Tag Archives: conservatives

Fear for the Future

When two dogs get into a fight what happens the vast majority of the time is that one dog will lie down and show its belly to the other dog. It submits. You won, you are the leader. Rarely does the superior dog then continue the fight and kill the dog that has submitted unless it has behavioral issues, which tend to be more common in breeds like pit bulls, not because they are hardwired to kill other dogs but because they are chronically mishandled by their human masters which leads to said behavioral problems. But let us not digress.

The “right” has been submitting to the “left” now for the last 50 odd years. Pretty much since the 1960’s the right has been showing its belly to the left and conceding ground on all manner of social and cultural issues. It’s a misconception that true conservatives are against social progress on matters pertaining to women’s equality, gay rights, race relations, cultural diversity. But what conservatives try to petition for is Balance, Stability and Rational Government. Progress is great, but taken too far and too quickly it unbalances society, produces instability and results in governments that want an activist role rather than merely manage the affairs of civilization. Unbalanced, unstable and irrational is not a successful formula for any society and inevitably over the long haul leads to human tragedy, suffering and pain.

The pit bulls in my metaphor are the left, the social justice warriors (SJWs) and progressives who are constantly on the march, unable to acknowledge victories and completely amnesiac to where we were as a society even a few short years ago. There seems to be on the left a pathological impulse to fix the world whereas conservatives would tend to argue the only lasting fixes are internal as individuals. Stop asking for the government to fix every ill in the world; look in the mirror, adjust your behavior accordingly, set an example for others and trust that people will follow.

This was a long way of getting to the current Ghostbusters movie and the controversy over Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos. The movie looks like it sucks but that’s almost beside the point.

Hollywood is pretty devoid of new ideas and risk adverse so for the most part all you see lately are endless sequels and remakes. Hence their lack of imagination leads them to the brilliant idea that they should remake Ghostbusters with an all-female cast. Firstly, the original Ghostbusters wasn’t all that funny; could they not find a funnier 80’s comedy to remake? Second, comedy remakes tend to be busts because so much of the success of the original is dependent on cast chemistry and jokes that are relevant to that era… fart jokes were hilarious in the 80’s, now it’s got to be upgraded to ghost slime in vaginal cavities? OK, whatever, har har. And lastly, nothing against an all-female cast, Bridesmaids was hilarious for example, but why not create a new comedy for female comedians? Why scavenge a thirty year old comedy, ironically written by men, and simply try to swap out the cast genders?

So the trailer for the movie becomes the most disliked video ever posted to YouTube. Then after it comes out one of the lead actresses, Leslie Jones, gets into Twitter war with trolls that lasts more than eight hours (does she not realize the best thing to do is ignore idiots? Not feed them? Or was this part of a publicity scheme?) It ends with her threatening to quit Twitter and then pleading to Twitter that they do something and they do – they ban the supposed ring leader, Milo despite the evidence that he never actually called her anything racist.

Now Milo Yiannopolous is definitely an acquired taste. He’s a flamboyantly gay libertarian who likes to go after “third wave” feminists and SJWs. Watching him do it is quite funny and provides a perverse satisfaction; it’s like when your older brother would grab your arms and starting forcing you to hit yourself with your own hands and asks “why are you hitting yourself, what’s wrong with you?”. They can’t combat a gay man attacking them in the most un-PC way; they don’t know how to respond. But his soaring popularity is indicative of the times.

Brendan O’Neil writes a pretty good piece on this story, but now he’s under attack… on Twitter. His column is not completely nonsensical.  The only caveat I’d have is this; the left shows no graciousness and so even if a conservative were to show proper decorum, were to attempt to discuss things rationally, there is no reciprocal behavior.  The left act like the aforementioned pit bulls. So in the end a lot of people on the right give up and say, “Hey, if you think we’re incurable bigots then fine!  Let’s be incurable bigots!” and a large segment then give themselves permission to indulge in their worst instincts. No more submission. It’s what has given rise to Trump, an unapologetic bigot who hilariously has had the past two night’s speech upon speech at the Republican National Convention about what a wonderful husband, father and human being he is, despite being married three times, a serial philanderer, and a crook who stiffs people who’ve worked for him. A guy who is on trial for fraud. One of his character witnesses is Rudy Giuliani, a man who let his wife know about their divorce during a press conference after months of running around in public with his mistress. But you know what? None of his fans (or Milo’s fans) care, if the other side doesn’t care about standards, why should we?

It’s sad. Conservatism at its roots should be about character. It already evaporated long ago on the left (Hillary Clinton 30 years ago would have been indicted), and now it’s all but evaporated on the right. Fear for the future.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Trump…. Again

US politics is not my forte, but here goes.

The term “presumptive nominee” of the Republican Party gets used a lot these days. Ah well, let’s see if Donald Trump the “official nominee” still happens… it’s a crazy world we live in. After all, can it be that the Republicans are all set to nominate for President of the US and “presumptive” leader of the free world a person who at one time implies he would “bang” his daughter ? (But only if she weren’t his daughter, because he’s not a degenerate of course…)

After I met Ivanka and praised her to her father, he said, “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father . . . ”

And then he goes on the Howard Stern show many times bragging about not having enough time in his life to sleep with all the women that were available to a billionaire New York businessman. Whoa, this guy oozes class. He’s obvious Presidential material.

As I’ve written previously, conservatism is at its roots a political philosophy about the importance of character. Character is defined (amongst other uses) as the following;

  • The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual;
  • The distinctive nature of something
  • The quality of being individual, typically in an interesting or unusual way
  • Strength and originality in a person’s nature
  • A person’s good reputation

The etymology of the word “character’ is from the Greek word “kharakter”, which was a stamping tool, and thus implies engraving or imprinting, not an insignificant idea behind what we think of when we discuss a person’s character. A person’s character is arguably carved into their soul, their psyche and not something that can be easily shed or transformed. You can’t just announce that you’re going to start acting more presidential… you either were or you weren’t.   This is not to say that a person’s character can’t change, but I am saying it’s not something that changes easily without being forged into a different shape and manner over time.

So there is plenty of evidence, plenty of proof out there that Donald Trump was a fairly despicable character for most of his life. And just because you reach the age of 69 that doesn’t give you a pass to say, hey, I’m older now and changed, I wouldn’t say those disgusting things or act that way now that I know better. Character is a difficult thing to change.  And he hasn’t. He’s not worthy of the Presidency. And he’ll be crushed in November.

Which brings us to Paul Ryan. We can only imagine the pressure he is enduring to get with the program, after all a huge segment of his party has voted for this piece of work. It’s hopeful that he resists the pressure and he and Ben Sasse and other conservative leaders in the US do what is right and reject Trump, even if this means being ostracized from the party. That would show character that we could respect.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Kevin O’Leary

images

So there has been talk lately of Kevin O’Leary possibly running for the federal Conservative leadership.

First he offers Rachel Notley a  cool million dollars to step down as Premier of Alberta, then he muses to CBC that he’d consider a run at the leadership.  In a recent poll of Conservatives, he comes out tied with Peter McKay at 25% each in terms of support.  Supposedly the whole Trump phenomenon, the appeal of a plain spoken businessman and what such a person could offer politics has crossed the border.

It’s a stupid idea and should go away.

First, Kevin O’Leary is bald as f*ck.  Yes, we put this first.  People do not like bald males unless they’re studly Hollywood actors (see Dwayne Johnson, Patrick Stewart et al), athletes (see George St. Pierre) or babies.  Bald men are villains.  A disproportionate number of referees in sports tend to be bald, ever notice that?  They didn’t draw Mr. Burns in the Simpsons with a full head of hair.  There are numerous studies out there that bald men generally have an uphill battle against perceptions of vigour, sexual attractiveness and trustworthiness.  So, do we want O’Leary up against Trudeau in a televised debate?

Second, he’s an entertainer.  When you watch him on Dragon’s Den or Shark Tank, he says a lot of provocative things that are meant to draw a reaction.  Politicians aren’t supposed to draw reactions, they’re supposed to deal with reactions.  Once you cross that threshold to where you’re saying shit just to get people riled up, you’ve made it really difficult to come back to the real world where we generally prefer calm, reasonable leadership.

Third, he’s a caricature of a greedy capitalist.  Nothing pisses us off more than portrayals of conservatives as being obsessed about money.   We should be obsessed about economic liberty and the triumph of free markets over government control and over-regulation.  Increase economic liberty and wealth is created – for everyone.  Capitalism is not synonymous with free markets and competition.  Just the opposite.  What would Kevin O’Leary (or Donald Trump for that matter) do if they were offered a business opportunity in a sector that had limited or no competition due to government regulation?  They’d jump on it.  Capitalists are not necessarily champions of the free market, they’re champions of money.  And if that’s your only calling card, you expose yourself to attack from the left as being uncaring for those who are disadvantaged in our society, and that is not true about conservatives.

Fourth, and last – he’s worked for the CBC.  What self-respecting “conservative” takes a government paycheque from the worst example of a leftist-biased organization when there are plenty of private sector avenues for him?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

The Natural Governing Party

So, now that the country has gone and elected its first hipster Prime Minister, it’s worth pointing out that we were sort of prescient before… there’s no base for Conservative parties in Canada.  As Mark Steyn has said and written, Western culture is predominantly liberal, and increasingly so as we move along, so where does a Conservative party fit?

It doesn’t.

Conservative parties will never again be a natural governing party in the West.  But they will get back into power someday, because eventually hopey-changey-feely good stuff gets you nowhere except into pile of shit, and conservatives get the call to come shovel the mess.  And there are certainly lessons to be learned from the Harper years in power, primary among them being this; incremental policy movement to the right doesn’t work.  Harper adopted the strategy because he wanted to alleviate fears that his government held a “secret agenda” and he recognized correctly that Canadians are a timid lot who don’t like a lot of change even if it’s for the better.  And so he lost his chance to really make a truly small ‘c’ conservative stamp on the country and yet was still reviled as the next worst thing to Hitler/Stalin/Kim Jong Un et al despite basically governing as a blue Liberal for most of his tenure.

No, alas Conservatives don’t get to stay in power.  So, in the future, when the public decides it needs help, get in, fix messes, turn over tables, smash people in the faces, press the reset button and then accept that your job is done and the people will go back to the good time guys.  Just… maybe not right away.  They did give Mike Harris a second majority.

The first truth of Buddhism is “Life is difficult”.  The irony is once you accept that truth, life actually feels easier.  Perhaps the first truth of Conservatism is “Conservative governments are temporary.”  Once that’s accepted, what you do as a conservative once you get into power becomes a lot clearer and simpler.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Losing the War

David Brooks wrote a very interesting piece in the NY Times recently, that has some context when examining the vote last night in parliament, not to re-open the debate on when a human life begins.

Subsequent to that vote where almost half the Conservative party caucus (and a few very brave Liberal members) voted against the grain and against Stephen Harper’s wishes, if you trolled the comments boards on any of the major newspaper websites, the National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, by and large it was either victorious crowing from the pro-choice crowd, or open weeping from big “C” Conservatives who are paranoid of the party being hijacked by social conservatives at the cost of losing the electorate next go-around.  It’s become dogma that in order to achieve electoral success conservatives need to abandon the war with the left on the cultural front, and stick to the economic issues.

But, we’ve argued before, social conservatism and economic liberty, which is basically what the current brand of conservatism is trying to champion, are two sides of the same coin.  Economic liberty (which is the only true path to prosperity for the maximum number of people) is only truly achieved if you a) get government out of the way and, b) have a population with the right mix of entreprenuerial spirit, work ethic and resolve. 

But if you remove government (or reduce it) you expose the lower tiers of society to some of the harsher realities of life, if you haven’t replaced the protections of government with the protections offered in the past by traditional institutions such as churches, charitable groups and extended families.

And if you concede the moral front to the left, the culture of victimization, entitlement and accomodation will take over, and all the economic liberty in the world will not rescue a society where the population is content to sit around and beggar others.

The irony is that by abandoning the social issues, conservatives open themselves up to criticism such as Linda McCuaig’s (incorrect as it is) argument that  a system of reduced taxes, smaller government, more economic freedoms will only make the strong stronger, the rich richer, since conservatives offer no concrete solutions for rescuing the weak in our society other than making grandiose arguments about a rising tide lifting all boats. 

It’s true, prosperity does filter down, there is no way anyone can argue that living standards for even our poorest members of society are not better than they were 20 or 30 years ago, but when the economic data come out showing the increasing disparity between the “rich” and the working man, when jobs that allowed a simple man or woman to go to work, earn a decent hour of pay and raise a family are going to China and Brazil, it is hard to argue that unfettered capitalism, maximized economic liberty, is good for everyone.

It is good for everyone.  But you need a moral foundation to build on.  So if we abandon that front, we’ve conceded the war.  

So, last night our so called “conservatives” abandoned an opportunity to start marshalling resources and taking back territory on that flank, and instead caved in to the popular dogma that these are battles not worth fighting.  They are very worth fighting.

Tagged , , , , , ,

We Don’t Find It Funny Either, Heather.

We could, if we wanted, make a full time job out of blasting Heather Mallick, easily the worst columnist for a major newspaper in this country.

She writes;

What would I do without Jason Kenney? He’s not the gift that keeps on giving, he’s the gift that keeps forcing itself on you.

Our sentiments exactly when it comes to you, Heather.

Reason to Thank Jason 2: Kenney’s office sent out an email titled “LGBT Refugees from Iran,” touting his support for gay rights in a nation where Canada has abandoned its embassy (and thus presumably gay rights). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender recipients were left wondering how on earth he knew who they were.

Heather loves to attack not real conservative positions, but caricatures.  So, typically it would not serve her purposes to have Jason Kenney have any sympathy for lesbians, gays or trans-whatevers, so she mocks his statement, because of course she is imbued with the power to see into the dark and malicious hearts of conservatives, and knows what they truly believe.  Note also Heather is conveniently silent on the fact that Iran  persecutes and kill homosexuals, and just maybe it might be the noble position to remove our embassy since why would we want to treat with a country that behaves as such and gives the finger to the rest of the world whenever it’s reprimanded for such behaviour.  But, of course, criticizing an enemy of the US and Israel is off-limits for leftists such as Heather.

Reason to Thank Jason 3: I save the best for last. Kenney this week announced that he favours Bill M-312 — to be voted on in the House of Commons Wednesday night — which would mandate setting up a committee, largely Conservative, to decide when human life begins.

As a woman, I have spent my life alert to any possibility of pregnancy, a waste of time since I clearly could just have called Kenney’s office to ask for a ruling. If a woman thinks she’s pregnant, she might as well be, for all the abortion rights she’ll have if Jasons ran the world.

What?  Does this last paragraph make any sense to anyone?  If you are pregnant – you are pregnant.   There are tests that say it, Heather.  Or are you inferring now that even that is a question to be resolved?  You are not pregnant until 4 weeks?  8 weeks?  Never?  Pregnancy is a state of mind?

Motion M-312 is a no-win proposition for the Conservatives, who already have the support of the Canadian Tea Party, there being no one else to vote for. The Conservative party whip, Gordon O’Connor, has already stood up in the House and defended abortion rights in terms so frank that I love him more than Jason himself. “Abortion is, and always will be part of society,” he said.

Yes, well.  Let’s examine what her hero Mr. O’Connor actually said in parliament in the slap down of Stephen Woodworth;

Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society. There will always be dire situations in which some women may have to choose the option of abortion. No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated. It is part of the human condition.

I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.

Within the free and democratic society of Canada, if one has a world view based on a personal moral code that is somewhat different from others, then live according to those views as long as they are within the current laws. On the other hand, citizens who are also living within the reasonable limits of our culture and who may not agree with another’s particular moral principles should not be compelled to follow them by the force of a new law.

It is an amazing speech from a so-called conservative.  Nowhere in the whole speech does he address the heart of the matter – when can we as a society consider something as a human life?  Is he willing to unequivocably say that the fetus is not a human life?   If he is not, then is he conceding that we should just accept that human lives are routinely ended by abortions, let’s just move on?  Is he OK then with late term abortions, is he OK with feminist heroes like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who thought nothing of plunging scissors into a “newborn’s” neck and snipping the spinal cord, because maybe the baby wasn’t completely, technically, all the way out yet?

The cowardice of some people to run from this issue is amazing.

But back to Heather;

So this private bill won’t matter in the short term. But it is infinitely humiliating to women to have the matter of abortion rights raised again in Parliament. It makes one think that Harper has tacitly given approval to his more primitive MPs to try to renew ownership of women’s bodies, a suspicion the NDP has voiced to great effect.

Strange how destroying barely-borns wouldn’t be perceived as “primitive”.  And why, oh why, do the feminists always have to turn this into an issue of “ownership” over a woman’s body?  In the minds of Heather Mallick and her kin, conservatives are always trying to control and enslave women and turn them into birthing machines.  The paranoia is astonishing.

So there’s Kenney and MP Stephen Woodworth and the gang — they are the Mississippi of the House of Commons — being handed a free vote on women’s lives. At this point, the joke stops being funny.

Yes, it has stopped being funny.  It is not funny that Canada cannot even find the courage to seek a reasonable accomodation between both extremes, between the zero abortion crowd, and the 39 week abortion-is-OK crowd.   They moan about pro-male fetus sex-selection abortions happening after 20 weeks, but wouldn’t even entertain the idea of miming the more reasonable restrictions of between 12-16 weeks seen in some of the left’s more “enlightened” countries like Sweden, Denmark and France.

Tagged , , , , , ,

RoboFord: How Rob Ford, Robocalls and Newton’s 3rd Law Relate

We’ll start this post with a high-minded philosophical preamble before we get to Rob Ford and the Robocalls scandal, but you’ll have to bear with us for a bit here.

We’ve mentioned in several posts of the past how basically all of the beliefs and worldviews of the progressive left can be distilled into four basic principles that we call the Pillars of Progressivism; the Brotherhood of Man, the Triumph of Learning and Reason over Faith and Natural Law, Social Peace through Social Equilibrium and Man in Harmony with the Environment.

When you look at these core principles from which almost every leftist idea or fad can be derived, you have to think – those are pretty noble.  Those are “good” ideals really, and only if you’re particularly religious would you have issue with the one principle.

So, on the surface it’s hard to argue with them, until you think more deeply about it and decide that what it describes is a perfect world, utopia, which would have to be populated by perfect people to be lasting.

And therein is where it fails – people are not perfect.  So you have imperfect people trying to impose, through government coercion largely, a “perfect” world, and ultimately it doesn’t work.  It is a disaster in the making and the only difference between liberals, socialists and communists is the speed at which they would send society into the brink.

True small “c” conservatives don’t dispute the ideals that progressives are aiming for, but instead they argue that these should be personal, individual ideals.  People are not perfect, and hence when we give them the power (and money) to enforce high-minded principles on others, the result is usually corruption, abuse and a loss of freedom.  Thus the fundamental reason why  (true) conservatives are for limited government and individual rights above collective rights, and the preservation of social contracts and institutions (such as churches) to empower the individual with the resources and support to deal with difficulties of life, and not be looking to the state for cradle to grave protection.

But coming back to the progressive left – you can see then why they feel morally in the right, on the side of the angels.  And anyone who opposes their worldviews must logically be then evil, stupid or both.

And it’s all in-bounds then when it comes to personal attacks or denigrating right-wingers as having lower IQ’s or being racist, or attacking their children, as when comedian Louis CK talks about Sarah Palin as a “c**t with a retard-making c**t”.   No problem, when the left does it, but if a conservative comedian, say Jeff Foxworthy or Adam Carolla, were to say something along those lines in a routine about a leftist politician, wow, the blowback would be way different, wouldn’t it?

So, we come to Rob Ford and the desperate effort to “impeach” him, based on his having raised $3,100 for a junior football team using official letterhead essentially.  It’s all good, in the left’s eyes, because regardless of the reason, getting Rob Ford out of office in Toronto is the end result.  Get the fat, anti-union, redneck buffoon out of office.

Oh, and it’s OK to mock Rob Ford’s staffer as a Musollini Nazi “black shirt”, and then issue a half-ass apology for the offended staffer overhearing a “private” conversation.

Andrew Coyne recently wrote about the moral wasteland that has become the political scene here in Canada, and elsewhere to that extent.  The context of his article was the Robocalls scandal, and the apparent depth to which the Conservative party was willing to stoop to swing the vote in some key ridings.  But the Robocalls scandal we think we can explain (not excuse) given the context of everything we’ve just discussed and considering Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion that says;

“To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions”

So then, say you are conservative, and every day you are confronted with a cabal of left-leaning or left-sympathizing media, society elites, celebrities and academics that feel it fair and appropriate to mock and demonize you and your beliefs regularly, with impunity, claiming that not only are you wrong, you are too stupid for us to bother debating – how do you react?  We think the Robocalls scandal shows us part of the answer to that question – you abandon some of your own ethics and descend into guerrilla warfare, because if they aren’t going to play fair, then why should you? 

And hence here we are at this point in our history.  And it ain’t looking too good for the future.

Tagged , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: