ever want to be involved with a woman anything like Shaidle?

I’m just wondering. I know she’s A Pretty Big Deal in the conservative blogosphere. Is she actually representative of conservative culture?

Dear God, I hope not.

Update: Ms. Shaidle kindly responds. It was nice to read that I had made her day.

McGuinty’s missed opportunity

Ontario missed a great opportunity last week. Heading into the previous weekend, Ontarians were teased with the idea that the Liberal Party’s full-day kindergarten initiative would be scrapped. It was a chance to reduce waste and improve our educational system at the same time. Unfortunately, instead of taking the province’s fiscal problems as an opportunity to offer some flexibility to Ontario students and parents, Premier McGuinty will continue to clutch at his treasured program, deficits and child development be damned.

It is reported that Economist Don Drummond, who is trying to determine a way out of the financial mess the Liberals have made this past decade, will recommend that Ontario abandon full-day kindergarten. This is an eminently sensible idea.

Ontario’s books are not in order. Deficits are standard fare, and no longer can the province be considered Canada’s economic engine. It is a sad tale that brings us to our current status, that of Ontario being a Have Not province. There’s a solid economic case for ridding ourselves of this costly program.

But the economics of the situation are only a side issue. The full-day kindergarten regime foisted on Ontario was never a sound move for children. Critics have argued that it is little more than a publically-sponsored daycare system. If were true, that would be bad enough, sadly, it is a system that can be expected to do as much, if not more, harm than good.

There is no research indicating that immersing younger and younger students in rigorous academic exercises is beneficial. Quite the contrary, in fact. Kindergarten may not seem an environment of ‘rigorous academic exercises’, and that would not be the kindergarten that today’s parents remember. But today’s kindergarten classes are steeped in curriculum, programming and “structured” play (as if 4 year olds gain nothing from unstructured play with their peers). It seeks to turn children into good little students, rather than allowing them to develop towards adolescence.

Kindergarten, and the public school system, is not geared towards the needs of the children. It is primarily focused on the desires of bureaucrats and the demands of unions. Schooling is rigid and inflexible. Parents have little say in the manner in which their children are educated. There is no choice in regards to teachers, schools, pedagogy or curriculum. It is a one-size-fits-all formula that fits no one, except those who are paid to deliver it.

The Liberal government could have taken a cue from Mr. Drummond and re-worked their education plans. They could have looked at far superior school systems as models. They could have followed Norway’s relative un-schooling techniques. They could have looked to set up a robust network of charter schools. They could have turned to vouchers, as have been successful in cities like Washington D.C. and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. They could have offered financial assistance to parents so that they could make their own child care decisions. Or they could have gotten out of the way, and let parents be parents.

But, no. They have decided that full-day kindergarten is the way to go. One could be cynical and suggest that there’s an element of social engineering to this, that the government reaps the most benefit from absorbing the greatest number of students at the earliest age. Certainly, Progressivism has displayed such nefarious instincts, as in the Early Years Study 3 that was released last fall. But I doubt this is the case.

This is a matter of simple politics. The McGuinty Liberals have determined that there is sufficient political benefit to maintaining this undesirable program. This is little more than a welfare program, but unlike most social assistance, this is a welfare program that directly benefits members of the middle class.

The Liberal government’s calculus is clear. A party headed by “Premier Dad” is naturally inclined to taking on a greater role in raising our children. To be able to do that while also gaining electoral support in the middle class is just too good to pass up.

Forget our wallets. This program is a direct grab for our kids.

First Nations in Canada should address Canadians

I had to chuckle when I read the recent complaints and threats from the native chiefs:

The prime minister’s decision to leave the meeting early wasn’t sitting well with some chiefs.

“We’re like a bunch of puppies – he says jump, and we’ve got to do it,” said Regional Chief of Alberta, George Stanley.

If they do not want to be treated like puppies, the chiefs should not be wheeling and dealing with statesmen.

If there was any merit to their complaints or demands, the native chiefs would present themselves like honorable men: publicly and openly addressing the Canadian people.

Native uprising? That will be the day.

“The world is watching.”

No, they are not.

“In today’s world that response will be more instantaneous.”

No, it will not.

My suggestion to the natives is to start their own media blitz.

Aboriginal elder-assisted parole board hearings

A non-aboriginal murderer gets to have a parole board hearing with aboriginal elders assisting the process and the problem this creates is:

Victims’ families have reported being intimidated by elements of the elder-assisted process — such as the convention that the hearing be conducted sitting in a circle.

I do not get it. It just does not make sense to get upset over this. Either sitting across a table or around in a circle, the convict is going to have a parole hearing whether we like it or not.

I hope this is not just racism against aboriginal culture.

Let Greece and the entire Eurozone default

The best thing that could happen to the Europeans is to have their nation-states default on their debt. The sooner it does, the better.

Unfortunately, there are people who are under the illusion that this can be stopped and insist on more bailouts. I believe that is misguided. Whether they like it or not, Europe will go into recession. It is not a question of if but of when the recession will occur.

In years to come, people will closely examine why the statesmen failed the proletariat. I have faith that future generations will be able to point to the printing of money as the source of malinvestment and recessions. There is no more boogeyman nor foreign invader. The source of the economic problem is found in government monopolization of money and the selective distribution of cheap money to the rich. Historians will have no choice but to link the century of warfare with the century of the failed central banking experiment.

The sooner the default, the sooner the economy can approach stability. Private investors will shy away from trusting government borrowing. Creditors will be more critical when they accept borrowers. Malinvestment will slow down and resources will be invested more astutely.

Back to the present.
The affluent Europeans will know what it is like to be economic refugees and they will feel for a long time in their own native land. Canadians should prepare themselves for massive immigration from Europe. We will be going back to our roots.

Time to decriminalize marijuana

If there is one good thing about the Liberal proposal to legalize and regulate marijuana, it is this:

“We were expanding the debate,” Lavoie told CTV’s Power Play in Ottawa on Monday.

I would like to see the debate expand towards decriminalization and end there. We do not need the regulation. Regulation is just a different way of making the same thing illegal.

Privatize marriage industry in Canada

Clearly, it is time to get government out of the marriage registration and recognition business. This latest debacle of two lesbians who want to divorce raising a stink is hilarious! Here we have them wanting a divorce but the government is telling them they are not married. You would think they would shrug their shoulders and take it as a win. “Yay! We do not have to bother paying for a divorce!” It saves them a hell of a lot of trouble but no, they are raising a stink about it. How ridiculous. I want to draw attention to a brilliant summation of the real problem:

What the anti-Harper yahoos forget is there good reasons for the residency requirements since a divorce involves dividing assets and the jurisdiction matters. If you remove the residency requirements then one spouse could file for divorce in the jurisdiction that maximizes their financial advantage at the expense of their ex-partner. The most fair way to resolve this is to use the jurisdiction where the couple resides at the time of divorce.

There may be some good that comes out of this absurd media stunt. People may realize that marriage recognition should not be a one-size-fits-all rule. There should be variation in marriage contracts. The government should not be monopolizing this industry. People want variety!

I have touched on this before:

Credit bureaus, better business bureaus and safety standards are business models to emulate. Just like your credit rating can be recorded, reported, amended and researched, your marital status can be registered in the same manner without the need for government. It does not even have to be very complicated. Private formal marriage registries can be as simple as a copyright office.

If governments do not abandon their control of marriage law,
then I will expect prenuptial agreements to become more common.

In 25 years from now, Facebook will corner the private marriage contract market.

US Dollar Hegemony and why we go to war

The Iranians no longer want to use the US Dollar in exchange for oil. That is what this is all about!

The artificial demand for US Dollars is slipping away. The Iranians need to be taught a lesson again and again and again until everybody is forced to use the American printed paper currency.

In fifty years from now, Economics 101 classes will dispense of the false label of fiat currency to describe modern exchange. Instead, they will use the more correct term: forced currency.

Ron Paul predicts the future

In 2002, not only did Ron Paul predict the recent future of American politics but he presented his prediction in nearly perfect chronological order:

Hat tip to The Council for the National Interest Foundation.

Rick Santorum: The Harvey Milk of the Republican Primary

Maclean’s Jaime Weinman draws our attention to a most interesting piece of non-satire. It would appear that National Review Online‘s Terence P. Jeffrey is worried that Rick Santorum is a sleeper agent for teh gays:

A profoundly instructive moment on this point occurred in Saturday night’s debate when Josh McElveen of WMUR-TV asked whether it ought to be legal for same-sex couples to adopt children.

The correct answer to this is: No. It was, is, and always will be wrong for any government to hand over in an adoption the custody of a child to a homosexual couple. A government that does so violates the God-given right of the child to be raised by a mother and father…

Yet when McElveen put his question to Rick Santorum, Santorum failed to give a coherent answer. Santorum seemed to say — although his exact meaning was unclear — that although he wanted a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, the question of same-sex adoptions was up to state governments to decide…

If a homophobe can’t count on Rick Santorum to Protect The Children from show tunes and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy re-runs, then who can he count on?

Ever the model of level-headedness, NRO‘s Andy McCarthy counters:

… and Terence Jeffrey is wrong. Adoption, like marriage, is not a matter the Constitution commits to federal government control. It is, like the vast run of day-to-day issues, a matter to be determined by the states. There is nothing conservative about imposing federal government mandates on matters the Constitution gives the federal government no say over.

…

If Mr. Jeffrey wants a federal adoption standard imposed, then he should be arguing for a constitutional amendment banning adoptions by gay couples…

I guess a refuation based on constitutional technicalities is better than no refutation at all. ‘Twould have been nice, though, had someone at NRO objected to the substance (such as it was) of Mr. Jeffrey’s (vapid) blog post.

Perhaps, just perhaps, offering orphans a loving and stable home is a better option than shuffling them through the system, one’s prejudices aside.