The Democrats now control the House of Representatives, the Senate and of course as we all know with the coronation…oops inauguration ceremony on Tuesday…the White House. They are there in force and number following a much deserved loss by the Republicans. Now lets step back a second….I can hear some readers groaning at the moment. No… I have not gone soft in the head, nor am I a turncoat. In every way I am a Classic Liberal which by today’s standards makes me a conservative. This is not the issue. Why then am I so down on the GOP? Here is a list of twelve reasons:
1. The Republican House members in the last few congresses have acted like small ‘l’ liberals. They increased government spending and seemed averse to tackling the spiraling debt…in short they turned their back on the successful Gingrich Revolution. A return to fiscal conservatism is needed.
2. They tolerated within their ranks such pork belly project seat warmers as Alaskan Ted Stevens. Yes the Dems had former Klansman Senator Richard Byrd, who was just as obnoxious in this department, but surely the GOP has higher standards than what the Dems have to offer?
3. Republicans especially the Bushites continued to endorse affirmative action programs…. mostly by their silence. In fact it seems that only the Young Republican groups on campus take opposition to affirmative action seriously. Affirmative Action is wrong and affront to anyone who believes in meritocracy. Many Republicans in congress claim to agree with this sentiment. Why then did they do so little to advance the fight against such blatant discrimination?
4. University Campuses grew more radical during the Bush years. Allan Bloom’s analysis in the ‘Closing of the American Mind’ is coming to fruition as the far leftist Anti-American monoculture continues to spread in the heart of higher education. Other than the work of David Horowitz and co. (who are not in government) where was the concerted effort from Republicans to combat this imbalance? After all if we lose the minds of the younger generation the future of the GOP and the nation will indeed look bleak. On the same theme why do so few Republicans (in government) stand up for the American people’s First Amendment Rights, in actively opposing the Speech Code lunacy that are commonplace at the nation’s university and college campuses?
5. Too many Republicans (especially the Bushites) cozy up to the Saudi’s as though they are America’s ally in the War against Terror. The Saudi’s for the most part detest the US. Their schools and institutions preach a version of Islam (Wahhabism) that is extremely hostile to the West. It is no accident that the vast majority of the 911 terrorists were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is no friend of the US nor should it be treated a such. If Republicans were truly serious about combating the Islamist threat they would distance themselves from this terror source. In short its time to rethink the influence in the party of the Grover Norquists, Darrell Issas, Spencer Abrams and James Bakers of the world. By the same token how is it that so many radical Muslims have found their away into the US over the last ten years or so. Look at the latest pro-Hamas demonstrations in Fort Lauderdale, New York and Detroit. Not to mention Irvine, San Francisco and Seattle. I thought there would be more vigilance in this area or are we now allowing CAIR to influence our immigration policy?
6. Although I am generally not a fan of Lou Dobbs (his smugness is annoying) he is correct in arguing that Republicans have let down the Middle Class in favour of the corporate elites. The Democrats picked up on this weakness and it cost the Republicans at the polls. It is time to return the party back to its base. The base being those who work for their money and pay taxes.
7. Secure borders are a necessity and illegal immigration has to be curtailed. Republicans failed to show a united front on this issue allowing it to drift from the radar in 2008. Both McCain and Bush were particularly weak in this regards. The Democrats took advantage of this lapse to shift focus to areas where they were most likely to win votes and it clearly paid off.
8. Sarah Palin was a poor choice for VP in 2008 (and would not be a great pick for president in 2012 either). She was clearly out of her depth from the get go and allowed the McCain campaign to forgo their one trump card that they had over Obama et al…that of experience. The prospect of Palin in high office was as a fellow conservative friend of mine stated ‘..like a bad Disney movie.’
9. John McCain’s environmental policy was second rate and whether conservatives like to admit it or not green politics will not disappear in the future. Conservatives need to adapt to this reality which is not inconsistent with support for western ideals or the free market. A change of approach may translate into a long term winning ticket. Republicans can make an environmentalist agenda their own by embracing geothermal, wind and/or solar technologies within an entrepreneurial context. Bismarck followed a similar philosophy of thought when he bought in a workable pension system (also an issue of the left) in 19th century Germany and thereby undercut the influence of his Social Democrat opponents.
10. Silly Red Neck Simplicity does not work….Some Republicans counted on this to pick up votes in various regions of the country…but the approach is tired and jaded and lacks vision. The electorate has changed as has the population dynamics of the country. Grow up.
11. Republicans needed to press for more consolidation of the security agencies in the US. Why does the nation need so many different organizations anyway? The CIA, NSA, Military Intelligence, Homeland Security etc? Also it seems that the CIA for one is acting like a rogue agency. After the WMD fiasco the organization should have been purged from top to bottom. Enough is enough…the US needs a world class intelligence system not a bunch of competing Keystone Kops…
12. Too often it appears that the Republicans are waging a War on Science. While this is not the case this meme (expanded on by the MSM) clearly influenced public perception. Republicans can allay such fears by divorcing themselves from the pseudo-scientific intelligent design movement and the anti-stem cell brigade and re-emphasize a commitment to science. An outreach to the scientific community would help in this regards. Obama has already enhanced his credentials in this region by choosing Physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Stephen Chu as his Energy Secretary. The US is the driving force of democracy if it wishes to continue in this regards it needs to be a scientific powerhouse as well. Republicans could take the initiative from the Democrats by championing private enterprise in the field of Space Exploration Industry for example.
In short the GOP has to alter its way of thinking…it should certainly not separate itself from its Conservative base but it must not be loathe to incorporate new approaches to policy either….policies that can only break the milieu of staleness that it currently finds itself in. If it doesn’t it could endure an absence from power comparable to the FDR/Truman era. Times after all they are a changin……..
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Future of the Beautiful Game...
25 developments in world football that can be expected in the near future (2010-2060)
The Formation of a European Super League that will contain the wealthiest 22 Teams in the European continent.
An African Team will win one of the next 5 World Cups.
England will win one of the next 5 World Cups.
The smaller European Domestic Leagues will pool their resources to form several leagues to compete against the European Super League.
Smaller clubs within the same regions will merge to take advantage of the economy of scale.
Mergers will include Hearts-Hibernian, Dundee-Dundee United, Genoa-Sampdoria etc.
Throw-ins will be replaced by Kick-ins in an attempt to increase the attacking nature of the game.
Co-ed Soccer will gain popularity. Co-ed leagues will spring up worldwide.
The US will lose their domination of Women's Soccer to several emerging European, African and South American Soccer Nations.
Teams will employ larger squads (35-40) players. The number of substitutions per team per game will be increased from 3 to 7.
Substituted players will be allowed to return to the game as players.
There will be more types of specialty players. For example some players will function only in the capacity as free-kick and penalty takers.
Better footwear will allow Players to routinely take direct free kicks from deep inside their own halves.
Street Soccer will grow in popularity in the US to eventually rival basketball.
A game will be developed that will combine both the skills of soccer and squash. Players will compete in one-on-one matches against each other by kicking (instead of hitting with a racket) a ball against a wall.
A version of Soccer will be developed for play on ice.
Spin off versions of soccer will arise using balls of a non-spherical nature for play.
A type of soccer will be developed where players chase (in an indoor setting), a laser generated ball.
Beach soccer will become popular, spreading to the rest of the world from its power base in South America.
Bionics will create a new generation of soccer players capable of feats of amazing skill and strength. These will include the ability to head the ball into the goal from the half way line as well as the prowess to jump twice the height of the goal post. Augments of such a nature will force changes to the rules of the game to minimize these advantages. Bionic Supporters will set up Spin off leagues for bionic only players. Games in these leagues will by their very nature tend to be high scoring.
Better physical conditioning will greatly extend the playing life of the average soccer star. It will become common for players to peak at the age of 35-40 and to finish their careers at age 60.
With improved medicine, playing games lost to injury per player will decrease rapidly. By 2050, 95% of substitutions will be carried out for non-injury related purposes.
Action replay will become a growing feature of the professional game. Eventually the referee will be replaced by a panel of judges watching the game from a monitoring booth. The panel will have access to view all angles of the game from cameras strategically located around and sometimes within the pitch.
Genetic engineers will create a generation of superstars cloned from the DNA of such greats as Pele, George Best, Johan Cruyff and Maradona.
The Formation of a European Super League that will contain the wealthiest 22 Teams in the European continent.
An African Team will win one of the next 5 World Cups.
England will win one of the next 5 World Cups.
The smaller European Domestic Leagues will pool their resources to form several leagues to compete against the European Super League.
Smaller clubs within the same regions will merge to take advantage of the economy of scale.
Mergers will include Hearts-Hibernian, Dundee-Dundee United, Genoa-Sampdoria etc.
Throw-ins will be replaced by Kick-ins in an attempt to increase the attacking nature of the game.
Co-ed Soccer will gain popularity. Co-ed leagues will spring up worldwide.
The US will lose their domination of Women's Soccer to several emerging European, African and South American Soccer Nations.
Teams will employ larger squads (35-40) players. The number of substitutions per team per game will be increased from 3 to 7.
Substituted players will be allowed to return to the game as players.
There will be more types of specialty players. For example some players will function only in the capacity as free-kick and penalty takers.
Better footwear will allow Players to routinely take direct free kicks from deep inside their own halves.
Street Soccer will grow in popularity in the US to eventually rival basketball.
A game will be developed that will combine both the skills of soccer and squash. Players will compete in one-on-one matches against each other by kicking (instead of hitting with a racket) a ball against a wall.
A version of Soccer will be developed for play on ice.
Spin off versions of soccer will arise using balls of a non-spherical nature for play.
A type of soccer will be developed where players chase (in an indoor setting), a laser generated ball.
Beach soccer will become popular, spreading to the rest of the world from its power base in South America.
Bionics will create a new generation of soccer players capable of feats of amazing skill and strength. These will include the ability to head the ball into the goal from the half way line as well as the prowess to jump twice the height of the goal post. Augments of such a nature will force changes to the rules of the game to minimize these advantages. Bionic Supporters will set up Spin off leagues for bionic only players. Games in these leagues will by their very nature tend to be high scoring.
Better physical conditioning will greatly extend the playing life of the average soccer star. It will become common for players to peak at the age of 35-40 and to finish their careers at age 60.
With improved medicine, playing games lost to injury per player will decrease rapidly. By 2050, 95% of substitutions will be carried out for non-injury related purposes.
Action replay will become a growing feature of the professional game. Eventually the referee will be replaced by a panel of judges watching the game from a monitoring booth. The panel will have access to view all angles of the game from cameras strategically located around and sometimes within the pitch.
Genetic engineers will create a generation of superstars cloned from the DNA of such greats as Pele, George Best, Johan Cruyff and Maradona.
Agents of Foreign Policy
The factors influencing US foreign policy are more complicated than any single purely ideological analysis takes into account. These are ten that I have personally identified:
Money Men - Those who see US Foreign policy as a way of extending their individual business interests throughout the globe.
Children of Democracy - Those who feel that that the US has an ideological mission to spread democracy.
Gamers - Those who see US Foreign Politics as a game of good against evil that must be won at all costs by the forces of good.
Stabilizers - Those who feel that US foreign policy should work at all cost to stabilize the world and ensure 'peace'.
Christian Elite - Group that argues that US politics must act to prevent the spread of such anti-Christian ideologies as Islam and Communism.
Single Power Proliferaters - Those who believe that the US has no allies at all and should operate covertly or in any way possible to prevent the emergence of a legitimate competitor to American hegemony.
Single Enemies of Choice - Group that are obsessed in stopping the actions of one power in particular. This power could be: China, Russia, the Moslem World etc.
Namesakers - Individuals who see foreign policy as a stage for making a name for themselves. They are motivated by nothing else.
Cold Warriors - Those who are still nostalgic for the Cold War and wish to recreate the period in some form or another again in the near future.
Competitor groups - opposing factions in the US, who are not necessarily ideologically driven, but see Foreign Policy as a vehicle or stage to ensure their individual group influence and strike a blow against their competitor faction.
Money Men - Those who see US Foreign policy as a way of extending their individual business interests throughout the globe.
Children of Democracy - Those who feel that that the US has an ideological mission to spread democracy.
Gamers - Those who see US Foreign Politics as a game of good against evil that must be won at all costs by the forces of good.
Stabilizers - Those who feel that US foreign policy should work at all cost to stabilize the world and ensure 'peace'.
Christian Elite - Group that argues that US politics must act to prevent the spread of such anti-Christian ideologies as Islam and Communism.
Single Power Proliferaters - Those who believe that the US has no allies at all and should operate covertly or in any way possible to prevent the emergence of a legitimate competitor to American hegemony.
Single Enemies of Choice - Group that are obsessed in stopping the actions of one power in particular. This power could be: China, Russia, the Moslem World etc.
Namesakers - Individuals who see foreign policy as a stage for making a name for themselves. They are motivated by nothing else.
Cold Warriors - Those who are still nostalgic for the Cold War and wish to recreate the period in some form or another again in the near future.
Competitor groups - opposing factions in the US, who are not necessarily ideologically driven, but see Foreign Policy as a vehicle or stage to ensure their individual group influence and strike a blow against their competitor faction.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Nine Possible Outcomes for Canada (2015-2200)
Take your pick..............
1. Quebec will separate to form its own state. Rest of Canada will exist as its own state as well.
2. Quebec will not separate from Canada but will gain special status within the Canadian Federation.
3. Quebec will separate. Rest of Canadian provinces will join with the United States.
4. Quebec will separate. Several provinces (not all) will join with the United States.
5. Quebec will separate. US will split up. Rest of Canadian Provinces will pair up with different US states to form regional power entities.
6. Quebec will not separate but Canada will be absorbed into the United States to form a new North American nation.
7. Quebec will separate. Remaining Canadian Provinces will join selectively with each other to form separate nations. ie. Alberta-BC, Manitoba-Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Maritimes.
Canada will break down into even more independent entities following the separation of Quebec. For example cities such as Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver may become nation states unto their own. Several native homelands may gain independence as well.
8. Quebec Nationalism is watered down, by immigration of diverse populations from all over the globe, until it eventually becomes insignificant. The difference between provinces on crucial issues of identity decreases over time until the Province structure collapses and Canada becomes one single united nation.
9. Status Quo prevails...
1. Quebec will separate to form its own state. Rest of Canada will exist as its own state as well.
2. Quebec will not separate from Canada but will gain special status within the Canadian Federation.
3. Quebec will separate. Rest of Canadian provinces will join with the United States.
4. Quebec will separate. Several provinces (not all) will join with the United States.
5. Quebec will separate. US will split up. Rest of Canadian Provinces will pair up with different US states to form regional power entities.
6. Quebec will not separate but Canada will be absorbed into the United States to form a new North American nation.
7. Quebec will separate. Remaining Canadian Provinces will join selectively with each other to form separate nations. ie. Alberta-BC, Manitoba-Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Maritimes.
Canada will break down into even more independent entities following the separation of Quebec. For example cities such as Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver may become nation states unto their own. Several native homelands may gain independence as well.
8. Quebec Nationalism is watered down, by immigration of diverse populations from all over the globe, until it eventually becomes insignificant. The difference between provinces on crucial issues of identity decreases over time until the Province structure collapses and Canada becomes one single united nation.
9. Status Quo prevails...
A Personal Clarification
I believe that I have always been a conservative in that I have great admiration and respect for the foundations that underpin Western Society. It is this basis, rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, that have contributed to the success of the civilization in the political, scientific, cultural and judicial spheres. It also has provided the guarantees upon which the democratic freedoms that we enjoy today are anchored. I am therefore supportive of the notion of tradition not as a complete rigidity but as a framework for growth and meaningful progress. My conservatism is one of Classic Liberalism that respects the right of the individual against the horde of the collective. It is a philosophy that has emerged from history as a bulwark against the totalitarianism and frivolities of radicalism and I believe it is the only long term mechanism we have to counteract the emerging barbarisms.
While there is a certain idealism to my belief there is also a strong recourse to a pragmatism that seeks workable solution within the construct of absolute morality. It is not one of pacifism and abstract equivalencies but a thinking that remains rooted to our proven avenues of survival and overall betterment.
In the contemporary world I am aware that my views are to the right of the political spectrum and I have no qualms of classifying them a such (especially as the center today remains adrift in a sea of relativism). For it is with the right (in particular the new right) that such keystones as freedom of speech, private property and meritocracy are most likely to be protected.
Conservatism however is a broad field and the variations as expanded on by numerous thinkers have certainly enriched the dynamic. I take pleasure in this differentiation as I seek to mold from its richness a better understanding of the world. This is not to say that I have ignored the landscape of political thought that exists outside this milieu. Indeed I have spent much time studying the thinking of leftist and left-liberal thinkers and while there have been some convincing arguments especially in the regions of health care and the environment I have for the most part found these ideological pursuits, at best lacking in sound thinking and at worst dangerous to the plight of humanity.
While there is a certain idealism to my belief there is also a strong recourse to a pragmatism that seeks workable solution within the construct of absolute morality. It is not one of pacifism and abstract equivalencies but a thinking that remains rooted to our proven avenues of survival and overall betterment.
In the contemporary world I am aware that my views are to the right of the political spectrum and I have no qualms of classifying them a such (especially as the center today remains adrift in a sea of relativism). For it is with the right (in particular the new right) that such keystones as freedom of speech, private property and meritocracy are most likely to be protected.
Conservatism however is a broad field and the variations as expanded on by numerous thinkers have certainly enriched the dynamic. I take pleasure in this differentiation as I seek to mold from its richness a better understanding of the world. This is not to say that I have ignored the landscape of political thought that exists outside this milieu. Indeed I have spent much time studying the thinking of leftist and left-liberal thinkers and while there have been some convincing arguments especially in the regions of health care and the environment I have for the most part found these ideological pursuits, at best lacking in sound thinking and at worst dangerous to the plight of humanity.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A New Era Dawns...A take on the next four years
Gitmo is closed down and the captives are awarded a fully fledged tax payer provided vacation courtesy of the US government on the condition that Roseanne Barr and Rosie O’Donnell accompany them. The captives immediately ask to be returned to Gitmo instead.
Bill Ayers authors the new Education Policy for the Obama Education…..First Grade reader books open up with such phrases as ‘Kill the Pigs now’, ‘See Jane Bomb, bomb , bomb’ and ‘Give it to the Man’. Now every child can be left behind…..but at least its equitable.
A crisis breaks out in the Jihadist world when it is revealed that the organization supplying the 72 virgins for suicide bombings is teetering on bankruptcy. Democrat Dennis Kucenich immediately orders a bailout. A similar motion is put forth by George Galloway in the UK .
Alex Cockburn at the Suckerpunch... oops… Counterpunch rag admits that his struggling journal is close to financial ruin although he manages to secure funding at the 11th hour from a consortium led by North Korean interests, who urge him to tone down his extremist rhetoric.
Jon Stewart collapses in silence after some jester mixes up his cue cards. ‘ How dare somebody do this to me’ explained Stewart…..’they know I am not funny when it comes to off the cuff humor’.
Noam Chomsky bags his 1000th leftist groupie…apparently he will write about his experience in his new book – Milking Dissent.
Isolated and depressed with no Republicans to attack Mike Moore tries to make a movie decrying the Pizza Industry and championing the benefits of Venezuelan tacos. For some reason nobody takes him seriously.
Colombia University invites Satan to come speak on campus….Christ interrupts but the ACLU complains arguing that religion has no place in the University System. Student groups led by visiting professor Cornel West, argue that Satan has been marginalized for too long throughout history and should not be silenced any longer….
Hamas agrees to amend its hateful anti-semitic charter provided that all Jews in the Middle East agree to relocate to a small raft in the Mediterranean Sea . Richard Falk praises Hamas’ commitment to peace while Jimmy Carter scolds Israel for not taking the offer seriously.
In a move to appeal to a more diverse audience Stephen Colbert agrees to sideline his clueless Conservative alter ego for that of the ‘dimwit liberal’ but later changes his mind when it is revealed that there are already enough liberals doing that for real.
Bill Ayers authors the new Education Policy for the Obama Education…..First Grade reader books open up with such phrases as ‘Kill the Pigs now’, ‘See Jane Bomb, bomb , bomb’ and ‘Give it to the Man’. Now every child can be left behind…..but at least its equitable.
A crisis breaks out in the Jihadist world when it is revealed that the organization supplying the 72 virgins for suicide bombings is teetering on bankruptcy. Democrat Dennis Kucenich immediately orders a bailout. A similar motion is put forth by George Galloway in the UK .
Alex Cockburn at the Suckerpunch... oops… Counterpunch rag admits that his struggling journal is close to financial ruin although he manages to secure funding at the 11th hour from a consortium led by North Korean interests, who urge him to tone down his extremist rhetoric.
Jon Stewart collapses in silence after some jester mixes up his cue cards. ‘ How dare somebody do this to me’ explained Stewart…..’they know I am not funny when it comes to off the cuff humor’.
Noam Chomsky bags his 1000th leftist groupie…apparently he will write about his experience in his new book – Milking Dissent.
Isolated and depressed with no Republicans to attack Mike Moore tries to make a movie decrying the Pizza Industry and championing the benefits of Venezuelan tacos. For some reason nobody takes him seriously.
Colombia University invites Satan to come speak on campus….Christ interrupts but the ACLU complains arguing that religion has no place in the University System. Student groups led by visiting professor Cornel West, argue that Satan has been marginalized for too long throughout history and should not be silenced any longer….
Hamas agrees to amend its hateful anti-semitic charter provided that all Jews in the Middle East agree to relocate to a small raft in the Mediterranean Sea . Richard Falk praises Hamas’ commitment to peace while Jimmy Carter scolds Israel for not taking the offer seriously.
In a move to appeal to a more diverse audience Stephen Colbert agrees to sideline his clueless Conservative alter ego for that of the ‘dimwit liberal’ but later changes his mind when it is revealed that there are already enough liberals doing that for real.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
In the News LI
On Blue Dogs in the Democrat Party
According to the WSJ Blue Dogs may hold the key to the Party's future success.
If I were an American I would probably be a Blue Dog so this is music to my ears.
Victory over Hamas
Ronald Radosh makes the vital case as to why Israel must defeat Hamas.
Term Limits for Hugo Chavez
The people of Venezuela can impose term limits on this egomaniac. They should before he runs the country into the ground...
The Messiah comes to Washington (On the Obama Inauguration)
He is taking the path followed by Abe Lincoln...I wish him well but express reservations...
British Liberal Democrats buys into the disproportionate stupidity argument
No surprise here the party flew off the rails some time ago...Still they are way better than that anti-semite George Galloway and his terror lovers at RESPECT. Here is a fun quiz on Galloway
A You-tube where Mugabe says - 'Let me be a Hitler ten-fold....' and to think the leftist intelligensia at the University of Edinburgh once gave this guy an honourary doctorate.
Ask yourself why this mass murder in the Congo was so undereported by the Anti-Israel obsessed press who claim to champion human rights?
Canada's dumbest and equally hateful academic Michael Neumann, who apparently teaches philosophy at last chance Trent U, had this to say in one of his many rants against Israel...
Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
(Source: Counterpunch)
Is there any wonder that Ultra-Leftists such as Neumann are often labelled as 'Jews for a Second Holocaust'? Steve Plaut has more on this in his excellent blog.
According to the WSJ Blue Dogs may hold the key to the Party's future success.
If I were an American I would probably be a Blue Dog so this is music to my ears.
Victory over Hamas
Ronald Radosh makes the vital case as to why Israel must defeat Hamas.
Term Limits for Hugo Chavez
The people of Venezuela can impose term limits on this egomaniac. They should before he runs the country into the ground...
The Messiah comes to Washington (On the Obama Inauguration)
He is taking the path followed by Abe Lincoln...I wish him well but express reservations...
British Liberal Democrats buys into the disproportionate stupidity argument
No surprise here the party flew off the rails some time ago...Still they are way better than that anti-semite George Galloway and his terror lovers at RESPECT. Here is a fun quiz on Galloway
A You-tube where Mugabe says - 'Let me be a Hitler ten-fold....' and to think the leftist intelligensia at the University of Edinburgh once gave this guy an honourary doctorate.
Ask yourself why this mass murder in the Congo was so undereported by the Anti-Israel obsessed press who claim to champion human rights?
Canada's dumbest and equally hateful academic Michael Neumann, who apparently teaches philosophy at last chance Trent U, had this to say in one of his many rants against Israel...
Israel is certainly entitled to protect its citizens by evacuation and other non-violent measures, but it is not entitled to harm a hair on the head of a Palestinian firing rockets into Israeli cities, whether or not these rockets kill innocent civilians.
(Source: Counterpunch)
Is there any wonder that Ultra-Leftists such as Neumann are often labelled as 'Jews for a Second Holocaust'? Steve Plaut has more on this in his excellent blog.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
I don't believe in Hell.........
I don't believe in Hell but if there were such a place the following individuals should be there:
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Josef Stalin
3. Pol Pot
4. Che Guevera
5. Yasser Arafat
6. George Habash
7. Reinhard Heydrich
8. Josef Goebbels
9. Adolph Eichmann
10. Josef Mengele
11. Lavrentiy Beria
12. Herman Goering
13. Klaus Barbie
14. Hernan Cortes
15. Mao Zedong
16. Hafez Assad
17. Enver Hoxha
18. Sheikh Yassin
19. Atilla the Hun
20. Genghis Khan
1. Adolph Hitler
2. Josef Stalin
3. Pol Pot
4. Che Guevera
5. Yasser Arafat
6. George Habash
7. Reinhard Heydrich
8. Josef Goebbels
9. Adolph Eichmann
10. Josef Mengele
11. Lavrentiy Beria
12. Herman Goering
13. Klaus Barbie
14. Hernan Cortes
15. Mao Zedong
16. Hafez Assad
17. Enver Hoxha
18. Sheikh Yassin
19. Atilla the Hun
20. Genghis Khan
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
20 People/Organizations who have disappointed me
1. Condi Rice - Very wishy-washy in her role as Secretary of State...Made me look forward to the arrival of Hilary.
2. John McCain - Gave up the good fight against Obama well short of the finish line...I don't believe his heart was in it at the end.
3. Niall Ferguson - A great historical mind but at times falls prey to the delight of revisionism.
4. Dinesh D'Souza - Regressed from his excellent Magnum Opus 'Illiberal Education' to a silly thesis that Liberals were to blame for 911.
5. Lynn Margulis - A first rate biologist but what is she doing hanging around 911 truthers?
6. George W Bush - Has not taken a strong enough stance against illegal immigration into the US nor has he done much to decrease American dependency on Foreign Oil...
7. Annie Lennox - Eurthymics singer who now protests alongside supporters of Hamas terror.
8. Richard Dawkins - Has allowed his own religion of scientism to override the limits of science.
9. Rafa Benitez - His rants against Alex Ferguson have no value in the game...Liverpool managers have always had style.
10. Madonna - Her videos linking John McCain to Hitler were disgraceful.
11. Ban Ki Moon - Actually as UN Secretary General he is basically par for the course.
12. George Soros - Seemed to be a positive force in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War - he has now become the daddy moneybags for a host of Far Leftist causes that are damaging to the US.
13. Donald Rumsfeld - Failed to Apply common sense thinking to the post Iraqi War Situation.
14. Nelson Mandela - Has not taken a strong stance against Robert Mugabe's tyranny in Zimbabwe.
15. Sean Penn - His acting credentials are without question but his uber left politics (gushing over Saddam Hussein and later Chavez) have much to be desired.
16. Andrew Sullivan - Once a voice of reason in the blogosphere now just another Obama lackey.
17. Cato Institute - For putting financial greed way ahead of National Security.
18. John Murtha - For not coming clean about his Haditha witch hunt.
19. Harvard University - For allowing Feminist radicals to drive out Larry Summers via a malicious smear campaign.
20. Rudy Guiliani - For running one of the worst presidential campaigns in American History.
2. John McCain - Gave up the good fight against Obama well short of the finish line...I don't believe his heart was in it at the end.
3. Niall Ferguson - A great historical mind but at times falls prey to the delight of revisionism.
4. Dinesh D'Souza - Regressed from his excellent Magnum Opus 'Illiberal Education' to a silly thesis that Liberals were to blame for 911.
5. Lynn Margulis - A first rate biologist but what is she doing hanging around 911 truthers?
6. George W Bush - Has not taken a strong enough stance against illegal immigration into the US nor has he done much to decrease American dependency on Foreign Oil...
7. Annie Lennox - Eurthymics singer who now protests alongside supporters of Hamas terror.
8. Richard Dawkins - Has allowed his own religion of scientism to override the limits of science.
9. Rafa Benitez - His rants against Alex Ferguson have no value in the game...Liverpool managers have always had style.
10. Madonna - Her videos linking John McCain to Hitler were disgraceful.
11. Ban Ki Moon - Actually as UN Secretary General he is basically par for the course.
12. George Soros - Seemed to be a positive force in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War - he has now become the daddy moneybags for a host of Far Leftist causes that are damaging to the US.
13. Donald Rumsfeld - Failed to Apply common sense thinking to the post Iraqi War Situation.
14. Nelson Mandela - Has not taken a strong stance against Robert Mugabe's tyranny in Zimbabwe.
15. Sean Penn - His acting credentials are without question but his uber left politics (gushing over Saddam Hussein and later Chavez) have much to be desired.
16. Andrew Sullivan - Once a voice of reason in the blogosphere now just another Obama lackey.
17. Cato Institute - For putting financial greed way ahead of National Security.
18. John Murtha - For not coming clean about his Haditha witch hunt.
19. Harvard University - For allowing Feminist radicals to drive out Larry Summers via a malicious smear campaign.
20. Rudy Guiliani - For running one of the worst presidential campaigns in American History.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Israel v Hamas - Reactions from Canada
Sid Ryan, the proverbial windbag from CUPE Ontario, attempted to stir the pot further by initiating an academic boycott against Israel. As usual Ryan went off on a rant comparing Israel to that favourite cliche of the hard left...Nazi Germany. With tongue-in-cheek (to replace his foot-in-mouth) he apologized and then was made to eat humble pie on the Michael Coren show when his entire case against Israel was deconstructed and found wanting....Will this change Ryan's attitude? Not bloody likely...he is so in bed with the Anti-Israel chattering classes that he and has absolutely no desire to fully understand this issue. Ryan is a silly little man with media exposure and a vehicle to express it..the person who coined the term loose canon may have had him in mind. On a further note why does a Union representing Ontario public service labour issues need a foreign policy anyway?
Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party's PM in waiting, endorsed Israel's fight against the Islamofascists of Hamas. As an Israel supporter this should inspire me to do cartwheels...but I am not.... Ignatieff (like most Liberals) has a history of backtracking...he did so in 2006 in the fight against Hezbollah and I believe that it is only a matter of time before the Pro-Terror crowd within the Liebral party forces him to recant and inappropriately condemn Israel for defending herself...
Jeet Heer is another one of those third rate Academic minds who pontificate in our University system (and they say that University is a place of knowledge). In an article in the usually Conservative National Post he argues that Jews should start paying attention to the blog writings of three leftist Jewish bloggers. Thanks for the advice Jeet...but a Second Jewish Holocaust is not an option. Nevertheless Heer does make a point and a very sad one indeed...too many diaspora Jews are apathetic about the Israel situation...I blame it on a lack of understanding of history (a product of our dumbed down education system) and the trap of prosperity that allows many Jews (like many others) living in the Western World to have the luxury of removing themselves from the world of reality to their own bubble existence. Compound this with an endless flow of pro-Terror Propaganda, a predominance of Israel bashing academics (such as Heer, Juan Cole, Falk etc. ) a large core of spineless others and you can see why this is the case. Its time for Jews to stand up and counteract such nonsense.
The following is a list of worthwhile articles to read
Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza
Stop this Slaughter! England Must Stop Waging War on the Nazis
The War Against the Jews and its Western Apologists
Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party's PM in waiting, endorsed Israel's fight against the Islamofascists of Hamas. As an Israel supporter this should inspire me to do cartwheels...but I am not.... Ignatieff (like most Liberals) has a history of backtracking...he did so in 2006 in the fight against Hezbollah and I believe that it is only a matter of time before the Pro-Terror crowd within the Liebral party forces him to recant and inappropriately condemn Israel for defending herself...
Jeet Heer is another one of those third rate Academic minds who pontificate in our University system (and they say that University is a place of knowledge). In an article in the usually Conservative National Post he argues that Jews should start paying attention to the blog writings of three leftist Jewish bloggers. Thanks for the advice Jeet...but a Second Jewish Holocaust is not an option. Nevertheless Heer does make a point and a very sad one indeed...too many diaspora Jews are apathetic about the Israel situation...I blame it on a lack of understanding of history (a product of our dumbed down education system) and the trap of prosperity that allows many Jews (like many others) living in the Western World to have the luxury of removing themselves from the world of reality to their own bubble existence. Compound this with an endless flow of pro-Terror Propaganda, a predominance of Israel bashing academics (such as Heer, Juan Cole, Falk etc. ) a large core of spineless others and you can see why this is the case. Its time for Jews to stand up and counteract such nonsense.
The following is a list of worthwhile articles to read
Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza
Stop this Slaughter! England Must Stop Waging War on the Nazis
The War Against the Jews and its Western Apologists
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Israel Strikes back
It took them long enough...months and months of restraint against the backdrop of the Sderot shelling...but Israel has finally decided to do something about Hamas' terror ambitions.
The following list of articles are worth reading
Israel must fight and win by. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
The Necessity of Israel by Charles Krauthammer
Europe Embrace Evil Again by Pamela Geller
(of interest...sadly as it seems was the presence of two more useful idiot celebrity figures, Annie Lennox - of Eurthymics fame and Bianca Jagger, at a pro-Hamas rally in London. Maybe they deserve the Londonistan that they will soon be living in).
In the mean time my pray and best wishes are with the Israeli forces and people at yet another critical point in Jewish history.
The following list of articles are worth reading
Israel must fight and win by. W. Thomas Smith Jr.
The Necessity of Israel by Charles Krauthammer
Europe Embrace Evil Again by Pamela Geller
(of interest...sadly as it seems was the presence of two more useful idiot celebrity figures, Annie Lennox - of Eurthymics fame and Bianca Jagger, at a pro-Hamas rally in London. Maybe they deserve the Londonistan that they will soon be living in).
In the mean time my pray and best wishes are with the Israeli forces and people at yet another critical point in Jewish history.
International stupidity
As usual Victor Davis Hanson - one of my favourite commentators says it so well.......
Source: National Review
There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.
Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.
Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world's craven reaction to all this.
Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien's Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised "international community," the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed.
Source: National Review
There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.
Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.
Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world's craven reaction to all this.
Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien's Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised "international community," the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Movies that I have seen lately
Seven Pounds – The story dragged considerably and the hints were sparse as to what was to happen at the end (lets face it we all new that something big was on the horizon). As usual Will Smith played his part well although I am not sure whether his character was too much of a deviation from his actual personality (on the surface level anyway). Rosario Dawson was bearable and Woody Harrelson virtually negligible with Smith dominating the moving in its entirety. This is more one for the DVD player than it is for the Big Screen but all-in-all I don’t feel two bad about the two looneys I coughed up to watch it.
Rating: 6/10
Frost/Nixon – As a history buff I find the material fascinating so I was on board with the story line from the get go. The movie appeared to walk the fine line between criticizing Nixon and letting the 37th President ‘tell his side of the story’ for at least the first three quarters of the movie before degenerating into the normal holier-than-thou stance that liberals take when speaking about Watergate. Frank Langella was first rate in his portrayal of Nixon, and deserves an Oscar for his work, as was the acting of Michael Sheen (he of the cat-in-the hat-grin) and Kevin Bacon. As for the history there is no doubt that the movie exaggerated the significance of the interview. It also failed to mention at the end that Nixon had a very favourable post-Presidential role as a foreign policy advisor to a host of presidents while writing several books on international relations at the same time. This leaves uninformed viewer with the false impression that Frost (who career after the interview has not grabbed the world by storm) actually derailed the Nixon intellectual express. Nevertheless I must complement the cinematography as well as Ron Howard’s directing skills in bringing to life a topic that could have spiraled into nothing.
Rating: 7.5/10
Rating: 6/10
Frost/Nixon – As a history buff I find the material fascinating so I was on board with the story line from the get go. The movie appeared to walk the fine line between criticizing Nixon and letting the 37th President ‘tell his side of the story’ for at least the first three quarters of the movie before degenerating into the normal holier-than-thou stance that liberals take when speaking about Watergate. Frank Langella was first rate in his portrayal of Nixon, and deserves an Oscar for his work, as was the acting of Michael Sheen (he of the cat-in-the hat-grin) and Kevin Bacon. As for the history there is no doubt that the movie exaggerated the significance of the interview. It also failed to mention at the end that Nixon had a very favourable post-Presidential role as a foreign policy advisor to a host of presidents while writing several books on international relations at the same time. This leaves uninformed viewer with the false impression that Frost (who career after the interview has not grabbed the world by storm) actually derailed the Nixon intellectual express. Nevertheless I must complement the cinematography as well as Ron Howard’s directing skills in bringing to life a topic that could have spiraled into nothing.
Rating: 7.5/10
Friday, January 02, 2009
On Jewish Survival
The following is the next installment in my Reply to John Ray of Dissecting Leftism fame.
On Jewish Survival
To John
It is certainly on the mark to argue that Jewish history has been cursed with a litany of horrors. It is also correct to note that the Judaism with a history over three thousand years ultimately survived these horrors. What is open for real questioning (as you duly infer) is whether this survival has been one of style and from a strategic standpoint could it have been more impressive in both number and in form. Your argument makes a good point in noting that the Jews, from a numerical perspective are a relatively small population. I agree less than fifteen million in a world closing in on seven billion souls is clearly small potatoes. Many a biologist would scoff at such notions of real survivability especially in a world where offspring numbers seem on the surface to be a clear indicator of success in nature.
However numbers, particularly in a biological framework, can mislead perhaps just as easily as they affirm. The Passenger pigeon for one dominated North American skies up until the 18th century, but today it is extinct. The same fate would likely have befallen the American Bison if it not for the brave work of conservationists. Biological history is suffused with other creatures whose numerical advantage proved to be of little ultimate value in the duration of the survival game. On the other hand the rare Coelecanth has survived from Ancient times outliving a plethora of other fish that once dwarfed it in abundancy. The same is true of that living fossil, the crocodile. (While it is true that crocodiles sit at the top of the food chain and therefore have no predators, as a top predators it is even more likely to face extinction as its energy requirements aren’t usually tolerant of a compromise in the trophic levels below them).
So what do these life science examples mean for the Jews? We know that temporally related number counts are not everything. The Great Empires of the past boasted large numbers but most lie on the scrap heap of history today. Each of the Akkadians, Hittites, Lydians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuk Turks, Nazca, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas all fall into this category. Not to mention the Old Celtic and Harappan civilizations. All had their style once but now that style is more of a curiosity than anything else. One could say that some have survived under a different guise: The Zoroastrian Persians are now predominatly Shi’ite Muslims - an outsider cultural takeover if ever there was one - while the Ancient Egyptians have been assimilated into an Arab World that for all intent of purpose has regressed considerably from the Golden Age. I am therefore not convinced that this qualifies as survival at all. The Jews on the other hand stared down many of their adversaries (and pf course suffered for it at times), but the core of the culture, the very basis that certainly defines it has emerged largely intact despite the turbulence.
Yes Ashkenazic Jews do differ from Sepharidic Jews. In fact each of these categories have sub-categories within them (leave it to the Jews to find some minor points to squabble over) rendering such a classification system partly meaningless. However at its core (among Judaism’s adherents) lies a commonality which champions free will and the responsible philosophy of ethical monotheism. This is part of the Jewish survival strength. Not easily quantifiable but certainly background significant.
On additional point you mention that Christianity has expanded in number to the point where its followers number around a billion. However what you didn’t mention is that Christianity’s rapid expansion (a physicist may call this inflation) was largely due to its vigilant promotion by the Roman Emperor Constantine, following his defeat of his rival Maxentius at Milvian Bridge in 312AD. Constantine was a zealot in his stance. He actively worked to eradicate paganism and promoted Christian bishops to high positions in his court. There is some arguments as to why he adopted this pro-Christian stance. One school argues that it was for the sake of political unity (Rome was divided by a multitude of conflicting beliefs…Constantine may have been an original opponent of multi-culturalism…and needed a new glue to bind his subjects to a common cause). Others believe that his transformation was genuine and of spiritual significance. Regardless how one sees it, the end result was Christianity received the single greatest growth boost in its history.
A further milestone was reached when Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor and Gratian, his counterpart in the West, recognized Christianity as the official Religion of the East (380 AD) and Western portions of the Empire respectively. The religion’s dominance was now solidified. Judaism on the other hand would never be the recipient of such official sponsorship from such influential figures. European History is filled with further examples of local leaders first converting to Christianity (for one reason or another) and then bringing the bulk of their populace into the umbrella of the church in the follow-up.
I will not enter into the ‘people without a state argument’ as it has already been dealt with in earlier posts by others. However I will take up the ‘choice of allies argument that you put forth’. The Jews I believe have traditionally looked for allies…however where they have erred is that in doing so they often compromised their beliefs to fit in with the nuances of the so-called brothers in arms. This has almost always backfired. The Marxists/communists/socialists offered them lip service (behind a veneer of anti-semitism) in exchange for a divorce from their religious soul while a rush to join the ranks of capitalism has had the consequence of catalyzing a materialistic assimilation. In addition the Christian churches traditionally turned a cold shoulder to any advances.- preferring conversion to accommodation. In short where were the Jews to turn?
Now its true in contemporary times that Evangelical Christians (particularly in the US) have offered a hand of friendship, which I believe that Jews should take. Many have, especially those on the conservative real of Jewish politics (Israel itself has a multitude of programs that encourage Evangelical Christians to visit the Holy Land). The fact that some in the ADL chooses to see otherwise, in turning a blind eye to such assistance, is more of its leadership sinking into the sludge of anti-clerical secularism than anything else.
Cheers
Gavin Kanowitz
Worldoreason
A South African- born Jew in a Canadian court.
On Jewish Survival
To John
It is certainly on the mark to argue that Jewish history has been cursed with a litany of horrors. It is also correct to note that the Judaism with a history over three thousand years ultimately survived these horrors. What is open for real questioning (as you duly infer) is whether this survival has been one of style and from a strategic standpoint could it have been more impressive in both number and in form. Your argument makes a good point in noting that the Jews, from a numerical perspective are a relatively small population. I agree less than fifteen million in a world closing in on seven billion souls is clearly small potatoes. Many a biologist would scoff at such notions of real survivability especially in a world where offspring numbers seem on the surface to be a clear indicator of success in nature.
However numbers, particularly in a biological framework, can mislead perhaps just as easily as they affirm. The Passenger pigeon for one dominated North American skies up until the 18th century, but today it is extinct. The same fate would likely have befallen the American Bison if it not for the brave work of conservationists. Biological history is suffused with other creatures whose numerical advantage proved to be of little ultimate value in the duration of the survival game. On the other hand the rare Coelecanth has survived from Ancient times outliving a plethora of other fish that once dwarfed it in abundancy. The same is true of that living fossil, the crocodile. (While it is true that crocodiles sit at the top of the food chain and therefore have no predators, as a top predators it is even more likely to face extinction as its energy requirements aren’t usually tolerant of a compromise in the trophic levels below them).
So what do these life science examples mean for the Jews? We know that temporally related number counts are not everything. The Great Empires of the past boasted large numbers but most lie on the scrap heap of history today. Each of the Akkadians, Hittites, Lydians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuk Turks, Nazca, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas all fall into this category. Not to mention the Old Celtic and Harappan civilizations. All had their style once but now that style is more of a curiosity than anything else. One could say that some have survived under a different guise: The Zoroastrian Persians are now predominatly Shi’ite Muslims - an outsider cultural takeover if ever there was one - while the Ancient Egyptians have been assimilated into an Arab World that for all intent of purpose has regressed considerably from the Golden Age. I am therefore not convinced that this qualifies as survival at all. The Jews on the other hand stared down many of their adversaries (and pf course suffered for it at times), but the core of the culture, the very basis that certainly defines it has emerged largely intact despite the turbulence.
Yes Ashkenazic Jews do differ from Sepharidic Jews. In fact each of these categories have sub-categories within them (leave it to the Jews to find some minor points to squabble over) rendering such a classification system partly meaningless. However at its core (among Judaism’s adherents) lies a commonality which champions free will and the responsible philosophy of ethical monotheism. This is part of the Jewish survival strength. Not easily quantifiable but certainly background significant.
On additional point you mention that Christianity has expanded in number to the point where its followers number around a billion. However what you didn’t mention is that Christianity’s rapid expansion (a physicist may call this inflation) was largely due to its vigilant promotion by the Roman Emperor Constantine, following his defeat of his rival Maxentius at Milvian Bridge in 312AD. Constantine was a zealot in his stance. He actively worked to eradicate paganism and promoted Christian bishops to high positions in his court. There is some arguments as to why he adopted this pro-Christian stance. One school argues that it was for the sake of political unity (Rome was divided by a multitude of conflicting beliefs…Constantine may have been an original opponent of multi-culturalism…and needed a new glue to bind his subjects to a common cause). Others believe that his transformation was genuine and of spiritual significance. Regardless how one sees it, the end result was Christianity received the single greatest growth boost in its history.
A further milestone was reached when Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor and Gratian, his counterpart in the West, recognized Christianity as the official Religion of the East (380 AD) and Western portions of the Empire respectively. The religion’s dominance was now solidified. Judaism on the other hand would never be the recipient of such official sponsorship from such influential figures. European History is filled with further examples of local leaders first converting to Christianity (for one reason or another) and then bringing the bulk of their populace into the umbrella of the church in the follow-up.
I will not enter into the ‘people without a state argument’ as it has already been dealt with in earlier posts by others. However I will take up the ‘choice of allies argument that you put forth’. The Jews I believe have traditionally looked for allies…however where they have erred is that in doing so they often compromised their beliefs to fit in with the nuances of the so-called brothers in arms. This has almost always backfired. The Marxists/communists/socialists offered them lip service (behind a veneer of anti-semitism) in exchange for a divorce from their religious soul while a rush to join the ranks of capitalism has had the consequence of catalyzing a materialistic assimilation. In addition the Christian churches traditionally turned a cold shoulder to any advances.- preferring conversion to accommodation. In short where were the Jews to turn?
Now its true in contemporary times that Evangelical Christians (particularly in the US) have offered a hand of friendship, which I believe that Jews should take. Many have, especially those on the conservative real of Jewish politics (Israel itself has a multitude of programs that encourage Evangelical Christians to visit the Holy Land). The fact that some in the ADL chooses to see otherwise, in turning a blind eye to such assistance, is more of its leadership sinking into the sludge of anti-clerical secularism than anything else.
Cheers
Gavin Kanowitz
Worldoreason
A South African- born Jew in a Canadian court.
Western Indifference??
The following is my reply to a debate I had recently on the internet...Topic Western Indifference to the suffering of Africans (he has not as of yet responded to my replies)
My replies are in Red.
His original wording is in black.
My links posted are in Blue.
I have to agree with Gavin here. the silence of African-American leaders (or any other leaders for that matter) on this issue is very much something that everyone should be ashamed of. Everyone is eager to jump into a discussion on racism, and how to stop racial violence, but when it is people of the same race, there is very little comment.
From Leftist/liberal sources perhaps….Most Conservative News Sources consistently mention these which is why I believe that at the end of the day the right is more universal in its approach to human rights…the left is all about smoke and mirrors and feeling good about oneself the neo-con right in particular is about action
Ironically when neo-conservatives (in the tradition of Leo Strauss and Scoop Jackson) advocate interventionism as a means of preventing future horrors (how many lives would have been saved during the holocaust had the West followed such an approach earlier) they are cynically branded as post-colonial imperialists by the do-nothing contingent of the ‘progressive’ left.
It also shows the lack of regard the west has for the lives of africans.
I don’t believe this is true although the ‘selfish west’ meme has been around for some time (the super inept UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was a big popularizer of the idea), Western Countries have donated billions of dollars to Africa on both a government, NGO and private donation level (those evil Americans rank amongst the most generous…. ahead of morally superior Canadians who tend to be a bit stingier with the looney). Ironically and you will hardly see it on campuses (where BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome is an epidemic) the current US administration has done more than any previous administration in the fight against HIV in Africa for example.
Even the uber-leftist Guradian agrees
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa
In short the West has bent over backwards to save Africa (a continent riddled with corruption and governed by a smorgasbord of incompetents) however the results have not been promising
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201150.html
f that happened in the US, or Canada, or Britain, it would be all over the news and there would be an international furor. but this incident in the congo gets a twenty second slot on the news, and everyone not everyone goes "oh. how horrible" and then don't give it another thought. Its the same thing as we hear about bombings in India or Pakistan.
(On another note if a Palestinian suicide bomber was killed in advance of a sabotage we would all hear about it ad nauseum via a mountain of criticism directed toward Israel)
Unless someone white dies, the west doesn't seem to care.
In a sense you are correct… the Islamists know this as well which explains why so many of the 12,000 attacks that they have orchestrated since 9/11 have been so under reported....Such as this one
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/12/26/08/military-names-milf-commanders-deadly-civilian-attacks
Here is another news clip that you won’t find in the Toronto Star or Utne Reader for that matter.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Taliban_threaten_to_kill_Pakistani_schoolgirls/articleshow/3890827.cms?TOI_latestnews
Till later
Gavin
My replies are in Red.
His original wording is in black.
My links posted are in Blue.
I have to agree with Gavin here. the silence of African-American leaders (or any other leaders for that matter) on this issue is very much something that everyone should be ashamed of. Everyone is eager to jump into a discussion on racism, and how to stop racial violence, but when it is people of the same race, there is very little comment.
From Leftist/liberal sources perhaps….Most Conservative News Sources consistently mention these which is why I believe that at the end of the day the right is more universal in its approach to human rights…the left is all about smoke and mirrors and feeling good about oneself the neo-con right in particular is about action
Ironically when neo-conservatives (in the tradition of Leo Strauss and Scoop Jackson) advocate interventionism as a means of preventing future horrors (how many lives would have been saved during the holocaust had the West followed such an approach earlier) they are cynically branded as post-colonial imperialists by the do-nothing contingent of the ‘progressive’ left.
It also shows the lack of regard the west has for the lives of africans.
I don’t believe this is true although the ‘selfish west’ meme has been around for some time (the super inept UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, was a big popularizer of the idea), Western Countries have donated billions of dollars to Africa on both a government, NGO and private donation level (those evil Americans rank amongst the most generous…. ahead of morally superior Canadians who tend to be a bit stingier with the looney). Ironically and you will hardly see it on campuses (where BDS – Bush Derangement Syndrome is an epidemic) the current US administration has done more than any previous administration in the fight against HIV in Africa for example.
Even the uber-leftist Guradian agrees
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa
In short the West has bent over backwards to save Africa (a continent riddled with corruption and governed by a smorgasbord of incompetents) however the results have not been promising
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201150.html
f that happened in the US, or Canada, or Britain, it would be all over the news and there would be an international furor. but this incident in the congo gets a twenty second slot on the news, and everyone not everyone goes "oh. how horrible" and then don't give it another thought. Its the same thing as we hear about bombings in India or Pakistan.
(On another note if a Palestinian suicide bomber was killed in advance of a sabotage we would all hear about it ad nauseum via a mountain of criticism directed toward Israel)
Unless someone white dies, the west doesn't seem to care.
In a sense you are correct… the Islamists know this as well which explains why so many of the 12,000 attacks that they have orchestrated since 9/11 have been so under reported....Such as this one
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/12/26/08/military-names-milf-commanders-deadly-civilian-attacks
Here is another news clip that you won’t find in the Toronto Star or Utne Reader for that matter.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Taliban_threaten_to_kill_Pakistani_schoolgirls/articleshow/3890827.cms?TOI_latestnews
Till later
Gavin
On Stem Cells
There seems to be a lot more opposition against fetal stem cell usage then there really should be (adult stem cells are not as controversial for obvious reasons). As a champion of Science I believe that the advantage that they offer (in the field of cellular regeneration) far out way the danger posed by the potential harvesting of fetuses for stem cell collection purposes. Nevertheless the ethical concerns must be addressed as even the remote possibility of the latter must certainly send shivers down the spine of any individual who values the sanctity of human life.
The restrictions placed by the Bush administration on Stem Cell Research are on the surface draconian but from a research perspective they may have indirectly catalyzed a growth market in adult stem cell research which could render the use of Fetal stem Cells redundant.....The jury is out on this one as well.
I personally believe that with gene therapy, our growing understanding of the human genome and the factors that switch genes on and off - stem cell therapy may not be as vital a technique in the near future as it is now.....Time will tell...
The restrictions placed by the Bush administration on Stem Cell Research are on the surface draconian but from a research perspective they may have indirectly catalyzed a growth market in adult stem cell research which could render the use of Fetal stem Cells redundant.....The jury is out on this one as well.
I personally believe that with gene therapy, our growing understanding of the human genome and the factors that switch genes on and off - stem cell therapy may not be as vital a technique in the near future as it is now.....Time will tell...
Monday, December 29, 2008
Surviving with Style?
John Ray, a strong friend of the State of Israel, runs the excellent Dissecting Leftism Blog that I requently read. Recently he published a series of articles on the fate of the Jews and the survival of the English...The articles can be found on http://tongue-tied2.blogspot.com/2008/12/fate-of-jews-some-of-things-i-have.html
Here is my reply - Part I
To John
I am a regular reader of your blog, as mentioned in earlier correspondence, and have much admiration for your way of thinking especially your strict adherence to logic and reason. While I don’t agree with you on some points (usually economics) I find your insight into history refreshing. It’s a shame that you have received some abuse (probably from a few of my co-religionists) with respect to the ‘Success of the Jews’ theme that you have been expanding on but cooler heads are too often a rarity these days.
Nevertheless I wish to add some objections to your core thesis that agues that the English have survived in style for the last millennium and a half.
While on the surface this carries with it an apparent truism it overlooks the fact that English history, despite a popular misconception, has not been in and of itself peaceful. Looking at the period after 1066 (the time when England was last successfully invaded) Albion has witnessed on local soils rebellions by the Saxons against Norman Feudalism, the Baron Wars, Peasant Rebellions, the War of the Roses (which really spanned the era between Richard II and Henry VII), the English Civil War, the Jacobite War and the insurrection of Monmouth. If one adds in the American Revolution (which for all intent of purpose can be looked at as an internal struggle between English speaking people) it is evident that the English have had a long history of warring amongst themselves.
In addition if you add in the numerous English lives (mostly commoners) that have been lost in the pursuit of Empire on a global basis –not to mention those lives foregone in conflicts with Spain, the Netherlands, France, Scotland, Denmark, the United States etc – the idea of surviving with style, at least how it reflects down to the bulk of the populace, is found wanting.
Now I will not deny the fact the English have been very successful in transmitting their culture on a worldwide basis. The dominance of the English language and systems of education and governance attest to this phenomenon but it has come at a price which I believe cannot be swept so easily under the proverbial rug.
The English are a very admirable people (I have been somewhat of an anglophile for most of my life although my enthusiasm has waned as of late as British institutions which I once respected continue to shed ground to the Stealth Jihad) but the accident of geography that has afforded them island status clearly played a large role in their success (yes the Scots and Welsh could harass the English but by shear force of number were unlikely to ever win the upper hand….).
Winston Churchill was correct in arguing that the island situation was an advantage that could not last forever and that Britain would need to work on establishing alliances to ensure survival. This was not a novel idea at the Empire level (regional alliances with the Iroquois, the Basuto, the Sikhs were common) but in the more critical area of European politics it was particular loathsome to the English mindset. After the Napoleonic Wars and the obvious realization that the European Powers (Russia, Prussia and Austria) were intent on turning back the forces of liberalism and nationalism (via the Concert System) Britain retreated into a type of ‘splendid isolation’ where it focused on growing its Empire alone without outside interference. With the possible exception of the Crimean War this attitude characterized British geo-politically thinking up to the Second Anglo Boer War. It was only after the South African conflict, where British resources were stretched to breaking point by the guerilla tactics of well organized militia that the need for global allies would become a necessity. In fact one can pinpoint this change in policy to the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 1902, a framework that set the foundation for the Entente Cordiale with France and the Anglo-Russian Entente.
However even in this regard the Brits were slow to the post, for one the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy was already well established. Germany also had cultivated an ally in the Ottoman Turks. One could even argue (with hindsight) that Britain’s decision to enter into a system of alliances and thereby join the trend was ultimately what caused the weakening of the Empire by forcing London to engage in a vortex of events leading to the disastrous Great War (although I suspect that you will argue otherwise using the pretext that the growing influence of German Naval Power made war inevitable).
I believe that the success of the English people resides with a combination of factors. They are a very resourceful people (their pragmatic creativity during the First Industrial Revolution and beyond bears this out) but so does a commitment to the free inquiry. The former has its structural origins in the English Reformation, but was further augmented by the battle against autocracy during the Civil War and the Hanoverian transfer of power during the reign of George I. These changes were not as forthcoming amongst Britain/England’s continental rivals who were forced to delay the coming of modernism to the Enlightenment Period.
However what has most served the English is their ability to adapt – to take the best from the outside and make it somehow English. They did this with the Roman system of laws, Grecian Rationalism, Judeo-Christian Ethics, Stoicism and Iberian naval proficiency. It is this same characteristic that the family branch of the English, the Americans, have utilized with remarkable success today (Another island nation the Japanese are similar to the English in this regard).
It is this adaptation that has created the illusion that the English have resisted invasion. While no army since William the Conqueror have overwhelmed the English on the home front since the 11th century (although the Hungarians humbled the English football team at Wembley in the 1950s) it is equally true that the English monarchy has resided in the hands of foreigners since then. The Normans were of a Franco/Norse stock, the House of Plantagenet, and its spin offs in Lancaster and York were all Gallic, the Tudors were Welsh, The Stuarts - Scottish and Hanover, Saxe-Coburg and Windsor were/are all German. Yes not since the ill-fated Harold Godwinson (aka Harold II) has England had a monarch of English ethnicity and before that power was invested for some time with Danish kings such as Canute and Hardicanute.
What is most remarkable though is that within a short period the English turned these foreigners into extensions of England itself…..so that their ethnicity is more a matter of historical detail than anything else.
However with each addition and influx of change a point of saturation is neared. Changes are rarely neutral with respect to key factors. The utility of adaptation carries with it a double-edged outcome. At what point in a series of changes is the system or the people no longer English?
British Internationalism, the overriding policy of adaptation, that dominates the nation in 2008 is a consequence of this underlying tendency, however in subjecting itself to the relativism of multiculturalism the Brits seem to have shot the bolt and traded away the base in one foul swoop. Could it be that the English will simply whither away? Over adapted themselves to death? …Maybe there is a grace in this style but I am at a loss to find it.
I am working on the Jewish side of the argument and will send you a reply soon……….
Here is my reply - Part I
To John
I am a regular reader of your blog, as mentioned in earlier correspondence, and have much admiration for your way of thinking especially your strict adherence to logic and reason. While I don’t agree with you on some points (usually economics) I find your insight into history refreshing. It’s a shame that you have received some abuse (probably from a few of my co-religionists) with respect to the ‘Success of the Jews’ theme that you have been expanding on but cooler heads are too often a rarity these days.
Nevertheless I wish to add some objections to your core thesis that agues that the English have survived in style for the last millennium and a half.
While on the surface this carries with it an apparent truism it overlooks the fact that English history, despite a popular misconception, has not been in and of itself peaceful. Looking at the period after 1066 (the time when England was last successfully invaded) Albion has witnessed on local soils rebellions by the Saxons against Norman Feudalism, the Baron Wars, Peasant Rebellions, the War of the Roses (which really spanned the era between Richard II and Henry VII), the English Civil War, the Jacobite War and the insurrection of Monmouth. If one adds in the American Revolution (which for all intent of purpose can be looked at as an internal struggle between English speaking people) it is evident that the English have had a long history of warring amongst themselves.
In addition if you add in the numerous English lives (mostly commoners) that have been lost in the pursuit of Empire on a global basis –not to mention those lives foregone in conflicts with Spain, the Netherlands, France, Scotland, Denmark, the United States etc – the idea of surviving with style, at least how it reflects down to the bulk of the populace, is found wanting.
Now I will not deny the fact the English have been very successful in transmitting their culture on a worldwide basis. The dominance of the English language and systems of education and governance attest to this phenomenon but it has come at a price which I believe cannot be swept so easily under the proverbial rug.
The English are a very admirable people (I have been somewhat of an anglophile for most of my life although my enthusiasm has waned as of late as British institutions which I once respected continue to shed ground to the Stealth Jihad) but the accident of geography that has afforded them island status clearly played a large role in their success (yes the Scots and Welsh could harass the English but by shear force of number were unlikely to ever win the upper hand….).
Winston Churchill was correct in arguing that the island situation was an advantage that could not last forever and that Britain would need to work on establishing alliances to ensure survival. This was not a novel idea at the Empire level (regional alliances with the Iroquois, the Basuto, the Sikhs were common) but in the more critical area of European politics it was particular loathsome to the English mindset. After the Napoleonic Wars and the obvious realization that the European Powers (Russia, Prussia and Austria) were intent on turning back the forces of liberalism and nationalism (via the Concert System) Britain retreated into a type of ‘splendid isolation’ where it focused on growing its Empire alone without outside interference. With the possible exception of the Crimean War this attitude characterized British geo-politically thinking up to the Second Anglo Boer War. It was only after the South African conflict, where British resources were stretched to breaking point by the guerilla tactics of well organized militia that the need for global allies would become a necessity. In fact one can pinpoint this change in policy to the signing of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 1902, a framework that set the foundation for the Entente Cordiale with France and the Anglo-Russian Entente.
However even in this regard the Brits were slow to the post, for one the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy was already well established. Germany also had cultivated an ally in the Ottoman Turks. One could even argue (with hindsight) that Britain’s decision to enter into a system of alliances and thereby join the trend was ultimately what caused the weakening of the Empire by forcing London to engage in a vortex of events leading to the disastrous Great War (although I suspect that you will argue otherwise using the pretext that the growing influence of German Naval Power made war inevitable).
I believe that the success of the English people resides with a combination of factors. They are a very resourceful people (their pragmatic creativity during the First Industrial Revolution and beyond bears this out) but so does a commitment to the free inquiry. The former has its structural origins in the English Reformation, but was further augmented by the battle against autocracy during the Civil War and the Hanoverian transfer of power during the reign of George I. These changes were not as forthcoming amongst Britain/England’s continental rivals who were forced to delay the coming of modernism to the Enlightenment Period.
However what has most served the English is their ability to adapt – to take the best from the outside and make it somehow English. They did this with the Roman system of laws, Grecian Rationalism, Judeo-Christian Ethics, Stoicism and Iberian naval proficiency. It is this same characteristic that the family branch of the English, the Americans, have utilized with remarkable success today (Another island nation the Japanese are similar to the English in this regard).
It is this adaptation that has created the illusion that the English have resisted invasion. While no army since William the Conqueror have overwhelmed the English on the home front since the 11th century (although the Hungarians humbled the English football team at Wembley in the 1950s) it is equally true that the English monarchy has resided in the hands of foreigners since then. The Normans were of a Franco/Norse stock, the House of Plantagenet, and its spin offs in Lancaster and York were all Gallic, the Tudors were Welsh, The Stuarts - Scottish and Hanover, Saxe-Coburg and Windsor were/are all German. Yes not since the ill-fated Harold Godwinson (aka Harold II) has England had a monarch of English ethnicity and before that power was invested for some time with Danish kings such as Canute and Hardicanute.
What is most remarkable though is that within a short period the English turned these foreigners into extensions of England itself…..so that their ethnicity is more a matter of historical detail than anything else.
However with each addition and influx of change a point of saturation is neared. Changes are rarely neutral with respect to key factors. The utility of adaptation carries with it a double-edged outcome. At what point in a series of changes is the system or the people no longer English?
British Internationalism, the overriding policy of adaptation, that dominates the nation in 2008 is a consequence of this underlying tendency, however in subjecting itself to the relativism of multiculturalism the Brits seem to have shot the bolt and traded away the base in one foul swoop. Could it be that the English will simply whither away? Over adapted themselves to death? …Maybe there is a grace in this style but I am at a loss to find it.
I am working on the Jewish side of the argument and will send you a reply soon……….
Saturday, December 27, 2008
On Epistemology
I am prepared to admit with a sense of pride that I am a lover of knowledge. However like all those with a similar affection I am mindful of ensuring that what I accept as real knowledge is in fact exactly that. Philosophy has realized this problem from the early days of its Athenian youth
The earlier Milesians had more a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and appeared to be more concerned with the nature of things - in a sense they were the first theoretical physicists.
A sceptic would have one reject all that there is and build upwards from a non-reducible point. For Descartes this was the working of his own mind, for others its the basic axioms of mathematics and logic while a third group puts faith (and indeed it is a faith) on the competency of sense. Many object to the three approaches altogether preferring an external metaphysical explanation that transcends both rationality and experience. However such a line of thought seems anathema to the Western Philosophical tradition that sees an explanations within itself.
In my thinking on this topic I have noticed that many thinkers are much better at destroying structures that have been built than creating sturdier constructs the next time round. In fact our philosophical tradition is inherently critical in a way that screams 'destruction'. Its no wonder that after 2000 plus years of bashing and building we are no further ahead in our overall understanding of some of the big questions in epistemology than we were at the times of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Yes, we have terminology and lots of it but are we much better for that?
This does not mean that all avenues of human intellectual pursuit have been so convoluted. Scientific progress is real as have been advances in other areas of philosophy (particularly ethics and politics) but I am still not convinced that epistemology itself has even progressed forward.
Perhaps it can be argued that epistemology is one of those subject areas that abhors an absolutist system of measurement. In fact it can be further articulated that its strength lies in cementing relationships between other disciplines, a process that indeed defies analysis based on looking at the field of study as a stand alone entity. This is indeed a possibility which I will investigate further.
The earlier Milesians had more a rudimentary understanding of epistemology and appeared to be more concerned with the nature of things - in a sense they were the first theoretical physicists.
A sceptic would have one reject all that there is and build upwards from a non-reducible point. For Descartes this was the working of his own mind, for others its the basic axioms of mathematics and logic while a third group puts faith (and indeed it is a faith) on the competency of sense. Many object to the three approaches altogether preferring an external metaphysical explanation that transcends both rationality and experience. However such a line of thought seems anathema to the Western Philosophical tradition that sees an explanations within itself.
In my thinking on this topic I have noticed that many thinkers are much better at destroying structures that have been built than creating sturdier constructs the next time round. In fact our philosophical tradition is inherently critical in a way that screams 'destruction'. Its no wonder that after 2000 plus years of bashing and building we are no further ahead in our overall understanding of some of the big questions in epistemology than we were at the times of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Yes, we have terminology and lots of it but are we much better for that?
This does not mean that all avenues of human intellectual pursuit have been so convoluted. Scientific progress is real as have been advances in other areas of philosophy (particularly ethics and politics) but I am still not convinced that epistemology itself has even progressed forward.
Perhaps it can be argued that epistemology is one of those subject areas that abhors an absolutist system of measurement. In fact it can be further articulated that its strength lies in cementing relationships between other disciplines, a process that indeed defies analysis based on looking at the field of study as a stand alone entity. This is indeed a possibility which I will investigate further.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Nazism a Far Left Ideology
I was challenged by somebody on the left with the following question in a response to left vs right ideology
Where do you fit in the mass confiscation of First Nations land and property here in the Western Hemisphere? Were the monarchies of england, portugal, spain et al leftists?
My reply is in Red:
No but neither were they rightist.
Left and Right are two sides of a political force that emerged during the enlightenment but solidified more clearly as independent dynamics during the American and French Revolutions. Both opposed Absolutism and Feudalism. Rightists believed that the system had to be changed in a way that was more inclusive (especially with respect to human and economic freedoms) but also that those foundations and traditions that had proven to be workable should be maintained (such as private ownership of property). Hence the association of rightism with conservatism...
Leftists wanted a complete overhaul of the system and its remodeling along new lines. Hence its association with Radicalism and Utopias.
Rightists looked to thinkers such as Edmund Burke, Mirabeau, Montesquieu and John Adams. Leftists favored Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Voltaire and Robespierre.
Initially both sides worked together especially in France but the Jacobin driven Reign of Terror (an early example of an all-too common leftist inspired genocide) bought about the final schism.
The American Revolution was a Rightist triumph, the French Revolution was driven by both sides initially (the progressive parts such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man) but eventually descended into leftist driven chaos that resulted in untold suffering and the dictatorship and wars of Napoleon (I have read some interesting arguments that Napoleon was perhaps the first leftwing strongman…eat your heart out Hugo Chavez).The parallels with Russia after the Bolshevik takeover and the emergence of Stalin are very clear.
He later continued with this line
The amount of influence that corporations wield in the US government is enormous. And colloquially speaking I've heard the Bush admin described as a right-wing government
My reply is in Red Once again
Yes another misconception….Bush has increased the size of big government, and spent money hand over first in a way that would make Jack Layton (leader of the Canadian NDP) blush….He also has been overly accommodating to Islamofascists in the US, done very little to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico and championed economic handouts of tax payer money to failed financial institutions (flogging a dead horse is more a leftist way of thinking) an idea that runs in the face of free market capitalism (as mentioned earlier) He is at best only a social conservative……
Where do you fit in the mass confiscation of First Nations land and property here in the Western Hemisphere? Were the monarchies of england, portugal, spain et al leftists?
My reply is in Red:
No but neither were they rightist.
Left and Right are two sides of a political force that emerged during the enlightenment but solidified more clearly as independent dynamics during the American and French Revolutions. Both opposed Absolutism and Feudalism. Rightists believed that the system had to be changed in a way that was more inclusive (especially with respect to human and economic freedoms) but also that those foundations and traditions that had proven to be workable should be maintained (such as private ownership of property). Hence the association of rightism with conservatism...
Leftists wanted a complete overhaul of the system and its remodeling along new lines. Hence its association with Radicalism and Utopias.
Rightists looked to thinkers such as Edmund Burke, Mirabeau, Montesquieu and John Adams. Leftists favored Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Voltaire and Robespierre.
Initially both sides worked together especially in France but the Jacobin driven Reign of Terror (an early example of an all-too common leftist inspired genocide) bought about the final schism.
The American Revolution was a Rightist triumph, the French Revolution was driven by both sides initially (the progressive parts such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man) but eventually descended into leftist driven chaos that resulted in untold suffering and the dictatorship and wars of Napoleon (I have read some interesting arguments that Napoleon was perhaps the first leftwing strongman…eat your heart out Hugo Chavez).The parallels with Russia after the Bolshevik takeover and the emergence of Stalin are very clear.
He later continued with this line
The amount of influence that corporations wield in the US government is enormous. And colloquially speaking I've heard the Bush admin described as a right-wing government
My reply is in Red Once again
Yes another misconception….Bush has increased the size of big government, and spent money hand over first in a way that would make Jack Layton (leader of the Canadian NDP) blush….He also has been overly accommodating to Islamofascists in the US, done very little to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico and championed economic handouts of tax payer money to failed financial institutions (flogging a dead horse is more a leftist way of thinking) an idea that runs in the face of free market capitalism (as mentioned earlier) He is at best only a social conservative……
More on the Bulletin Board
Here is another posting dealing with my history on this board (the board is associated with the York University Education Department)....
To All
I have posted on this bulletin board for well over two years now introducing articles for all to peruse, offering support for some lines of thought and challenging the assertions of others. While I have found agreement with many on here I have probably clashed heads with more than my fair share of individuals. At times I admit that my style has been biting but I believe that this is a reflection of my passion for debate and well constructed argument in general.
A plethora of topics have been addressed that include the more mainstream issues of NAFTA, Mid-East Conflicts, Canadian Politics, Obama v McCain (to death I believe….) and economic methodologies to the more esoteric subjects of the Venezuelan economy, the origins of the Korean War, Ward Churchill and at one time…believe it or not…. gay rights in Somalia.
Consensus has been reached on some issues but for the most part we have agreed to disagree and left it at that……..I have no issue with this nor do I believe have most on this board.
In short I have enjoyed the exchanges although I am under no illusions that there are some who would be happy to see my back against the wall when the revolution finally comes. I have tried to take this in all in stride
I don’t believe that there were many low points over the two years although *******'s use of the phrase ‘feeding the troll’ in reference to myself is a worthy candidate in this regard. Not so much that it is personally insulting (which it is.. I have a thick skin though...although I use cream everyday) but because it has inadvertently (I am sure it wasn’t his intention) acted to discourage the sort of challenges and counter-arguments that should emerge on this bulletin board. This however is a topic for another thread.
There have been times when I have considered not posting on this board…especially when one receives personal e-mails describing oneself as jerk and so forth…..but to do so would be to cave in to the uniformity of thought so craved by some.
I am aware of the fact that I fail the litmus test required by a certain subset of educators who believe that no teacher should ever support the Conservative Party (the best of a rather bad bunch on the Canadian front in my opinion) but this does not bother me in the least and unlike many other conservatives teachers I choose not to remain in the political closet with respect to my beliefs. Perhaps it will cost me in the future especially in an environment that is becoming increasingly attuned to a monoculture of belief. I am proud of my stance as a Classic Liberal (I use classic liberal and conservative interchangeably as they are the same ideology in the contemporary sense) and see it as the best mechanism of winning and maintaining the freedoms inherent in the success of Western Civilization (a point I have reiterated on several occasions).
In short I will continue to post and challenge (I am a bit stubborn) as I am rather fond of this board (including several of my consistent adversaries) and the intellectual exchange it does offer.
Keep Well and Happy Holidays
Gavin
To All
I have posted on this bulletin board for well over two years now introducing articles for all to peruse, offering support for some lines of thought and challenging the assertions of others. While I have found agreement with many on here I have probably clashed heads with more than my fair share of individuals. At times I admit that my style has been biting but I believe that this is a reflection of my passion for debate and well constructed argument in general.
A plethora of topics have been addressed that include the more mainstream issues of NAFTA, Mid-East Conflicts, Canadian Politics, Obama v McCain (to death I believe….) and economic methodologies to the more esoteric subjects of the Venezuelan economy, the origins of the Korean War, Ward Churchill and at one time…believe it or not…. gay rights in Somalia.
Consensus has been reached on some issues but for the most part we have agreed to disagree and left it at that……..I have no issue with this nor do I believe have most on this board.
In short I have enjoyed the exchanges although I am under no illusions that there are some who would be happy to see my back against the wall when the revolution finally comes. I have tried to take this in all in stride
I don’t believe that there were many low points over the two years although *******'s use of the phrase ‘feeding the troll’ in reference to myself is a worthy candidate in this regard. Not so much that it is personally insulting (which it is.. I have a thick skin though...although I use cream everyday) but because it has inadvertently (I am sure it wasn’t his intention) acted to discourage the sort of challenges and counter-arguments that should emerge on this bulletin board. This however is a topic for another thread.
There have been times when I have considered not posting on this board…especially when one receives personal e-mails describing oneself as jerk and so forth…..but to do so would be to cave in to the uniformity of thought so craved by some.
I am aware of the fact that I fail the litmus test required by a certain subset of educators who believe that no teacher should ever support the Conservative Party (the best of a rather bad bunch on the Canadian front in my opinion) but this does not bother me in the least and unlike many other conservatives teachers I choose not to remain in the political closet with respect to my beliefs. Perhaps it will cost me in the future especially in an environment that is becoming increasingly attuned to a monoculture of belief. I am proud of my stance as a Classic Liberal (I use classic liberal and conservative interchangeably as they are the same ideology in the contemporary sense) and see it as the best mechanism of winning and maintaining the freedoms inherent in the success of Western Civilization (a point I have reiterated on several occasions).
In short I will continue to post and challenge (I am a bit stubborn) as I am rather fond of this board (including several of my consistent adversaries) and the intellectual exchange it does offer.
Keep Well and Happy Holidays
Gavin
On Leftisms
I plan to follow this up with additional submissions but this is what I posted to a Bulletin Board that I am active in (I am the resident classical liberal/conservative).
I went into some depth several posts ago where I made a strong case for why I believe National Socialism(the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini) to be a Far Left Ideology. This flew in the face of some who had always believed that the Nazis and co. were a product of the Far Right. I stand by my position here as I have yet to see a good argument to the contrary. However I do not wish my disdain for the radical leftism to be taken as an indictment of all types of viewpoints that originated from the left.
There is much that is positive that can be taken from philosophies of the left especially when it opens itself up to pragmatism. I call this aspect of leftist philosophy – the good left. It was the good left that rallied against Anti-Semitism in the Dreyfuss case (bravo to Emile Zola), convinced the conservative German chancellor Bismarck to implement a pension system and backed the Shaftesbury child labor reforms in England and elsewhere. It was also the good left that recognized the dangers of totalitarianism in both Fascism and Communism and took a strong stance in forging the pro-active anti-isolationist stances of both FDR and Truman. This was a left that I would have been a part of had I been alive at the time. A left that was proud of the fact that it was advancing a platform that valued human rights while at the same time maintaining the high standards and gains of western historical development.
However the good left has been in decline in North America since the late 1960's (it died long before that in Western Europe…probably around the 1930s). Taking its place is the vengeful left that has wedded together the anti-establishment forces of the 60's, with the discredited (but reinvented) Marxist-Leninists of earlier time. It is a left that detests the West (especially the US), and wants nothing less than destruction of the old order both economically and socially. It is the vengeful left that seeks to clog the wheels of business with endless regulation, drown out quality study with post-modern gibberish and weaken the foundations of society with excessive law suits based on relativistic posturing. In short its aim when taken to a logical conclusion is to demolish and rebuild a new world in its own image . The vengeful left is ultimately utopic but chooses to advance its agenda by control of a central all-powerful state (which its most idealistic believe will ultimately whither away in accordance with Marxist prophecy).
As a force it is most influential in academia, labour unions, and the ranks of societies most marginalized groups where its message resonates most strongly. Initially on the outside of mainstream politics (during the Eugene Debs era) it has maneuvered its way to the inside via its influence on a host of politicians: Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and of course Barack Obama. The danger of the vengeful left, and a fact overlooked by its enablers on the small ‘l’ side of liberalism, is that its philosophy is undepinned by an intense hatred for the status quo….a hatred that is built on abolishing the system in true Jacobin-like fashion. That there are consequences to such radicalism is of no concern to the vengeful leftist as was the case with its earlier progenitors in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Khymer Rouge Cambodia and Maoist China.
It is this left that I most take issue with.
Gavin
I went into some depth several posts ago where I made a strong case for why I believe National Socialism(the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini) to be a Far Left Ideology. This flew in the face of some who had always believed that the Nazis and co. were a product of the Far Right. I stand by my position here as I have yet to see a good argument to the contrary. However I do not wish my disdain for the radical leftism to be taken as an indictment of all types of viewpoints that originated from the left.
There is much that is positive that can be taken from philosophies of the left especially when it opens itself up to pragmatism. I call this aspect of leftist philosophy – the good left. It was the good left that rallied against Anti-Semitism in the Dreyfuss case (bravo to Emile Zola), convinced the conservative German chancellor Bismarck to implement a pension system and backed the Shaftesbury child labor reforms in England and elsewhere. It was also the good left that recognized the dangers of totalitarianism in both Fascism and Communism and took a strong stance in forging the pro-active anti-isolationist stances of both FDR and Truman. This was a left that I would have been a part of had I been alive at the time. A left that was proud of the fact that it was advancing a platform that valued human rights while at the same time maintaining the high standards and gains of western historical development.
However the good left has been in decline in North America since the late 1960's (it died long before that in Western Europe…probably around the 1930s). Taking its place is the vengeful left that has wedded together the anti-establishment forces of the 60's, with the discredited (but reinvented) Marxist-Leninists of earlier time. It is a left that detests the West (especially the US), and wants nothing less than destruction of the old order both economically and socially. It is the vengeful left that seeks to clog the wheels of business with endless regulation, drown out quality study with post-modern gibberish and weaken the foundations of society with excessive law suits based on relativistic posturing. In short its aim when taken to a logical conclusion is to demolish and rebuild a new world in its own image . The vengeful left is ultimately utopic but chooses to advance its agenda by control of a central all-powerful state (which its most idealistic believe will ultimately whither away in accordance with Marxist prophecy).
As a force it is most influential in academia, labour unions, and the ranks of societies most marginalized groups where its message resonates most strongly. Initially on the outside of mainstream politics (during the Eugene Debs era) it has maneuvered its way to the inside via its influence on a host of politicians: Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and of course Barack Obama. The danger of the vengeful left, and a fact overlooked by its enablers on the small ‘l’ side of liberalism, is that its philosophy is undepinned by an intense hatred for the status quo….a hatred that is built on abolishing the system in true Jacobin-like fashion. That there are consequences to such radicalism is of no concern to the vengeful leftist as was the case with its earlier progenitors in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Khymer Rouge Cambodia and Maoist China.
It is this left that I most take issue with.
Gavin
Monday, December 22, 2008
A few updates
School has ended so I am enjoying my first leisure day of the December break. Since there are no leisure weekends when you have young kids as I do, a leisure day, which comes once in every three months or so is most welcome. Tomorrow I will be back to the grind battling some challenge that has reared its ugly head....no fret though its all good...I am very grateful to be in the overall life situation that I am.
I have been tutoring externally a bit this semester mainly in Mathematics and Physics but also in Chemistry. While the added income is most welcome what I have found most useful about these sessions is that it allows me to keep sharp in material that I am not teaching per se in my regular class. As a teacher who loves the subject matter of these disciplines this is vital to me. I am always on a quest to expand my knowledge base while consolidating the fundamentals at the same time. In a sense I am old fashioned in that I believe students are best served by teachers who show high levels of competency in their subject matter. Just as I like to challenge my students intellectually I welcome the reciprocal...My regret at the moment is that in my current teaching position I have received too little of the latter. Although I suspect that the potential for such outcomes may emerge soon.....
At one time I swore I would never join Facebook but like so many others I have been drawn into this universe of friends and updates. Nobody is to blame, the ultimate choice was mine, and the decision to set up shop has been fruitful. I have made numerous connections with forgotten names and contact from a wonderful childhood in South Africa....a walk down the hall of nostalgia that has served as a worthwhile distraction during these snowy months.
Liverpool are leading the English Premier League (as of this time of writing) but the key word that I forgot here is barely. The Reds are drawing too many games to make life easy for themselves and my fear, like so many fans of the game's-greatest-team (no bias there), is that this will haunt them in the future. I don't have a good feeling as the season carries on. For some reason as well I have been less enthused by the league race this year. Maybe its a realization of the futility of it all...perhaps its a reaction to Man U's successes in 2007/2008 I don't know. It could also be the onset of my maturity (it took me forty years but better late than never) and the fact that my mind has been more focused on issues of philosophy and spirituality.
My personal philosophical concerns have centered on several issues:
I have been tutoring externally a bit this semester mainly in Mathematics and Physics but also in Chemistry. While the added income is most welcome what I have found most useful about these sessions is that it allows me to keep sharp in material that I am not teaching per se in my regular class. As a teacher who loves the subject matter of these disciplines this is vital to me. I am always on a quest to expand my knowledge base while consolidating the fundamentals at the same time. In a sense I am old fashioned in that I believe students are best served by teachers who show high levels of competency in their subject matter. Just as I like to challenge my students intellectually I welcome the reciprocal...My regret at the moment is that in my current teaching position I have received too little of the latter. Although I suspect that the potential for such outcomes may emerge soon.....
At one time I swore I would never join Facebook but like so many others I have been drawn into this universe of friends and updates. Nobody is to blame, the ultimate choice was mine, and the decision to set up shop has been fruitful. I have made numerous connections with forgotten names and contact from a wonderful childhood in South Africa....a walk down the hall of nostalgia that has served as a worthwhile distraction during these snowy months.
Liverpool are leading the English Premier League (as of this time of writing) but the key word that I forgot here is barely. The Reds are drawing too many games to make life easy for themselves and my fear, like so many fans of the game's-greatest-team (no bias there), is that this will haunt them in the future. I don't have a good feeling as the season carries on. For some reason as well I have been less enthused by the league race this year. Maybe its a realization of the futility of it all...perhaps its a reaction to Man U's successes in 2007/2008 I don't know. It could also be the onset of my maturity (it took me forty years but better late than never) and the fact that my mind has been more focused on issues of philosophy and spirituality.
My personal philosophical concerns have centered on several issues:
- an analysis of what is meant by the political right and left (the grand ideologies of rightism and leftism) and a study of how these terms have evolved over time from their original manifestations;
- a composite theory of knowledge that links together both scientific and extra-scientific knowledge (if the latter is indeed relevant) and
- a meaningful reformulation of the purpose of life within my own framework of theistic and rational inquiry.
Not easy topics but certainly ones that reach out to me to wrestle with.....
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A Quick Worldview
I debate and argue about politics on a university bulletin board...Recently, I was asked to outline my overall worldview ...This is what I wrote
These issues are complicated so if I have to give a straight yay or nay I would risk oversimplifying the subject matter.
In short I am a theist (a conservative Jew) and believe in a universe with purpose. I also place much credence in science, reason and logic. Having said that I am mindful of the limitations of human philosophy both in the naturalistic as well as the metaphysical sense.
I believe in the unfiltered exchange of ideas, oppose censorship and champion freedom of speech. It is for this reason that I am not in favour of Hate Laws, Speech Codes and Politically Correct mindrot.
On economic issues I favour a free market system with a lesser role for big government. I am not a libertarian – as I reject the radicalism of limited government favoured by Mises, Rothard, Nozick etc.
I am a strong champion of Western Civilization and the Representative Democracy. If I were alive at the time of the French Revolution I would probably agree with the thinking of Mirabeau as opposed to the Jacobins. I believe that Judeo-Christian ethics is central to the success of this model but by the same token argue for manageable and thoughtful progress within the context of the working framework (this is what Conservatism is all about…and I take heart from this ideal…For more on such thinking read Edmund Burke).
I have at times categorized myself as a Classic Liberal as I believe that Classic Liberalism (as it evolved in the 18th and 19th centuries) is truly what modern conservatism is. I reject the paleo-conservatism and isolationism of Buchanan and co. Contemporary Small ‘l’ liberalism is more like social democracy an ideology which sits in antithesis to my thinking.
These issues are complicated so if I have to give a straight yay or nay I would risk oversimplifying the subject matter.
In short I am a theist (a conservative Jew) and believe in a universe with purpose. I also place much credence in science, reason and logic. Having said that I am mindful of the limitations of human philosophy both in the naturalistic as well as the metaphysical sense.
I believe in the unfiltered exchange of ideas, oppose censorship and champion freedom of speech. It is for this reason that I am not in favour of Hate Laws, Speech Codes and Politically Correct mindrot.
On economic issues I favour a free market system with a lesser role for big government. I am not a libertarian – as I reject the radicalism of limited government favoured by Mises, Rothard, Nozick etc.
I am a strong champion of Western Civilization and the Representative Democracy. If I were alive at the time of the French Revolution I would probably agree with the thinking of Mirabeau as opposed to the Jacobins. I believe that Judeo-Christian ethics is central to the success of this model but by the same token argue for manageable and thoughtful progress within the context of the working framework (this is what Conservatism is all about…and I take heart from this ideal…For more on such thinking read Edmund Burke).
I have at times categorized myself as a Classic Liberal as I believe that Classic Liberalism (as it evolved in the 18th and 19th centuries) is truly what modern conservatism is. I reject the paleo-conservatism and isolationism of Buchanan and co. Contemporary Small ‘l’ liberalism is more like social democracy an ideology which sits in antithesis to my thinking.
Roller Skate Park
I wrote this article for a Science Teacher's Publication
The internet abounds with some great (and not-so-great) java applet simulations available for physics teachers. My favorite locale is the widely acclaimed Colorado Physics site[1]. In my pedagogy I have made use of about half the simulations available at Colorado but perhaps none with more success and gusto than Energy Skate Park (ESP).
ESP is specifically designed to demonstrate the key idea of Conservation of Energy (a central theme in both the Grade 11 and Grade 12 Physics courses – university and college) and in this regards it doesn’t disappoint. When entering the simulation one is presented with a parabolic roller coaster track. This track can be manipulated by the user to take on a somewhat diabolical appearance by the addition of extra tack or by the gerrymandering of the standing track into a variety of shapes….(loops, figures eights are all possibilities). Students love this.
A moving body, to be studied, can be selected from a number of alternatives (I am partial to the dog myself although many of the students liked the bug). The body is then released from a pre-determined height and bar and/or pie charts showing the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy (and of course vice versa) with respect to time and position can be generated. For a more detailed analysis of motion the view of the system can be superimposed with a grid and the pause button can be utilized to better understand entity values at instantaneous points.
As an adjunct it is also possible to change the acceleration of gravity to mimic conditions on Jupiter, Earth and Space. The teacher can then ask the students to predict how the motion may vary in each of these cases and then test their hypothesis with the simulation. For an additional challenge one can vary the zero potential line as well to see how the relationships adjust.
Like all simulation lesson plans ESP works best with a worksheet that scaffolds the student through the learning process before allowing them to draw general conclusions about their observations. The worksheet is paramount and should have as its focus the elimination of key misconceptions. One such false belief is that if friction is added to the roller skate park then energy is not conserved. The ESP simulation allows one to model both the friction and non-friction case to show how thermal energy buildup is enhanced as the coefficient of friction is increased. The teacher could then use such feedback to make a distinction between the total energy available in the isolated system and that of the universe at large. Path length movement can also be related to thermal energy ‘loss’.
A further feature of this simulation is that it has a path locator feature that acts like a ticker tape attached to the skater. In working with college level students, in particular, I have found that this can act to supplement the students understanding of the influence of uniform acceleration on the displacement of an object.
Above all making use of ESP is a fun education positive exercise. I can vouch for that. My students thoroughly enjoyed it and I could see from evaluation feedbacks later on in the course that many of them had cemented the central idea of Conservation of Energy. This is a definite four star program that is well worth the effort of the lesson plan.
[1] See http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/sims.php
The internet abounds with some great (and not-so-great) java applet simulations available for physics teachers. My favorite locale is the widely acclaimed Colorado Physics site[1]. In my pedagogy I have made use of about half the simulations available at Colorado but perhaps none with more success and gusto than Energy Skate Park (ESP).
ESP is specifically designed to demonstrate the key idea of Conservation of Energy (a central theme in both the Grade 11 and Grade 12 Physics courses – university and college) and in this regards it doesn’t disappoint. When entering the simulation one is presented with a parabolic roller coaster track. This track can be manipulated by the user to take on a somewhat diabolical appearance by the addition of extra tack or by the gerrymandering of the standing track into a variety of shapes….(loops, figures eights are all possibilities). Students love this.
A moving body, to be studied, can be selected from a number of alternatives (I am partial to the dog myself although many of the students liked the bug). The body is then released from a pre-determined height and bar and/or pie charts showing the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy (and of course vice versa) with respect to time and position can be generated. For a more detailed analysis of motion the view of the system can be superimposed with a grid and the pause button can be utilized to better understand entity values at instantaneous points.
As an adjunct it is also possible to change the acceleration of gravity to mimic conditions on Jupiter, Earth and Space. The teacher can then ask the students to predict how the motion may vary in each of these cases and then test their hypothesis with the simulation. For an additional challenge one can vary the zero potential line as well to see how the relationships adjust.
Like all simulation lesson plans ESP works best with a worksheet that scaffolds the student through the learning process before allowing them to draw general conclusions about their observations. The worksheet is paramount and should have as its focus the elimination of key misconceptions. One such false belief is that if friction is added to the roller skate park then energy is not conserved. The ESP simulation allows one to model both the friction and non-friction case to show how thermal energy buildup is enhanced as the coefficient of friction is increased. The teacher could then use such feedback to make a distinction between the total energy available in the isolated system and that of the universe at large. Path length movement can also be related to thermal energy ‘loss’.
A further feature of this simulation is that it has a path locator feature that acts like a ticker tape attached to the skater. In working with college level students, in particular, I have found that this can act to supplement the students understanding of the influence of uniform acceleration on the displacement of an object.
Above all making use of ESP is a fun education positive exercise. I can vouch for that. My students thoroughly enjoyed it and I could see from evaluation feedbacks later on in the course that many of them had cemented the central idea of Conservation of Energy. This is a definite four star program that is well worth the effort of the lesson plan.
[1] See http://phet.colorado.edu/simulations/sims.php
Sunday, December 07, 2008
The Canadian Political Crisis summed up
Someone sent this to me via e-mail. Source is unknown. It is hilarious nevertheless
Toronto Maple Leafs Win Stanley Cup!!!
Canada was stunned Monday when it was announced that The Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, possibly as early as December 6th. The cup will be stripped from 2008 playoff champions the Detroit Red Wings and awarded to the Leafs who didn't even make the playoffs.How is this possible, Canadians ask? Well, the Leafs formed a coalition with eastern conference semifinalists the Montreal Canadians, and conference quarter finalists the Ottawa Senators, now outnumbering the Red Wings. According to current Leaf coach Ron Wilson "the Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition".NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is cutting short a European trip to try to resolve the unprecedented hockey crisis that could force a second playoff series, or see an opposing team coalition take the cup.
Toronto Maple Leafs Win Stanley Cup!!!
Canada was stunned Monday when it was announced that The Stanley Cup will be awarded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, possibly as early as December 6th. The cup will be stripped from 2008 playoff champions the Detroit Red Wings and awarded to the Leafs who didn't even make the playoffs.How is this possible, Canadians ask? Well, the Leafs formed a coalition with eastern conference semifinalists the Montreal Canadians, and conference quarter finalists the Ottawa Senators, now outnumbering the Red Wings. According to current Leaf coach Ron Wilson "the Red Wings have lost the confidence of the league and should hand the cup over immediately to our coalition".NHL commissioner Gary Bettman is cutting short a European trip to try to resolve the unprecedented hockey crisis that could force a second playoff series, or see an opposing team coalition take the cup.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Motivation
One of the most difficult facets about being a teacher is keeping your motivation level up. I suppose this is true of any profession but in teaching it seems to hit you squarely between the eyes. I left engineering in 2002 and entered the teaching profession soon afterward. My motivation was to share my love of learning with others and help my students grow in both ability and knowledge. It still is a central theme of my philosophy and I have several students that I believe that I have helped in such regards. But overall I am unsettled.....I don't feel as though I have done enough. Too often my efforts have been in vain and ultimately fruitless. A a colleague of mine said 'teachers often want more success for their students than students want for themselves.' This appears to be a truism but it is one that eats at the heart of my motivation. Negativity abounds and one has to dig deep to find the inspiration to continue the fight and not abdicate to the futility.
My strong belief in G-d and a life of purpose is what drives me from my deeper soul (I see faith and reason as being complementary paths not mutually exclusive phenomena) but in the world of the material where life plays out I struggle with the realization of such a drive. If I was a Christian I could argue that it is the cross I must carry. However I don't see it in that light. I hate spinning wheels and too often it just seems that that is what I am doing.
My strong belief in G-d and a life of purpose is what drives me from my deeper soul (I see faith and reason as being complementary paths not mutually exclusive phenomena) but in the world of the material where life plays out I struggle with the realization of such a drive. If I was a Christian I could argue that it is the cross I must carry. However I don't see it in that light. I hate spinning wheels and too often it just seems that that is what I am doing.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Some of what I have learnt as a teacher.......
1. There is such a thing as a stupid question. Plenty of them.
2. Never underestimate the lack of effort that some students believe is still worthy of a passing grade.
3. Only 20% of all students in an academic class are generally capable of critical thinking.
4. There is no substitute for proficiency in your subject matter.
5. Textbooks make mistakes - lots of them - too many cooks ruining a broth.
6. If a question can be wrongly interpreted it will be wrongly interpreted.
7. Students are easily duped by mutiple choice testing.
8. Reasoning is a lost art.
9. In a group of three or four students only two will actually work.
10. Acquired knowledge from Math is somehow lost by students when applying the same concepts in physics.
11. Take home assignments are not a good measure of understanding.
12. Only the brightest students get the puns.
13. Be alert during class.........in labs multiply that alertness factor by ten.
14. Lab Reports are extremely boring to mark.
15. Organization is key to a succesful lab.
16. Always have at least three different methods to explain a key concept...Use all three as well.
17. Students can never have enough problems to solve.
18. Be consistent...consistency = fairness.
19. There is no silver bullet to classroom management...students should understand that a classroom is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship.
20. Its never as bad as it seems.
21. No matter how many times it is explained to them some students will never understand why plagarism is wrong.
22. School Administrators understanding of how a classroom functions is inversely proportional to the square of the time that has elapsed since they taught in one.
23. Fire alarms always occur at inapropriate times.
2. Never underestimate the lack of effort that some students believe is still worthy of a passing grade.
3. Only 20% of all students in an academic class are generally capable of critical thinking.
4. There is no substitute for proficiency in your subject matter.
5. Textbooks make mistakes - lots of them - too many cooks ruining a broth.
6. If a question can be wrongly interpreted it will be wrongly interpreted.
7. Students are easily duped by mutiple choice testing.
8. Reasoning is a lost art.
9. In a group of three or four students only two will actually work.
10. Acquired knowledge from Math is somehow lost by students when applying the same concepts in physics.
11. Take home assignments are not a good measure of understanding.
12. Only the brightest students get the puns.
13. Be alert during class.........in labs multiply that alertness factor by ten.
14. Lab Reports are extremely boring to mark.
15. Organization is key to a succesful lab.
16. Always have at least three different methods to explain a key concept...Use all three as well.
17. Students can never have enough problems to solve.
18. Be consistent...consistency = fairness.
19. There is no silver bullet to classroom management...students should understand that a classroom is not a democracy but a benevolent dictatorship.
20. Its never as bad as it seems.
21. No matter how many times it is explained to them some students will never understand why plagarism is wrong.
22. School Administrators understanding of how a classroom functions is inversely proportional to the square of the time that has elapsed since they taught in one.
23. Fire alarms always occur at inapropriate times.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Useful Autopsy of Election 2008
Taken From Front Page Magazine - This is not good news for Republicans.
The Emerging Majority
Small changes can have dramatic consequences. The electorate shifted about 4 points toward the Democrats in between the 2004 and 2008 elections--from 48.3 percent of the popular vote four years ago to 52.5 percent today. But those 4 points gave Obama the largest share of the vote since 1988, the best showing by a Democrat since 1964, the first black president, the first non-southern Democratic president since John F. Kennedy, and likely larger Democratic majorities in Congress than when President Clinton took office in 1993. In a closely divided America, a swing of four votes in a hundred can mean a decisive victory.
Obama's achievement can be explained with a few numbers. The first is 27 percent--President Bush's approval rating in the national exit poll. Pretty dismal. The poll found that voters were split on whether John McCain would continue Bush's policies. But those who thought McCain would be another Bush broke overwhelmingly for Obama, 91 percent to 8. That's a huge, damning margin.
The second number is 93 percent. That's the percentage of voters who gave the economy a negative rating in the exit poll. They supported Obama. And they were right to give the economy a negative rating. The financial crisis is spilling over into the real economy of goods and services. Unemployment is rising and consumption is falling. The week before the election, the Commerce Department announced that consumer spending had dropped 3.1 percent. Consumer spending hadn't fallen since 1991, and this year's decline was the largest since 1980.
The day before the election, the auto companies announced that they had had their worst month in a quarter-century. When economic conditions are as bad as this, of course the party out of power is favored to win an election.
Considering those numbers, the 2008 electoral map isn't all that surprising. Bush, the economy, and Obama's personal and political appeal have pushed the nation toward the blue end of the political spectrum. But, for the most part, the shift is gradual and on the margins. Obama will be president because he took states that Bush won in tight races four years ago. Bush won Ohio by 2 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 4. Bush won Florida by 5 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 2.5 points.
Obama's victories in the West were impressive. Bush won Colorado by 5 points in 2004. Obama won it by 7. Bush won New Mexico by 1 point in 2004. Obama won it by a substantial margin--about 15 points. Bush won Nevada by 2 points in 2004. Obama won it by about 13 points.
Virginia has been trending blue since 2001, when Mark Warner was elected governor. In 2004, John Kerry won the Washington suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax, but still lost the state to Bush, 45 to 54 percent. The next year, another Democrat, Tim Kaine, succeeded Warner. And the year after that, voters replaced incumbent Republican senator George Allen with Democrat Jim Webb in a contest decided by just a few thousand votes. In 2008 Virginia went totally blue. It handed the Democrats as many as three more House seats, replaced retiring Republican senator John Warner with Mark Warner (no relation) by a vote of two-to-one, and swung for Obama by a margin of 5.5 points. Virginia's electoral votes went for a Democrat for the first time since 1964.
The two major surprises on our new map are North Carolina and Indiana. Bush won North Carolina by 12 points in 2004. This year Obama erased that margin and won by a couple tenths of a point. It's the first time since 1976 that North Carolina has voted for a Democratic president. In Indiana the swing toward Obama was even more pronounced. Bush won there by a huge margin of 22 points in 2004. Obama made up all of that ground, eking out a victory of about a point. No Democrat had won Indiana since 1964.
If I were Obama strategist David Axelrod, I'd--well, I'd probably be exhausted right now. But I'd also make sure that President-elect Obama spends the next four years visiting North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. He needs to deepen his support in all five states. And I'd also make sure Obama visits Missouri, where at this writing it appears he barely lost; Montana, where he lost by 2.5 points; and Georgia, where he lost by 5.5 points. If Obama holds all the states he won this year and adds those three to his column in 2012, he'll be reelected in a landslide. That's a big "if," of course. The key is a successful first term.
Where does this leave the Republicans? In deep trouble. The GOP is increasingly confined to Appalachia, the South, and the Great Plains. When the next Congress convenes in 2009, there won't be a single House Republican from New England. The GOP is doing only a little better in the mid-Atlantic. There will be only three Republican congressmen in New York's 29-member delegation in the next Congress. Only a third of Pennsylvania's delegation will be Republican--about the same proportion as in New Jersey. There will be a single Republican in Maryland's eight-man delegation. The Rust Belt is hostile territory, too. So are the Mountain West and the Pacific Coast. The GOP is like the central character in Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone." It's on its own, no direction home.
The Republicans are in demographic trouble. When you look at the ethnic composition of Obama's coalition, you see that it's kind of a mini-America. About two-thirds of Obama's supporters are white and a third minorities. The Republican coalition, by contrast, is white, male, and old. There's the first problem. Overall, Obama may have lost the white vote (while still doing better than Kerry did), but in 2008 whites (not counting Hispanics, per Census convention) made up the smallest proportion of the electorate since the start of exit polling. Obama scored tremendous victories among minorities. He won more than 90 percent of the black vote. He won the Hispanic vote by a two-to-one margin. He won the Asian vote by a similar margin.
Then there are the young. Voters under 30 turned out in only slightly higher numbers than they did in 2004, but they overwhelmingly backed Obama, 68 percent to 30. A successful Obama presidency could lock these voters into the Democratic column for a long, long time.
For the rest go to the Source: Front Page Magazine article by Matthew Continetti
The Emerging Majority
Small changes can have dramatic consequences. The electorate shifted about 4 points toward the Democrats in between the 2004 and 2008 elections--from 48.3 percent of the popular vote four years ago to 52.5 percent today. But those 4 points gave Obama the largest share of the vote since 1988, the best showing by a Democrat since 1964, the first black president, the first non-southern Democratic president since John F. Kennedy, and likely larger Democratic majorities in Congress than when President Clinton took office in 1993. In a closely divided America, a swing of four votes in a hundred can mean a decisive victory.
Obama's achievement can be explained with a few numbers. The first is 27 percent--President Bush's approval rating in the national exit poll. Pretty dismal. The poll found that voters were split on whether John McCain would continue Bush's policies. But those who thought McCain would be another Bush broke overwhelmingly for Obama, 91 percent to 8. That's a huge, damning margin.
The second number is 93 percent. That's the percentage of voters who gave the economy a negative rating in the exit poll. They supported Obama. And they were right to give the economy a negative rating. The financial crisis is spilling over into the real economy of goods and services. Unemployment is rising and consumption is falling. The week before the election, the Commerce Department announced that consumer spending had dropped 3.1 percent. Consumer spending hadn't fallen since 1991, and this year's decline was the largest since 1980.
The day before the election, the auto companies announced that they had had their worst month in a quarter-century. When economic conditions are as bad as this, of course the party out of power is favored to win an election.
Considering those numbers, the 2008 electoral map isn't all that surprising. Bush, the economy, and Obama's personal and political appeal have pushed the nation toward the blue end of the political spectrum. But, for the most part, the shift is gradual and on the margins. Obama will be president because he took states that Bush won in tight races four years ago. Bush won Ohio by 2 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 4. Bush won Florida by 5 points in 2004. This year Obama won it by 2.5 points.
Obama's victories in the West were impressive. Bush won Colorado by 5 points in 2004. Obama won it by 7. Bush won New Mexico by 1 point in 2004. Obama won it by a substantial margin--about 15 points. Bush won Nevada by 2 points in 2004. Obama won it by about 13 points.
Virginia has been trending blue since 2001, when Mark Warner was elected governor. In 2004, John Kerry won the Washington suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax, but still lost the state to Bush, 45 to 54 percent. The next year, another Democrat, Tim Kaine, succeeded Warner. And the year after that, voters replaced incumbent Republican senator George Allen with Democrat Jim Webb in a contest decided by just a few thousand votes. In 2008 Virginia went totally blue. It handed the Democrats as many as three more House seats, replaced retiring Republican senator John Warner with Mark Warner (no relation) by a vote of two-to-one, and swung for Obama by a margin of 5.5 points. Virginia's electoral votes went for a Democrat for the first time since 1964.
The two major surprises on our new map are North Carolina and Indiana. Bush won North Carolina by 12 points in 2004. This year Obama erased that margin and won by a couple tenths of a point. It's the first time since 1976 that North Carolina has voted for a Democratic president. In Indiana the swing toward Obama was even more pronounced. Bush won there by a huge margin of 22 points in 2004. Obama made up all of that ground, eking out a victory of about a point. No Democrat had won Indiana since 1964.
If I were Obama strategist David Axelrod, I'd--well, I'd probably be exhausted right now. But I'd also make sure that President-elect Obama spends the next four years visiting North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. He needs to deepen his support in all five states. And I'd also make sure Obama visits Missouri, where at this writing it appears he barely lost; Montana, where he lost by 2.5 points; and Georgia, where he lost by 5.5 points. If Obama holds all the states he won this year and adds those three to his column in 2012, he'll be reelected in a landslide. That's a big "if," of course. The key is a successful first term.
Where does this leave the Republicans? In deep trouble. The GOP is increasingly confined to Appalachia, the South, and the Great Plains. When the next Congress convenes in 2009, there won't be a single House Republican from New England. The GOP is doing only a little better in the mid-Atlantic. There will be only three Republican congressmen in New York's 29-member delegation in the next Congress. Only a third of Pennsylvania's delegation will be Republican--about the same proportion as in New Jersey. There will be a single Republican in Maryland's eight-man delegation. The Rust Belt is hostile territory, too. So are the Mountain West and the Pacific Coast. The GOP is like the central character in Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone." It's on its own, no direction home.
The Republicans are in demographic trouble. When you look at the ethnic composition of Obama's coalition, you see that it's kind of a mini-America. About two-thirds of Obama's supporters are white and a third minorities. The Republican coalition, by contrast, is white, male, and old. There's the first problem. Overall, Obama may have lost the white vote (while still doing better than Kerry did), but in 2008 whites (not counting Hispanics, per Census convention) made up the smallest proportion of the electorate since the start of exit polling. Obama scored tremendous victories among minorities. He won more than 90 percent of the black vote. He won the Hispanic vote by a two-to-one margin. He won the Asian vote by a similar margin.
Then there are the young. Voters under 30 turned out in only slightly higher numbers than they did in 2004, but they overwhelmingly backed Obama, 68 percent to 30. A successful Obama presidency could lock these voters into the Democratic column for a long, long time.
For the rest go to the Source: Front Page Magazine article by Matthew Continetti
Another sign of Global Madness
The bigoted kingdom of Saudi Arabia is to host a conference on racial tolerance...
yeah right
Taken from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111103029.html
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 -- Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Islamic kingdom that forbids the public practice of other religious faiths, will preside Wednesday over a two-day U.N. conference on religious tolerance that will draw more than a dozen world leaders, including President Bush, Israeli President Shimon Peres and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The event is part of a personal initiative by Saudi King Abdullah to promote an interfaith dialogue among the world's major religions. The Saudi leader agreed for the first time to dine in the same room with the Israeli president at a private, pre-conference banquet Tuesday hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But Ban hinted that the two leaders -- whose governments do not have diplomatic relations -- were not seated at the same table.
"Normally, in the past, they have not been sitting in the same place like this. That is very important and encouraging," Ban said. "I wholeheartedly support the convening of the interfaith meeting that will be held here at headquarters tomorrow. The values it aims to promote are common to all the world's religions and can help us fight extremism, prejudice and hatred."
The Saudi initiative emerged in the summer during a meeting of religious leaders in Mecca. The Saudi leader subsequently drew a range of religious groups -- including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists and others -- together in Madrid in July, where they signed a declaration calling for greater cooperation among religions.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to attend the conference to hear the Saudi King's opening address. Bush is scheduled to deliver an address Thursday. The White House said last month that it welcomed the Saudi initiative and supports "the right to practice one's religion" and other principles of religious freedom enshrined in the U.N. charter.
But Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of the event drew criticism from human rights advocates, who said that a country that oppresses its religious minorities lacks the moral authority to lead such a gathering.
"Saudi Arabia is not qualified to be a leader in this dialogue at the United Nations," said Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi national who serves as director of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. "It is the world headquarters of religious oppression and xenophobia."
For the rest go to the Source
yeah right
Taken from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111103029.html
UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11 -- Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Islamic kingdom that forbids the public practice of other religious faiths, will preside Wednesday over a two-day U.N. conference on religious tolerance that will draw more than a dozen world leaders, including President Bush, Israeli President Shimon Peres and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The event is part of a personal initiative by Saudi King Abdullah to promote an interfaith dialogue among the world's major religions. The Saudi leader agreed for the first time to dine in the same room with the Israeli president at a private, pre-conference banquet Tuesday hosted by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. But Ban hinted that the two leaders -- whose governments do not have diplomatic relations -- were not seated at the same table.
"Normally, in the past, they have not been sitting in the same place like this. That is very important and encouraging," Ban said. "I wholeheartedly support the convening of the interfaith meeting that will be held here at headquarters tomorrow. The values it aims to promote are common to all the world's religions and can help us fight extremism, prejudice and hatred."
The Saudi initiative emerged in the summer during a meeting of religious leaders in Mecca. The Saudi leader subsequently drew a range of religious groups -- including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists and others -- together in Madrid in July, where they signed a declaration calling for greater cooperation among religions.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to attend the conference to hear the Saudi King's opening address. Bush is scheduled to deliver an address Thursday. The White House said last month that it welcomed the Saudi initiative and supports "the right to practice one's religion" and other principles of religious freedom enshrined in the U.N. charter.
But Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of the event drew criticism from human rights advocates, who said that a country that oppresses its religious minorities lacks the moral authority to lead such a gathering.
"Saudi Arabia is not qualified to be a leader in this dialogue at the United Nations," said Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi national who serves as director of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs. "It is the world headquarters of religious oppression and xenophobia."
For the rest go to the Source
Monday, November 10, 2008
Rabbi Akiva Tatz
I have been somewhat in a philosophical mood as of late....contemplating the ideas of purpose, action and universal identity. In my search I have stumbled on the lectures of Rabbi Tatz. While I don't agree with some of his details the overall message with respect to Free Will and Individuality are spot on.
I am posting the URL for the videos of two lectures.
Lecture A - Free Will
See http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1722678340612649975&ei=zm4YSef-AY_e-wHcjOy5DQ&q=Rabbi+Tatz&hl=en
Lecture B - Individuality
See http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8709829938482661134&ei=9m4YSYXWB4GE_AG-sYnFDQ&q=Rabbi+Tatz&hl=en
I am posting the URL for the videos of two lectures.
Lecture A - Free Will
See http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1722678340612649975&ei=zm4YSef-AY_e-wHcjOy5DQ&q=Rabbi+Tatz&hl=en
Lecture B - Individuality
See http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8709829938482661134&ei=9m4YSYXWB4GE_AG-sYnFDQ&q=Rabbi+Tatz&hl=en
Friday, November 07, 2008
20 reasons why John McCain came up short in 2008
1. The public perception that the economic woes are the fault of Republican policy. Of course the issue is clearly more complicated than this (with many parties to blame including the Democrat controlled Congress) but the MSM framed it in such a context and the public seemed to have bought into this bias.
2. The Democrats successfully and unfairly linked McCain to the unpopular Bush administration - this appeared to have stuck.
3. Money - The Dems far outspent McCain and co. with campaign superdollars. Money often,(ut not always, buys results and this seemed to be the case here.
4. Sarah Palin - her inexperience on the key issues showed - the MSM buried her in this department and tagged McCain with the smear.
5. Obama proved to be the master of the sound bite. He could sell sand in Dubai...
6. McCain had a poor environmental policy...Obama offered an increasingly green electorate a more forward thinking approach in this department
7. Obama's marketing team were brilliant in remaking Obama from a left wing senator into a centrist politician...I personally don't believe that much of this transformation is genuine but the electorate seems to have okayed the change.
8. High turnouts brought out more Democrat voters than would otherwise be the case.
9. International support was clearly behind Obama. In an increasingly global world such sentiment probably trickled across to influence the US Electorate.
10. The success of the surge - a key McCain driving point - was played down by the MSM so that it became a non-issue in November.
11. McCain looked tired and old during certain phases of the campaign compared to
the youthful Obama. This certainly did not help him.
12. Minority groups make up a larger percent of the US population. Hispanics in particular helped solidify Democrat positions in California and New Mexico. Republicans need to be more vigilant in the future with respect to winning the minority vote.
13. The GOP political machine proved to be inefficient in registering voters in key swing states such as Colorado and Florida.
14. Possible voter fraud connected to such pro-Obama groups as ACORN may have influenced results in Ohio. I would love to see an investigation of such irregularities.
15. There have been an influx of Democrat voters into Virginia and North Carolina. This turned these former Bush states into Obama territory.
16. Some prominent Conservatives (Obamacons) jumped ship from the GOP in the closing days of the election. This may have had the broader effect of shifting some Conservative voters towards the Illinois senator.
17. The Republicans failed to make significant inroads with the university educated sector of the US population. The GOP's apparent platform focus appeared to be more geared toward the 'redneck' element of the electorate.
18. Some conservatives stayed at home on election day as they felt that neither candidate was Conservative enough to warrant their support.
19. The Republican brand seemed fatigued. The Democrat cry for change played on this.
20. Michael Moore kept his mouth shut this time around.
2. The Democrats successfully and unfairly linked McCain to the unpopular Bush administration - this appeared to have stuck.
3. Money - The Dems far outspent McCain and co. with campaign superdollars. Money often,(ut not always, buys results and this seemed to be the case here.
4. Sarah Palin - her inexperience on the key issues showed - the MSM buried her in this department and tagged McCain with the smear.
5. Obama proved to be the master of the sound bite. He could sell sand in Dubai...
6. McCain had a poor environmental policy...Obama offered an increasingly green electorate a more forward thinking approach in this department
7. Obama's marketing team were brilliant in remaking Obama from a left wing senator into a centrist politician...I personally don't believe that much of this transformation is genuine but the electorate seems to have okayed the change.
8. High turnouts brought out more Democrat voters than would otherwise be the case.
9. International support was clearly behind Obama. In an increasingly global world such sentiment probably trickled across to influence the US Electorate.
10. The success of the surge - a key McCain driving point - was played down by the MSM so that it became a non-issue in November.
11. McCain looked tired and old during certain phases of the campaign compared to
the youthful Obama. This certainly did not help him.
12. Minority groups make up a larger percent of the US population. Hispanics in particular helped solidify Democrat positions in California and New Mexico. Republicans need to be more vigilant in the future with respect to winning the minority vote.
13. The GOP political machine proved to be inefficient in registering voters in key swing states such as Colorado and Florida.
14. Possible voter fraud connected to such pro-Obama groups as ACORN may have influenced results in Ohio. I would love to see an investigation of such irregularities.
15. There have been an influx of Democrat voters into Virginia and North Carolina. This turned these former Bush states into Obama territory.
16. Some prominent Conservatives (Obamacons) jumped ship from the GOP in the closing days of the election. This may have had the broader effect of shifting some Conservative voters towards the Illinois senator.
17. The Republicans failed to make significant inroads with the university educated sector of the US population. The GOP's apparent platform focus appeared to be more geared toward the 'redneck' element of the electorate.
18. Some conservatives stayed at home on election day as they felt that neither candidate was Conservative enough to warrant their support.
19. The Republican brand seemed fatigued. The Democrat cry for change played on this.
20. Michael Moore kept his mouth shut this time around.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Saying it as it is
Charles Krauthammer is one of my favourite political writers. I don't agree with his pro-offshore drilling stance but on issues of Islamofascism and its threat to Western Civilization he is normally bang on.
The following is a reprint from a column published at Townhall.com
By Charles KrauthammerLast week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call. But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.
Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown. Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.
Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.
On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved -- the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.
Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment -- a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation. An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike 1992, Obama is no Clinton centrist. What will you get?
(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.
(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.
(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.
(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited -- $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending -- as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.
The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.
The following is a reprint from a column published at Townhall.com
By Charles KrauthammerLast week I made the open-and-shut case for John McCain: In a dangerous world entering an era of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the choice between the most prepared foreign policy candidate in memory vs. a novice with zero experience and the wobbliest one-world instincts is not a close call. But it's all about economics and kitchen-table issues, we are told. OK. Start with economics.
Neither candidate has particularly deep economic knowledge or finely honed economic instincts. Neither has any clear idea exactly what to do in the current financial meltdown. Hell, neither does anyone else, including the best economic minds in the world, from Henry Paulson to the head of the European Central Bank. Yet they have muddled through with some success.
Both McCain and Barack Obama have assembled fine economic teams that may differ on the details of their plans but have reasonable approaches to managing the crisis. So forget the hype. Neither candidate has an advantage on this issue.
On other domestic issues, McCain is just the kind of moderate conservative that the Washington/media establishment once loved -- the champion of myriad conservative heresies that made him a burr in the side of congressional Republicans and George W. Bush. But now that he is standing in the way of an audacity-of-hope Democratic restoration, erstwhile friends recoil from McCain on the pretense that he has suddenly become right wing.
Self-serving rubbish. McCain is who he always was. Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment -- a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation. An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.
Obama, on the other hand, talks less and less about bipartisanship, his calling card during his earlier messianic stage. He does not need to. If he wins, he will have large Democratic majorities in both houses. And unlike 1992, Obama is no Clinton centrist. What will you get?
(1) Card check, meaning the abolition of the secret ballot in the certification of unions in the workplace. Large men will come to your house at night and ask you to sign a card supporting a union. You will sign.
(2) The so-called Fairness Doctrine -- a project of Nancy Pelosi and leading Democratic senators -- a Hugo Chavez-style travesty designed to abolish conservative talk radio.
(3) Judges who go beyond even the constitutional creativity we expect from Democratic appointees. Judges chosen according to Obama's publicly declared criterion: "empathy" for the "poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old" -- in a legal system historically predicated on the idea of justice entirely blind to one's station in life.
(4) An unprecedented expansion of government power. Yes, I know. It has already happened. A conservative government has already partially nationalized the mortgage industry, the insurance industry and nine of the largest U.S. banks.
This is all generally swallowed because everyone understands that the current crisis demands extraordinary measures. The difference is that conservatives are instinctively inclined to make such measures temporary. Whereas an Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Barney Frank administration will find irresistible the temptation to use the tools inherited -- $700 billion of largely uncontrolled spending -- as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically remake the American economy and social compact.
This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.
The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)