Quotulatiousness

May 4, 2019

Justin Trudeau’s (French) language problem

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Colby Cosh reports on a recent academic paper that sticks the boots into the little potato and his, um, problematical French language issues:

Thursday’s hot-off-the-press Post contained a short summary (by CP’s Giuseppe Valiante) of a recent academic paper about how Justin Trudeau’s handling of spoken French is regarded in Quebec. In case you didn’t read Valiante’s summary, I’ll give you a four-word abstract: it drives people nuts. Obviously it’s hard to know how many Quebeckers are really annoyed or nauseated by the prime minister’s French, but if you judge by the newspapers, as Binghamton University French-language scholar Yulia Bosworth did in her article for the American Review of Canadian Studies, it seems Trudeau is the equivalent of fingernails scraping a chalkboard forever.

Hungry with curiosity, I got hold of Bosworth’s paper, entitled “The ‘Bad’ French of Justin Trudeau: When Language, Ideology, and Politics Collide.” As writing it suffers from the typical defects of published scholarship in the humanities: as the title suggests, it is one of those things in which every mental construct of any kind becomes an “ideology.” As scholarship it is pretty good: it contains a useful potted history of Quebecois linguistic self-hatred, and how “Quebec French” went from being a perennial object of shame to a rigid conscious standard, enforced with the same pride and viciousness as Parisian French within France.

But as disguised comedy, the article can’t be beat. When Bosworth wants to give the flavour of her sample corpus of Quebec newspaper abuse of Trudeau, she has to clear her throat professorially first. “Titles, arguably, play an important role in constructing public images; they constitute visible and frequently consumed newspaper content and help construct a linguistic landscape.” Zzzz. But then you get to the good stuff, the distilled liquor:

    In Justin Trudeau’s case, headline readers encountered ‘a beautiful empty shell,’ ‘the little boy,’ ‘a privileged target,’ ‘a thinker of nothingness,’ ‘a deserter,’ a ‘mythical hero,’ ‘window dressing for radical individualism,’ ‘a young dilettante,’ and ‘Justin-the-Red.’ Among the many examples of negative descriptors pinned on Trudeau are: ‘smokescreen,’ ‘the call of the void,’ ‘hypocrisy,’ ‘lack of courage,’ and ‘Pee-Wee’s revenge.’ In terms of adjectives, Trudeau was called ‘slimy,’ ‘tricked,’ ‘attacked,’ ‘targeted,’ ‘troubled,’ and ‘criticized.’

Obviously there is a lot of that sort of talk around, and certainly JT gets a rough ride in the Post and the Alberta broadsheet papers from time to time, but I think only in Quebec do you find this language in headlines, rather than in the comment threads or your uncle’s Facebook feed. (“Radical individualism”? Really?)

April 30, 2019

QotD: Successful “democracies” in history have usually been disguised oligarchies

Filed under: Europe, France, History, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Thus we get the “Revolutions” in America and France, where educated and newly politicised chattering classes try to find a simplistic solution to all the world’s problems. Their solution being to adopt a system which fits their preferred world order, and seems to give them an advantage that will allow them to force people into their way of thinking.

Humans being what they are, it didn’t work of course.

The American Revolution, supposedly about ‘equality for all’ – if you want to fall for idealistic propaganda – was actually a tax rebellion by Northern states (who also wanted to get rid of the English government’s treaties that kept them out of Indian land), and the Southern states (who wanted to block the English anti-slavery legislation from spreading to their nice comfy system). It was never really about equality, and all the exclusions of people from voting on the basis of colour, race, sex, religion, immigration status, etc., should have made it clear to anyone that what was being considered was really an Oligarchy. Similar in fact to the Ancient Greek and Roman slave-based societies, where some special and limited classes shared rights no one else had.

Actually all “successful” democracies in history have always been Oligarchies. The 1,000 year old “Sublime Republic of Venice” – on which large parts of the US constitution were based – for instance, being limited to a certain number of families that had the vote. Similarly the “Republics” of Ancient Greece or Rome, and modern Switzerland or Israel, being based on vote by military service – another way of ensuring the voters might put national interests above selfish ones.

The first few French republics (those squeezed in around the inevitable dictatorships and emperors that are the result of such systems) were also based on a limited franchise. In their case not a race or religion or sex one like the US, but a straight property qualification that saw a small percentage of both sexes as voters.

Unsurprisingly the Oligarchical Republics of the 18th and 19th centuries were some of the most internally violent (US Slavery, Civil War, Indian Wars, the Terror, multiple revolts and “communes”, Lynchings, Jim Crow laws, etc), and externally aggressive (Napoleonic Wars, Spanish–American Wars, “Interventions” in Central America, Occupations of Hawaii, Philippines, etc.) governments in history. Rivaling the Greek and Roman republics for their aggressive expansionism by land and sea, and certainly being no less effective than more traditional military (Russia and Germany) or trade (Britain and Netherlands) expansionist states.

(And here I would note that the one of the mitigating factors in the idea that German Nationalism was a problem in WWI, was that the populist Navy Leagues and Colonial Leagues of the newly enfranchised voting classes did in fact push Nationalism to dangerous extremes. The Kaiser was a dangerous loon, but he was a dangerous loon responding to the fervor of the dregs of the petit bourgeois who had been enfranchised in his nation, not a man with Napoleonic capabilities in his own right.)

Nigel Davies, “The Solution is… European Union/Multiculturalism/Communism… Name your poison!”, rethinking history, 2015-12-26.

April 28, 2019

More on the PEI Green Party “breakthrough”

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In the Prince Edward Island election last week, the voters threw out the incumbent Liberal government and instead opted for a minority Progressive Conservative replacement. One of the bigger surprises of the outcome was that the Green Party surged into the second-largest number of seats, to be the Official Opposition for the first time. Colby Cosh explains that the Greens ran on a more typically NDP platform that only vaguely gestured toward any traditional Green policies:

Election results map for the April 23, 2019 provincial election.
Blue – PC Red – Liberal Green – Green Party Orange – NDP (no seats won)
Map via CBC News – https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/pei/2019/results/

Breakthrough or letdown? The Green Party of Prince Edward Island won the second highest number of seats in the province’s election Tuesday, and leader Peter Bevan-Baker seems likely to become opposition chief facing a Conservative minority government. The P.E.I. Greens have been big news for a while now, doubly so because the Island has always stuck to the classic two parties, and in the run-up to the vote, polls had suggested that Bevan-Baker might end up as premier. This didn’t happen — or hasn’t yet! — and in the overall popular vote the Greens ended up beating the third-place incumbent Liberals by only a little over one percentage point.

In truth the P.E.I. Greens seem to be in a good position going forward, if we agree to overlook the general history of Green floundering in Canada. Bevan-Baker, a Scots dentist, has lost more elections than you’ve had hot meals, but his soft-spokenness and graciousness seem to have struck a belated chord with Islanders. A three-way vote split of 37-31-30 seems like a recipe for instability, even though the parties are issuing familiar gab about legislating in a co-operative, collegial way.

Everybody knows that P.E.I. is both an unusual place, with some of the features of an extended family, and a small place. What has worked for Bevan-Baker’s Greens might not scale up well to a much larger entity, such as Regina, Sask. This has not stopped commentators from speculating on the election being the possible starting gun for nationwide Green success. The idea is that Canadians, particularly the young, have finally taken the environmentalist message (whatever that is) into their hearts and are ready to defect from tedious mainstream neoliberal politics. The revolution is at hand! Any minute now!

If you followed the P.E.I. campaign at all, you know that there’s a major problem with this concept. It’s that the Green platform wasn’t especially, uh, green. Everybody who was actually on the Island political beat noticed this. The formal pitch included minor nods toward electric vehicles and solar power, of a kind you wouldn’t even be surprised to find in a Conservative election document nowadays, but Bevan-Baker himself emphasized the “pragmatic” nature and careful costing of the party’s platform. Almost as if he was conscious of having to overcome an inherited Green reputation for flakiness.

April 25, 2019

Prince Edward Island elects its very first minority government

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

There’s not often news from Prince Edward Island, Canada’s smallest province, but in yesterday’s provincial election they did something they’ve never done before: elect a minority government and have the first Green Party official opposition.

Election results map for the April 23, 2019 provincial election.
Blue – PC (36.5% of the vote for 12 seats)
Red – Liberal (29.5% of the vote for 6 seats)
Green – Green Party (30.6% of the vote for 8 seats)
Orange – NDP (2.9% of the vote for 0 seats)
Map via CBC News – https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/pei/2019/results/

Prince Edward Island’s Liberal Premier Wade MacLauchlan lost his own seat to the province’s Progressive Conservatives, who will form the first ever minority government in PEI’s history.

PEI has traditionally had a two-party system, broken in 2015 with a familiar story: a lone Green seat. We saw it in Ontario, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and federally.

The PEI Greens, who for a long time looked poised to form government, will form the official opposition. They will become the only party other than the PCs and Liberals to do so. With a by-election to come in the next months, the Green Party won at least nine seats, a record number of elected Greens in Canada.

Elections in PEI often go unnoticed in most of the country, but this election gained special attention after the tragic news of the death of a candidate and his young son in a canoeing accident.

But Canadians have been keeping a closer eye to other province’s elections. Consider the unusual level of national attention generated by provincial elections in Alberta, Ontario, and elsewhere.

QotD: “Science”

Filed under: Environment, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 01:00

Ah, science. If you’re even loosely engaged in the wild and dark art that is politics these days, you know by now that “science,” as a word, has taken on an almost mystical meaning. “Science,” in many of its modern incantations, now serves as a form of code, as vague and fuzzy as a Wiccan chant. For a growing number of political activists, the meaning is simple: Science, you see, is a lively mix of standard progressive hobbyhorses, tossed wild-eyed and cranky into one cantankerous bag.

Heather Wilhelm, “The Left’s New Cure-All: ‘Science’”, National Review, 2017-04-12.

April 24, 2019

The west is being haunted by the spectre of the “far right”

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Back in my younger days, I attended a seminar — I think it was Marshall Fritz presenting — that discussed the need to “define, or be defined” as a political tool. If you allow your critics or opponents to set the terms of the debate, you’ve already lost. Arthur Chrenkoff knows this well:

It was not Orwell’s original idea that those who control the language control the society and determine its nature. In any case, the left hardly ever needed inspiration from critics on how to achieve their agenda. They are instinctively good at manipulating speech and cultural expression. Watch out, therefore, for the current pattern of marginalising and delegitimising mainstream ideas they are hostile to by associating them with political fringes.

[…] we increasingly live in a world where, if you believe the media, everywhere you turn there’s the “far right”. Mainstream centre-right ideas and concerns are now being redefined as being somehow associated with and tainted by extremism. If you are worried about the violence against and the persecution of Christians you might be far right. If you value the cultural and philosophical heritage of the Western civilisation you might be far right. If you don’t believe in an open borders immigration policy you might be far right. If you prefer local democracy to transnational institutions you might be far right. If you are defending your country from an armed invasion by another country you might be far right too. If these are all to be the indicators of far right extremism, then what exactly is the “normal” right right now?

This effort to use language as a cudgel has several sinister implications. It delegitimises perfectly normal political ideas through guilt by association. It also creates the impression that the (genuine) far right is much bigger, more influential and more threatening and dangerous than it actually is. This in turn is used to downplay and minimise the dangers of Islamist and far-left extremism and terrorism. But perhaps the scariest aspect of it all is that the left, by manufacturing the far right monster, are actually genuinely contributing to the growth of far-right extremism. The relentless flood of identity politics, grievance and victimhood, and shaming and guilting entire sections of population based on their skin colour and culture is genuinely radicalising some misfits into fascism, like the Christchurch terrorist, for example. For every action there is eventually an equal and opposite reaction. The left might think it’s courageously defanging the fascist dragon but instead it’s just sowing its teeth.

QotD: The Utopia of Damned Fools

Filed under: Government, History, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

The money began to pour out on November 16, 1933, to the tune of a deafening hullabaloo. By December 1 more than 1,000,000 were on the CWA [Civil Works Administration] pay roll; by January, 1934, the number reached 4,100,000. Press agents in eight-hour shifts worked day and night to tell a panting country what it was all about. The Depression, it was explained, was being given a series of adroit and fatal blows, above, below and athwart the belt. In six months there would be no more unemployment, the wheels of industry would be spinning, and the More Abundant Life would be on us. Brains had at last conquered the fear of fear.

What actually happened belongs to history. By the opening of Spring [Harry] Hopkins had got rid of his billion, and the whole thing had blown up with a bang. More people were out of work than ever before. The wheels of industry resolutely refused to spin. The More Abundant Life continued to linger over the sky line. There ensued a pause for taking breath, and then another stupendous assault was launched upon the taxpayer. This time the amount demanded was $4,880,000,000. It is now in hand, and plans are under way to lay it out where it will do the most good in next year’s campaign.

Go back to the clippings and read them again. Consider well what they say. Four preposterous nonentities, all of them professional uplifters, returning from a junket at the taxpayer’s expense, sit in a smoking car munching peanuts and talking shop. Their sole business in life is spending other people’s money. In the past they have always had to put in four-fifths of their time cadging it, but now the New Deal has admitted them to the vaults of the public treasury, and just beyond the public treasury, shackled in a gigantic lemon-squeezer worked by steam, groans the taxpayer. They feel their oats, and are busting with ideals. For them, at least, the More Abundant Life has surely come.

Suddenly one of them, biting down hard on a peanut, has an inspiration. He leapt to his feet exultant, palpitating like a crusader shinning up the walls of Antioch. How, now, comrade, have you bitten into a worm? Nay, gents, I have thought of a good one, a swell one, the damndest you will ever heard tell of. Why not put everyone to work? Why not shovel it out in a really Large Way. Why higgle and temporize? We won’t be here forever, and when we are gone we’ll be gone a long while.

But the Leader? Wasn’t he babbling again, only the other day, of balancing the budget? Isn’t it a fact that he shows some sign of wobbling of late – that the flop of the NRA [National Recovery Administration] has given him to think? Well, we can only try. We have fetched him before, and maybe we can fetch him again. So the train reaches Washington, the porter gets his tip from the taxpayer’s pocket, and the next day the four brethren meet to figure out the details. But they never get further than a few scratches, for The Leader is in one of his intuitive moods, and his Christian Science smile is in high gear. Say no more, Harry, it is done! The next morning the money begins to gush and billow out of the Treasury. Six months later a billion is gone, and plans are under way to collar five times as much more.

Such is government by the Brain Trust. Such is the fate of the taxpayer under a Planned Economy. Such is the Utopia of Damned Fools.

H.L. Mencken, “The New Deal”, The Mencken Chrestomathy, 1982 (article originally published 1935-05).

April 20, 2019

QotD: They used to be called the Jet Set, but now they’re the Transnational Elite

Filed under: Media, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… there is a certain level of pride that attaches to being ignorant of those one considers his inferiors. After all, it’s the natural duty of the simple shopkeeper to know the names of the Great Lords, but it is not the duty of the Great Lords to know the names of the shopkeepers. In fact, it’s the Great Lords’ class obligation to go out of their way not to know the names of the shopkeepers, because this Duty to Know flows in one direction — upwards — and hence ignorance of one’s lessers tends to solidify and reify the assumptions of certain castes being superior to others. It makes certain that everyone understands who’s important, and who’s not.

(I know, I sound like a communist — I can’t help it. I have to agree with Dennis the Peasant — “I mean, class is what it’s all about.” I guess I would say I’m agreeing with the communist critique of the rigid reification of class structures, but I happen to think the communists and their pink fellow travelers have largely captured the upper classes. I guess by my theory they’re so good at this because they’ve spent so long plotting vengeance for the exact same slights (which they largely imagined). In a similar way they’ve gotten quite good at blacklisting and guilt-by-association, eh?)

At any rate, it is your duty to know the values and customs of living of Piers Morgan, but due to his high station (ahem) he is proudly ignorant of yours. As is so often the case in our increasingly dysfunctional and nasty politics — in which certain parties refuse to even admit that their opponents are free citizens entitled to have beliefs at all — the Out-Classes are deemed all-but-officially Beneath Notice.

Michael Totten has written a crackerjack piece — or at least I think it is — about this principle in action among our foreign policy sages, the internationalist “elite.” He detects the exact same sort of phenomenon going on when the International “elite” visit foreign nations — because anyone who doesn’t share 90% of their cultural values (and the wealth that permits/encourages these values — the International Elite is not middle-class!) is beneath notice and not worth knowing about, they don’t bother asking anyone but the 3% of the population which largely shares their beliefs and cultural inputs about their intentions and their political agenda.

Which means, in Egypt, they only ask the jet-setting wealthy Westernized elite about the prognosis for Egyptian democracy. And in Lebanon, they only ask the educated, urbane population of Beirut about their desires for the country.

And they ignore all the “Dirty People,” the low people who aren’t worth networking with and probably wouldn’t be any fun to have a sexual affair with. Unfortunately — and this has huge consequences for American foreign policy — it turns out those Dirty Poor People greatly, greatly outnumber the small coteries of educated elites that cluster in every capital country.

And we don’t know about them, because they’re Beneath Notice, and our elites are too busy clinking champagne glasses in the main ballroom of the local Ritz-Carlton franchise.

And so our “elites” — and honestly, we need to start looking for a more accurate discriptor — come back with completely-wrong information about foreign countries.

Why, as Totten says (changing the words a bit), “All of these Egyptians are swell, educated, moderate, sexually-loose cosmopolitans! Why, democracy has a smashing chance of working out here!”

Yeah, not so much. Not so much.

Ace, “The Unburstable Bubble of Willful Ignorance of the International Self-Purported Elites”, Ace of Spades H.Q., 2013-01-09.

April 19, 2019

The next Euro-elections as “the second referendum”

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Julie Cook wonders why the Remoaners seem so eager to cast the May 23 European elections as the second referendum they’ve been eager to have, as the early indications show something less than full eagerness among British voters for any of the pro-remain groups:

Timothy Garton Ash is, I think, making something of a mistake here. For he’s calling for the upcoming euro-elections to be seen as a second referendum on our leaving the European Union. The point being that this is going to be something of a hostage to fortune.

Perhaps more importantly the more Remoaners call for it to be seen and treated as such the more likely we are to see what lying toads they are.

    Britain will have its second referendum – on 23 May. Don’t miss it
    Timothy Garton Ash This is a crucial chance to show politicians how we feel now about leaving Europe. The turnout must be huge

The point being, well, what if Leave wins?

    In just five weeks’ time, Britain will have a referendum on Brexit. This will take the form of elections to the European parliament, but in reality this will be a pre-referendum, or, if you like your neologisms ugly, a preferendum. So there is now one simple task: to maximise the vote for parties that support a confirmatory referendum on Brexit, giving the British people a democratic choice between accepting the negotiated Brexit deal and remaining in the EU.

And there’s the toad bit. There’s a significant portion of the population who’d prefer to just Leave. Don’t care about the terms, the deal, let’s just leave the b’tards to stew in their own juices and we’ll get on with solving whatever problems remain after we’ve not remained. And this is a significant portion – perhaps not a majority, maybe not even a plurality but that’s going to be the interesting test

Early polls show that Nigel Farage and his new Brexit Party are in the lead over both Labour and the Conservatives. Of course, he’ll have to weather a full month of unbridled hate and slander from the media, but what can they possibly say about him or his new party that they haven’t already screamed and bellowed before? Once you’ve fired all the invective in your shot locker, you don’t stand much chance of changing anyone’s opinion if they didn’t react the first dozen times.

QotD: The revolution will be YouTubed, which might snuff it out before it gets underway

Filed under: Media, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

I think that a number of factors will ultimately tamp it down [campus protests/riots]. The ability of people to record videos of police has been a tremendous spur to calls for reform. But police are not the only people who can be filmed in public; so can protesters. I suspect that as people discover what can happen when future employers google up videos of you shouting “[expletive deleted] the police” or screaming at professors and speakers, the costs of this sort of protest will rise, and there will be less of it. Moreover, I suspect that both alumni and state funding for schools where this sort of thing happens a lot will often decline, putting pressure on administrators to curb it.

Megan McArdle, “Ask Me Anything”, Reddit, 2017-04-10.

April 17, 2019

Theresa May has been brilliantly successful in achieving her (true) aims

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Theodore Dalrymple admits having misjudged Mrs. May as a failure, when in fact her plans have been coming brilliantly to fruition:

Like almost everyone else, I regarded [Theresa May] as a pygmy in courage and a giant in incompetence, but it is time for a re-assessment, especially with regard to her efforts to Britain’s exit from the European Union. After the Union granted a further delay to Britain’s departure, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said that it was his secret dream to prevent Britain from leaving. It is pleasing to know that Mr Tusk’s secret dreams so entirely coincide with those of the British political class, including (I surmise) those of Mrs May. At last we have a basis for full and final agreement.

Like the great majority of the British political class, Mrs May was always in favour of remaining in the Union. This class was so confident of its ability to persuade the population that it was right that it agreed with practically no demur to a referendum which would pronounce the winner as the side which obtained 50 per cent plus one of the votes cast. Thus the matter of British membership, it thought, would be settled once and for all.

The problem for the political class was now to find a method of overriding the result of the referendum without doing so in too blatant a fashion. And here, in Mrs May, it found a perfect leader.

Needless to say, Mrs May, having been selected as Prime Minister, could not just put forward her conviction that Britain should remain in the Union and say outright that she had no intention of carrying out the will of the majority. At that stage, such a disavowal of the result would have been politically impossible and might even have caused unrest. Instead, she went through a brilliantly elaborate charade of negotiating withdrawal, in such a way that the result would not be accepted by Parliament. Her agreement would be withdrawal without withdrawal, the worst of all possible outcomes, all complication and difficulty, and no benefit.

She knew perfectly well that the European Union, having drafted this agreement unacceptable to Parliament, would not renegotiate it. Why should it, since it knew that Parliament had no intention of demanding a real and total withdrawal, since it did not want to withdraw at all? She also knew that Parliament would never agree to a withdrawal without an agreement with the Union, as Parliament has repeatedly made clear.

April 14, 2019

The repressive new intellectual orthodoxy

Filed under: Britain, China, Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Roger Scruton discusses the interview he gave to the New Statesman:

I recently gave an interview to the New Statesman, on the assumption that, as the magazine’s former wine critic I would be treated with respect, and that the journalist, George Eaton, was sincere in wanting to talk to me about my intellectual life. Not for the first time I am forced to acknowledge what a mistake it is to address young leftists as though they were responsible human beings. Here is my brief response to an unscrupulous collection of out of context remarks, some of them merely words designed to accuse me of thought-crimes, and to persuade the government that I am not fit to be chairman of the commission recently entrusted to me.

[…]

In retrospect I could have chosen the words more carefully. But my purpose was to point out that anti-Semitism has become an issue in Hungary, and an obstacle to a shared national identity. As for the Soros Empire, I am the only person I know who has actually tried to persuade Viktor Orbán to accept its presence, and that of the Central European University in particular, in Hungary. I did not succeed, but that is another matter. I should add that I am neither a friend nor an enemy of Orbán, but know him from the days when I helped him and his colleagues to set up a free university under the communists. What Orbán did then was the first step towards the liberation of his country, and George Soros was one of those who helped him too. It is sad for Hungary that the two have fallen out, and that the old spectre of anti-Semitism has been reborn from their clash. Given their two aggressive personalities, however, it is hardly surprising.

[…]

Finally, my comments on China: I was describing the attempt of the Chinese Communist Party to achieve conformity of behaviour in everything that might threaten its comprehensive political control, and I think it is fair to describe this as an attempt to robotise the Chinese people. The Communist Party expects each person to replicate the behavioural code, not questioning its authority and finding safety in imitation. Many people see the threat of this in the attitude of Beijing towards Hong Kong. Far more important, to my mind, is the internment of a million or more Uighur Muslims, in order to clean their minds of the dangerous God idea and re-programme them with the Party idea instead. If we are not allowed to criticise this as the robotising of the victims, then what are we allowed to criticise and how?

We in Britain are entering a dangerous social condition in which the direct expression of opinions that conflict – or merely seem to conflict – with a narrow set of orthodoxies is instantly punished by a band of self-appointed vigilantes. We are being cowed into abject conformity around a dubious set of official doctrines and told to adopt a world view that we cannot examine for fear of being publicly humiliated by the censors. This world view might lead to a new and liberated social order; or it might lead to the social and spiritual destruction of our country. How shall we know, if we are too afraid to discuss it?

April 9, 2019

QotD: It won’t be easy to bring back politicians’ willingness to compromise

Filed under: Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

I think the donors are a problem for both parties, in terms of driving choices that aren’t necessarily the best strategies for building the base. (Both parties completely missed the populist backlash on trade, for example. Now, as a free trader, I like the resulting policy. But they paid for it at the polls.) But the issue isn’t fundamentally the donors. The issue is that fundamentally, both sides hate each other, and both sides have an increasing “It is not enough that I win. My enemies must lose” mentality about politics. Combine that with various reforms that have empowered extremists — campaign finance reforms that empowered outside groups, yes, but also the shift to primaries from conventions, and the abolition of the earmarks and pork that used to grease legislative passage. Throw in the “Great Sort” into increasingly politically homogenous communities — those are the problems you need to fix if you want to bring back legislative compromise. And damned if I know how we get there, because you can’t tell people where to live, and anyone who suggested getting rid of primary elections and bringing back pork barrel politics would come off as a backroom sleaze.

Megan McArdle, “Ask Me Anything”, Reddit, 2017-04-10.

April 8, 2019

George Orwell BBC Arena Part 5 Nineteen Eighty Four

Filed under: Books, Britain, History, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Alan Ruben
Published on 31 May 2013

Part 5 of an in-depth 5 part series about George Orwell made in 1983.

April 7, 2019

Justin’s SNC-Lavalin swamp … how deep does it go?

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Government, Law, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

For a penny-ante scandal where there’s no hint of sexual impropriety or unmarked bundles of bills being passed along in brown paper bags, Justin’s SNC-Lavalin scandal looks more and more interesting the more we look at it:

A game-changing bombshell lies buried in the supplementary evidence provided to the House of Commons Judiciary Committee by former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould.

It has gone virtually unreported since she submitted the material almost a week ago. As far as we can find, only one journalist — Andrew Coyne, columnist for the National Post — has even mentioned it and even then he badly missed what it meant, burying it in paragraph 10 of a 14 paragraph story.

The gist of the greatest political scandal in modern Canadian history is well-known by now. It’s bigger than Adscam, the revelation 15 years ago that prominent members of the Liberal Party of Canada and the party itself funneled tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks into their own pockets from federal spending in Quebec sponsoring ads promoting Canadian unity. That was just venal politicians and a crooked political party helping themselves to public money.

The Trudeau-SNC-Lavalin scandal is so much more, involving the corruption of the supposedly non-partisan civil service, and even the judiciary, for the political benefit of a disgraced political party, and a cover-up endorsed, encouraged and actively engaged in by the sitting Members of Parliament of that political party.

[…]

Which brings us to the ticking-timebomb-evidence the committee and the public didn’t get to hear.

In between the appearances by Butts and Warnick, Wilson-Raybould testified to getting a report from her chief of staff who had had a meeting with Butts and Trudeau’s chief of staff Katie Telford. They aggressively pushed the attorney general to get an “outside” opinion from someone like the retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, on dropping the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a non-criminal plea deal.

Wilson-Raybould took contemporary notes of what her staff member told her.

    “My COS (chief of staff…ed) asked what if the opinion comes saying “She can review it, but she shouldn’t” or simply “She can’t review it” end of story? Mr. Butts stated “It wouldn’t say that.”

BOOM!!!!!!

Read what Butts said again. And again. And again.

“IT WOULDN’T SAY THAT”

H/T to Halls of Macademia and Small Dead Animals for the link.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress