A status report on the Ongoing Journalistic Jihad Against Prime Minister Stephen Harper;
Actually, we pretty much collapsed like a house of cards.
I am also unhappy to report that public reaction to our announced boycott of the Prime Minister’s press conferences has not been exceedingly positive. Typical of the many emails our office has received was this one: “Who do you navel-gazing, pasty-faced twits think you are?” And that was from my wife.
Related: Andrew Coyne.
“Nuance” was much on the minds of the travelling press accompanying Mr. Harper to the G8 summit in Russia, apparently in the belief that their own appalling mistreatment might be taken as a metaphor for his dealings with the whole world. “Harper’s seeming lack of nuance, empathy and people skills are making his week-long diplomatic foray … an excruciating exercise,” Canadian Press reporter Bruce Cheadle filed from the summit. “Throughout the trip, Harper has distanced himself from reporters. Since leaving Ottawa last Wednesday, he has spoken to media travelling with him only three times, including a brief encounter on the plane.”
As these tantrums of narcissism continue among members of the Canadian press, I’m reminded of a scene in the animated movie “Finding Nemo”, (albeit with a slight modification in dialogue);
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Cheap shot comments regarding any purported physical resemblance between these animated seagull characters and CTV’s Craig Oliver will not be tolerated on this thread.)
Of course, though, I’m not sure the degree to which the Boltzman-influenced Helmholtz theorm for the thermodynamic equivalents in classical mechanics, in particular, that the entropy is given by the circular interval of root(2m(E-phi(x,V)))dx, allow the ergodic hypothesis to be applied to an anthropological ensemble. I s’pect ET will be able to clue us in on the current best-practices semiotic model.
I knew that!
Red Dodge:
Six figure tax bill this year? yeah – $1001.32 maybe.
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. Year after fucking year paying taxes – as a Quebecer, more than anyone else in North America – for crap that I don’t believe in or support.
Take your palsied bleeding heart libo-fascist crap and shove it.
Fuck you and the dodge you drove in in.
19 times out of 20.
I didn’t know that, I had to look it up.
Whew!
BTW RD – the Canadian government (and those who subsidize it) have no obligation whatsoever to come to the assistance of citizens in foreign parts.
if you have ever applied for a passport or visited an embassy abroad, this is made perfectly clear.
I spend a good part of my life working in Latam, Asia, Africa, etc and I know that the last place an individual Canadian overseas looks to for support is the CDN embassy.
This whole farce is media driven and panders to ignorance, resentment and stupidity.
You can select which category applies to you and your Dodge.
ET says:
The more doctrinally-systematic Christians (Puritans, Presbyterians, Calvinists…) tend toward the “man is bad” camp, while the libertarians split across the spectrum (as it is not an issue for them).
One would want to add the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH to the list of those who understand “fallen human nature” to be central to the human predicament. The CATECHISM (not a popular PC word) speaks officially for over 1 billion Chistians and is, on this point, in alignment with the views of many others of various faiths.
On balance, I believe the “man is fallen” view is the professed understanding and experienced reality of most humans (with the possible exception of post WW II western intellectuals and libertarians). Certainly this is true, if one includes what Chesterton calls “the democracy of the dead” i.e. the wisdom and experience of those who have experienced humanity before us. I grant, this is not an argument libertarians would find persuasive. However, they are, by all objective standards, a distinct minority, albeit not a happy one.
Unfortunately for our libertarian brothers (and sisters) the 20th century doesn’t do much to challenge the “fallen” view of humanity. Arguably, more people were slaughtered in the past century under secular “man is good” regimes (Nazism – superman is better, or Communism – man is god) than during all other centuries combined.
Well, speaking as a post WW II western intellectual libertarian, I guess I’m not in much of a position to comment on fallen human nature. But I will say this: your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to stay under the radar and behind the fan. Remember, living well is the best revenge, and revenge is a dish best served cold. That’s why it’s best to live in polar countries. And so, I guess that’s why I disagree with your conjecture, Ignatius, to the effect that libertarians are not a happy minority. Speaking as a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta, in 1972, that hasn’t been my experience.
Actually, Ignatius, ET didn’t say any of the above; Henry did. He did it.
Vitruvius – heh- thermodynamic equivalent of classical mechanics. Heh heh heh. Hmmm. I said, the ‘cut’ is a ‘cut’, and you can never return to the symmetry of Eden. Once that ontological cut is cut, sliced through and through by that vorpal blade, it’s over, and you can’t go gallumphing back to any equivalence of the two. With or without the head.
Ignatius, the notion of the ‘fallen’ is a fascinating one; very Augustinian..There’s a great book, which is somewhere in my library but would take me days to find..on the ‘introduction of sin in the western world’…
Against that idea, is the romanticist view (Rousseau and pals) that man is basically, innately good (Edenic purity) and govt, rules, laws, bosses, employers etc..all conspire to Constrain This Goodness. This concept of ‘goodness’ is also held within any utopian ideology, whether fascist or socialist/communist. After all, the communist idea is that eventually, these good people won’t need any gov’t, because they are so good…
The socialist says they good, but they are good little children, who need a good socialist gov’t.
My own view is that the notion of ‘goodness’, as a Universal is unattainable within the Particular. So, pure ‘goodness’ (or even pure ‘badness’) doesn’t exist in the material finiteness of the Particular. We are a mixture.
Henry: I think it is technically incorrect to say Libertarians are in the “conservative camp”.
Goodness/badness: I got in a very long and extremely heated “debate” with a putative friend who discovered that one of the 4 principles of libertarianism is “taking a amoral view”. He told me “amoral” meant “extreme psychotic behaviour”.
But of course, the word is much broader and — dare I say it — nuanced, and in this context it really means, “one person not having a view of the morality of another person’s behaviour” only a desire not to be interferred with by that person (the non-aggression axiom).
The Charter: Being silent on propery rights — the very wellspring of liberty — makes it an unserious document which cannot bear much serious discussion.
…”as a Quebecer,more than anyone else in North America-for crap I don’t believe in or support.”
That would explain a lot jlc.
As an Albertan I’ve been saying the same about Quebec and Quebec politicians for years.
Your solution is what then?
Some good old ethnic cleansing on the seashore?
Well, certainly the notion of “original sin” is one of the greatest marketing scams in the history of man. Who do those people think they are? I didn’t sign anything! And I do agree, ET, the various notions of pure tend, in general, to be insufficient. Nature abhors purity.
Yet I remain interested in your take, ET, on the current state-of-the-art semiotic model of the anthropological interpretation of the ergodic hypothesis.
On the matter of labeling, Me No Dhmmi, I’m a libertarian-leaning classic liberal. Yet, I think we have quite a few of the benefits of classic liberal democracy in Canada, pace the ones we don’t have, and I want to conserve the ones we do have. So am I a liberal, or a conservative; left, or right?
On the matter of having a view of the morality of others, I do generally agree with you Me No Dhimmi. I don’t have a problem with people doing what they want, I have a problem with people trying to force me to do what they want. I’m anti-authoritarian. Of course, in practice, the devil is in the details.
Me No Dhimmi wrote, “The Charter: Being silent on propery rights — the very wellspring of liberty — makes it an unserious document which cannot bear much serious discussion.”
I believe we’re both anti-Charter. But I don’t agree with your analysis. The Charter is serious business in this country. The following is a SHORT list: it rewards the irresponsible Canadian, not the responsible one; it removes rights and freedoms from the latter and lavishes them on the former; it often uses the tax dollars–LOTS of them–of working Canadians to reward those who wish to let the rest of us “do it for them”; and it has demolished democracy in Canada because appointed judges rule (oligarchy), not the elected parliaments.
All of this and MUCH MORE warrants lots of discussion. Maybe when they know how undemocratic and destructive the Charter is, Canadians will long for the notwithstanding clause or even a complete overhaul of this pernicious document.
Hayek, in his tract “Why I am not a conservative” mentioned that conservatives rightly eschew subsidies to industrial concerns, but favour them for farmers. He hated being called a conservative, favouring “old whig”.
For years I’ve referred to myself as a conservative/libertarian. Now I prefer straight libertarian. “Classical liberal” is even more accurate but hopelessly confusing for people not up on this stuff and therefore bad marketing. Best avoid liberal like the plague.
Now here’s a mind-bender: I once read an interview in which Noam Chomsky referred to himself as a “libertarian socialist” which seems an impossible contortion even for the virtuoso contortionist himself.
I also don’t like “conservative” due to its association with the hugely disastrous “war on drugs” et al. And we have neo-cons, and paleocons many of whom are anti-semites and radical isolationists.
But of course “libertarian” is problematic too for people who associate it with licentiousness.
A pox on all labels I’m coming to feel. And don’t get me going on “progressive” [read: policies guaranteed to yield regressive results].
Alas, Me No Dhimmi, “pox” is itself a label. Eventually one realizes it’s not so much the individual songs that are so important, it’s the overall mix. Just ask any D.J. (Oy, the disco version of the forest v. trees argument, sheesh.)
lookout:
Of course, you’re entirely right in all respects. I should have said something like “unserious document vis a vis advancing true human rights”. In fact, I discuss it interminably with other concerned friends of liberty. Well, one!
You’re the teacher in the gulag, right! Impressive. I did it 1971-1979 and am only recently nightmare-free.
Vitruvius: As I age, I’m moving away from labels in favour of contextual comments like, “I’m believe we’re more prosperous with more limited government [not less, no one want less!]” or “I believe the market economy [preferable to capitalism] makes us ALL richer (including the poor, always give the poor a plug if possible) or “regulation really favours entrenched interests, stifles competition, makes us all poorer (including, don’t forget, the poor) and never actually does what it says it does.
Recall some of the very confused discussions here on “conservative” “fascist” “communist”. Why even the very estimable and learned ET thought fascism should not be considered totalitarian (as I recall it).
And … I fear I will eventually become a full-fledged anarchist (minarchist?) no longer believing the fable about government actually protecting us, which it seems the least interested in doing.
Again, lookout, I completely agree. The Charter is, in every sense of the word, a pernicious document.
I will say, that Harper is restoring power to the House. The Liberals had almost decimated the House as the legitimate power of Canada. But, the whole system of appointed authority AND the Charter, has to be revisited. It will take time, because Canadians are brainwashed, and have been for a generation, to think that the Charter provides the very infrastructure of freedom in Canada. It does the exact opposite.
As for morality, I disagree with both Me No Dhimmi AND Vitruvius. My apologies. I agree with Vitruvius; I also have a probelm with people trying to get me to do what they want. But, I think I will continue to evaluate the behaviour of others. So, to take an extreme example, if people in A-Group think that it’s just fine to stone a woman because she was raped – I’m going to evaluate their morality and conclude that it is not moral.
To take a less extreme example, I have a problem with the morality of people who consider that they have every right to live off welfare; I have a problem with those ‘convenient citizens’ of Lebanon and elsewhere. Etc. Multiculturalism insists that we don’t evaluate other ‘cultures’. I think that we must.
Vitruvius – I am certainly not going to offer my semiotic analysis on a blog that doesn’t deal with those issues. But, I’ll say that ‘spontaneous’ symmetry breaking will arise when the external (i.e., classical, actual rather than potential) normative system loses the inhibitory strength afforded to it by operating as a Bell Curve (ie operating within a statistical average)…when there are many sub-systems..all vying for power. The tension that emerges with the free energy not constrained by that statistical majority normative habits..will activate the ‘search engine tactic’..to come up with a ‘better solution’.
Now- all the above is jargon, unintelligible to most, except possibly, just possibly, Vitruvius, who has seen some of my papers. So, I apologize to the blog, and lay the ENTIRE fault and blame on Vitruvius.
Well said, Me No Dhimmi, I do agree that the hidden double negative can be an effective rhetorical technique. By the way, you can get more information on the denotative sense of minarchist at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist
ET, your counterexample of the unjustifiably stoned (and one can wonder whether such form of punishment is ever justified) is, I think, well taken. Not so much that my original take on the metaphysical condition is necessarily incorrect, but rather as you point out, that alone it is inadequate to handle the ethical considerations that do arise. Ahh, axiology, what would we do without it?
And, on the semiotics of the ergodic hypothesis, again, ET, your point is well taken, thanks for the at least minimalist explanation, I’m thinking about it. Sorry for getting carried away, everyone, it’s just that I do think that the folks working in that field have a good chance of being on what history turns out to judge as the leading edge of philosophy at this time, when it looks back on us.
I got back from fishing just in time…
ET, surely I must accept some of the blame as well? Particularly as I take issue with the fact that the symmetry-breaking in (presumably) social systems is spontaneous. It is manifestly the opposite! Consider also the scaling behavior…
And by ergodic in the above context, I was implying that averaging over independent populations is equivalent to averaging over uncorrelated periods of time (snapshot of the world now is representative of peoples’ behaviour over time).
ET, can I impose upon you to send me some of your papers, and to direct me to the appropriate sites?
If you’re going to take this off-blog, ET & Henry, which is probably at least arguably a good idea at this juncture 😉 please include me in the discussion, via vitruvius2@gmail.com
lookout :
You said it all. Well said sir or ma’am .
You forgot though they almost broke up this Federation. To this day out East they have no Idea how Close Alberta was to leaving. Alberta is no Quebec.
The Left persists in this insane belief that some will not fight for there culture or civil rights. That many would rather die, than be slaves.
This is why the delusional reaction of the MSM. when All you see runs counter to reality. Than rationalize & retreat into fantasy. Compartmentalize into cadres or pods of information. All one see’s or hears. Never cross reference data. Only focus on one aspect out of all the events out of context & time.
Its why Socialism is a pathology. A kin to religious complex melded to the mental virus of Utopianism, set in millennial worship of the superman. Just my opinion.
vitruvius – Naturally, I agree; we in this semiotics field are indeed on a cutting edge – dealing in biological information processes and artificial intelligence (robotics etc)…
Henry, you’ll have to send me your email to:
taborsky@primus.ca
Me No Dhimmi – Thanks for your note. It rings absolutely true to your previous, but one (!) posts. So, as I thought, we really are on the same wavelength.
Yes ;-), I’m the teacher in the gulag. It’s even worse than nightmares now: How about daymares!?
I’m sorry you only have one person to discuss the idea of freedom and liberty with. However, I don’t have many more–thank God for sda!–as, indeed, Canadians have been brainwashed. (I know you won’t be surprisd to learn that there are almost NO teachers with whom I discuss these matters. Actually, my views would be in contravention of board “equity and diversity” policies. If I wrote my views openly, I’d likely be disciplined and possibly fired: How’s that for rights and freedom?) Most Canadians actually believe that “rights and freedoms” are what the Charter delivers, when, in fact, it delivers the exact opposite. As we all know, one has to be very circumspect when pointing out to people that their views are altogether wrong because they’ve been duped: not a good way to win friends or influence people–too bad!
ET, nice to hear from you too. We’re altogether in agreement on a great many things, including that the Charter is a huge con, foisted on the citizens of Canada.
Revnant Dream. Thanks. I hear you: There ARE things worth dying–or separating–for. I’m altogether sympathetic to the aspirations of the West, which has been put down and provoked over and over by the tyrannical elites of the East.
I’m so grateful that I CAN discuss these matters with intelligent, knowledgeable people on this blog:-) A very good night to all of you!
Hmm, I did say a good chance, ET, don’t expect me to suddenly become a-skeptical. Fortunately, at least I’m never a cynic. Bloody pessimists are more trouble than they’re worth.
My apologies to ET for misquoting. It was indeed Henry who made the remarks re. innate goodness. With regard to ET’s interesting response:
“My own view is that the notion of ‘goodness’, as a Universal is unattainable within the Particular. So, pure ‘goodness’ (or even pure ‘badness’) doesn’t exist in the material finiteness of the Particular. We are a mixture.”
Well put, ET. I agree in large measure. To put it another way (Augustinian and Thomistic, I grant you) – grace perfects nature. Sadly, as you point out, this does not happen (or often happen) in this particular vale of tears, no matter how close one stays to the Libertarian fan, living well and drinking gin and tonic. We will, I suppose, have to take that up with the millions who were done away with by the secular regimes which promised liberty in the last benighted century.
Which leads of course to the topic of the “intermediate state” for those of us who dare to believe in the hereafter (Purgatory — dare one say the word in these PC days). However, before anyone gets into a great lather on that one, let us stay with the topic of goodness in this world, which, as ET wisely observes, lies beyond mere human nature or the grasp of any regime or empire.
I thank you ET for your gracious thoughts and may the eternal goodness work in us in this Particular, leading us to a better state… eventually.
I do agree, Ignatius, with the notion that, as you put it, “grace perfects nature”. At least so it seems to me to be the case for humans, and even then I only know one of them as well as I know me, but it does less than impress me the simple lack of common good grace exhibited by so many members of my putative species (at least, when I’m not pretending to be Vulcan). Alas, the old Gaussian distribution raises its normative head. What can one do, I suppose, except try to set a good example?
Well, I’ve got to horn in on the ET/Henry/Vitri/Iggy debate.
I’m a libertarian, but I’m also Christian. Just because Rand was an atheist doesn’t mean I have to be! I’m also an engineer, and everything in evolution theory is directly contradictory to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Systems do not normally spontaneously move from lower to higher order.
I was raised in the United Church, which to me has become a poor parody of Flip Wilson’s “Church of What’s Happening Now, Baby”. My wife is Catholic, and we are raising our two girls in that faith.
I’m immensely happy we’ve done so. Our girls go to Catholic schools, where they are taught (less than one hour a week, BTW) that there is a right and a wrong, that there are moral standards, that faith, hope, and charity are not words to be ridiculed, and that there is a loving God who wants (but doesn’t guarantee) them to be happy.
Do I have proof God exists? Nope. Do I hope he does? Yes. And, while I don’t agree with all the tenets of the Catholic church (their fetishism against female priests, and celibacy for male priests seems extreme, and the cause of most their problems, but it’s their party…) I find on balance that I agree with most of their positions, just as I agree with most, but not all, positions of the CPC. I’m very happy to have my girls learn they choose to be good or bad, and there are rules and standards against which they will be judged. They are actually pretty terrific kids, and I think the positive values of Catholic schools, as specifically opposed to the value-free education at secular schools, have played an important role in that.
The comment about “taking it off blog” is appropriate here.
As much as I know you folks enjoy using SDA as a debating forum, it is not. A few of you may have noticed there were commenting problems a few days ago – the reason? The disk space had run out again. I had to upgrade my account, yet again.
Keep that in mind the next time you’re about to post your 10th comment to a thread. I’m the one paying for the bandwidth, and the disk space.
Roger that, Kate. Thanks for herding us, and for gently keeping us within your terms of use.
…would it be inappropriate to suggest all the regulars on here “donate” say $5-10 via PayPal or something to Kate’s SDA?
I’m willing to start the ball rolling on this.
Akin to putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.
cheers
tom
“[T]he Canadian government (and those who subsidize it) have no obligation whatsoever to come to the assistance of citizens in foreign parts.”
Then what’s the point of Canadian citizenship?
tomax:
here here !!
Ms Kate:
I will periodically click on my paypal acct if you were to set up a means to do so.
I admire and congratulate you on the durability of your blog and wish to see it maintained.
it is currently one of only 3 in my bookmarks, the other 2 being stumbled upon via yours.
kevinb:
your thoughts on why photons instantaneously reach speed of light and equally instantaneously stop any ‘acceleration’ apparently in less than the radius of an atom, and how this is evidence of the means whereby God accomplished the staggering immensity of creation?
I have a theory.
I also have a theory on how electrical energy is propagated across insulators a.k.a. induction and especially precisely how voltage changes depending on ratio of coils. hint: has to do with the number of times an electron is ‘hit’ in the other coil. (hit with what ?)
the mathematics of calculating end result disinterests and in fact bores me because it is second nature. the *how* part of what is going on with individual electrons trillions of ‘diameters’ distant from each other is most intriguing.
am I off topic again?
I encourage all to send your kids to catholic school; mine got an ontario scholarship which pd for her 1st year, the resp I took out when she was 14 pd 2nd year, and her mother paid for her 3rd yr out of pocket.
be aware of the dichotomies folks !!!
aaaaaaall them grey areas.
alas overwhelming at election time sometimes.
the 2nd previous was one where I failed to muster sufficient excuse to mark the X beside any name.
such is the political beast.
Kate: have you set up the paypal button yet ?
Paypal button = “click”
I’m unable to use Paypal – a previous attempt at setting up an account has left me unable to access it, verify it, cancel it or start a new one.
That said, that wasn’t the reason for my comment. Aside from the bandwidth and disk space, these threads almost invariably stray off topic, and are of interest only to the two or three people participating in them. They discourage others from reading, much less adding their own comments.
With all those seagulls it must be BODEGA BAY i hear that when your there the seagull when you feed them will eat off your hand
Ideas?:
Comment SIZE limitation window. Comment NUMBER limitation per nom de blog per thread. Annual membership with fee – login for posting commentary (will end the disingenuous trollish drive-by shootings) while non members may VIEW comments only. I’d join in a flash. Prominent display on site for payee and address for old-fashioned cheque. I’d send a cheque in a flash.
Bad spelling tax!!!
Economic principle: You get MORE of what you subsidize LESS of what you tax.
Commenters here are actually being provided a very VALUABLE form of entertainment and education from some of the more learned contributors like ET.
…while I don’t speak for Kate, charging a ‘membership fee’ would not benefit the site.
For starters, there’s that nasty thing called Income Tax, GST, and keeping track of accounts, basically that four letter word: work.
We just need to control ourselves, but I thought it would be a fitting jesture to back up our rants with money.
At the same time we should allow people the freedom to speak their minds (within reason) free from berating of other’s who ‘have arrived’.
😉
“Bad speling tacks” !!, are you crazed ?
Like in VALIANT there are PIGIONS,A SEAGULL SOMES DOVES AND FALCONS VERYWHERE AAHHH FALCON FALCON SOUND THE ALARM