I can hardly post a book review in advance, but I can tell you about a book I mean to read as soon as I can get my hands on it. Neil Reynolds, writing in the Globe and Mail, alerts us to a new book by Kylie Minogue which I've immediately entered on my "must read" list.
Dr. Minogue is a professor emeritus at the London School of Economics. [I think you mean Dr. Kenneth Minogue, not Kylie. Ed.] Oh. Yes... Well, it'll be an easy name for me to remember when I visit the library.
Nearly 50 years ago, (Reynolds writes), Dr. Minogue published The Liberal Mind, his classic study of the dominant philosophy of the 20th century: radical niceness.
Rooted in extreme liberal optimism and salvationist aspiration, this triumphant ideology (Prof. Minogue said) tenaciously advanced the notion that history requires the perfection of human society, that governments – in pursuit of this perfection – are obliged “to provide every man, woman, child and dog with the conditions of the good life.” Prof. Minogue ended with a warning: “A populace which hands its moral order over to governments, no matter how impeccable its reasons, will become dependent and slavish.”
I see strong parallels with Godfrey Hodgson's America in Our Time, recommended here several times this summer. There is no bibliography in Mr. Hodgson's 1976 work, but I wouldn't be surprised if he owes a debt to Dr. Minogue.
Now the good doctor has published what Reynolds calls "a remarkable sequel": The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life. He picks up where he left off, documenting the ways in which democracy requires strict obedience to the state -- and to the bureaucratic moral order that sustains it.
Boy, does that ever ring true. Sounds to me like a tome that should be perused, if not read cover to cover, by libertarians everywhere.
You can read the column by Neil Reynolds here.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Goalies gone wild!
This is for all you hockey lovers. I know you're out there. Yahoo! Sports has picked up (from YouTube, apparently) two excellent videos which originated with TSN SportsCentre.
Americans might guess from the spelling that TSN is Canada's equivalent of ESPN...only better because it has way more hockey. But I digress.
Total running time is almost 23 minutes, which makes the vids too big for Walt to copy and upload. Why would I bother doing that anyway, when all you have to do is click here.
Although this is mostly about goalies fighting, there are some short clips of netminders' really horrible miscues and mistakes. Included, of course, is the 197-foot floater let in by Vesa Toskala, late of the Toronto Maple Laffs.
This has featured on my blog before, but in case you missed it, check out "The worst Finnish NHL goalie ever", right here.
Americans might guess from the spelling that TSN is Canada's equivalent of ESPN...only better because it has way more hockey. But I digress.
Total running time is almost 23 minutes, which makes the vids too big for Walt to copy and upload. Why would I bother doing that anyway, when all you have to do is click here.
Although this is mostly about goalies fighting, there are some short clips of netminders' really horrible miscues and mistakes. Included, of course, is the 197-foot floater let in by Vesa Toskala, late of the Toronto Maple Laffs.
This has featured on my blog before, but in case you missed it, check out "The worst Finnish NHL goalie ever", right here.
Weird sex laws
A page of "the top twenty weird sex laws" is all over the Internet like a rash. Since I like things that go by tens, I've picked ten of the best...and a controversial No. 11...to brighten your dull day. Please note disclaimer after the last one.
1. In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband’s lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.
2. In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.
3. In Alexandria VA, no man is allowed to make love to his wife with the smell of onions, garlic or sardines on his breath. It must have been a city council of henpecked husbands that enacted that one.
4. There are men in Guam whose full-time job it is to travel the countryside and deflower virgins, who pay them for the privilege. This is because according to the customary law of Guan it is forbidden for a virgin to marry.
5. In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman’s genitals, but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.
6. Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or a piece of wood at all times.
7. It is illegal for any member of the Nevada state legislature to conduct official business costumed as a penis, but only (apparently) while the legislature is in session.
8. In Santa Cruz, Bolivia it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.
9. In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens her mother must be in the room to witness the act.
10. In Sioux Falls SD, hotel rooms must only have twin beds. The beds must be a minimum of two feet apart IF a couple rents a room for only one night. And it is illegal to make love on the floor between the beds. No wonder the airport code for Sioux Falls is SUX! [That's Sioux CITY! Ed.]
And here's the bonus...
11. Most Middle Eastern countries recognize the following Islamic law: "After having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its flesh."
I'm waiting for someone, perhaps Agent 17, to tell me there is no such Islamic law. Angry denials have already appeared on the Net. But since Agent 17 is not a Muslim, how would he know?!
1. In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband’s lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.
2. In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.
3. In Alexandria VA, no man is allowed to make love to his wife with the smell of onions, garlic or sardines on his breath. It must have been a city council of henpecked husbands that enacted that one.
4. There are men in Guam whose full-time job it is to travel the countryside and deflower virgins, who pay them for the privilege. This is because according to the customary law of Guan it is forbidden for a virgin to marry.
5. In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman’s genitals, but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.
6. Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or a piece of wood at all times.
7. It is illegal for any member of the Nevada state legislature to conduct official business costumed as a penis, but only (apparently) while the legislature is in session.
8. In Santa Cruz, Bolivia it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.
9. In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens her mother must be in the room to witness the act.
10. In Sioux Falls SD, hotel rooms must only have twin beds. The beds must be a minimum of two feet apart IF a couple rents a room for only one night. And it is illegal to make love on the floor between the beds. No wonder the airport code for Sioux Falls is SUX! [That's Sioux CITY! Ed.]
And here's the bonus...
11. Most Middle Eastern countries recognize the following Islamic law: "After having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its flesh."
I'm waiting for someone, perhaps Agent 17, to tell me there is no such Islamic law. Angry denials have already appeared on the Net. But since Agent 17 is not a Muslim, how would he know?!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Feedback on the Islamization of Paris (29/9)
A friend of Agent 17's writes from somewhere in western Europe (is all quiet on the Front?) to suggest that the video from CBN be taken cum grano salis. Here's his comment:
I think you will need a good dose of salt. I watch the French news (TeleFrance 1) at least five times a week. I have not seen a thing about muslims blocking streets to pray. I think they settled the burqa law a few months ago, as did Belgium which banned it in public places like schools. On the other hand there has been daily updates on what Sarkozy has been doing for the last few weeks, which is to ship Roma (gypsies) back to Romania. This seems widely supported in France but the EU justice minister came down hard on Sarkozy.
There was quite a spirited exchange a week ago between Sarkozy and the justice minister and Sarkozy and the head of the EU (the Portuguese guy whose name I can't remember at the moment). Sarkozy says there is nothing illegal about what he is doing as the people are returning to Romania of their own free will. He has been giving each person 300 euros to help them make that decision a bit easier.
Walt says... The secular media, which includes TeleFrance 1, do not always report matters of concern to or attacks on the Christian Faith. CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) is what its name says. It's possible the events shown in the video happened as and where shown -- looks like France to me -- but only CBN thought it worth of reportage.
Thanks to Agent 17 and all for reading and keeping Walt posted...so to speak.
I think you will need a good dose of salt. I watch the French news (TeleFrance 1) at least five times a week. I have not seen a thing about muslims blocking streets to pray. I think they settled the burqa law a few months ago, as did Belgium which banned it in public places like schools. On the other hand there has been daily updates on what Sarkozy has been doing for the last few weeks, which is to ship Roma (gypsies) back to Romania. This seems widely supported in France but the EU justice minister came down hard on Sarkozy.
There was quite a spirited exchange a week ago between Sarkozy and the justice minister and Sarkozy and the head of the EU (the Portuguese guy whose name I can't remember at the moment). Sarkozy says there is nothing illegal about what he is doing as the people are returning to Romania of their own free will. He has been giving each person 300 euros to help them make that decision a bit easier.
Walt says... The secular media, which includes TeleFrance 1, do not always report matters of concern to or attacks on the Christian Faith. CBN (the Christian Broadcasting Network) is what its name says. It's possible the events shown in the video happened as and where shown -- looks like France to me -- but only CBN thought it worth of reportage.
Thanks to Agent 17 and all for reading and keeping Walt posted...so to speak.
Shared values
Every time someone mentions the Great American Melting Pot (see previous post), someone else says that either it never existed or it's a uniquely American construct and won't work in Canada.
In answer, I give you the parallel between the development and present condition of New York City and Toronto. (They are both fine places to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!) Toronto may have been a pretty provincial "white-bread" city until about 60 years ago, but now both cities can only be described (being charitable) as "communities of communities".
Torontonians often refer to their city as "The Little Apple", leaving out the adjective "wormy" which can be applied to both big and little apples. They see Toronto as just as "world class" as New York, which means just as blighted and just as divided by race and ethnicity. You want to see ghettos? New York's got them...in spades! [Oh please... Ed.]
But perhaps -- dare we hope? -- New York and Toronto are not metaphors for the countries in which they are situate? If we could detach them from the neighbouring land mass and let them drift out into the Atlantic, we might be left with a more homogeneous North American society.
The idea of multiculturalism rests on the assumption that there is no majority community with a shared culture and shared values. Multiculturalism treats the USA and Canada as blank slates on which anything at all can be written. This is wrong.
Canada and the USA are western democracies, founded on Christian principles. In recent years people have been trying to remove the "European cultural bias" (not to mention God Himself) from our constitutions. Yet we do seem to have embedded in our DNA some quaint notions, such as:
* One person, one vote.
* Freedom of speech.
* Freedom of the press.
* Freedom of assembly.
* The right to dissent
* The supremacy of secular law.
* Religious tolerance
Granted, some of these values, like "one person, one vote", weren't there from the beginning. And some, like the idea of equality of the sexes, have yet to be fully realized. But they are in the makeup of the overwhelming majority of native-born Americans and Canadians.
Seems to me multiculturalism, to have any validity at all, should be a two-way street. The host country should accommodate and welcome newcomers IF -- and only if -- the newcomers also make attempts to integrate and accept that not everything will be the same as in the country and society they left.
If immigrants cannot get onside with the concepts of integrating into our society and adopting our core values as their own, I would say there is no place for them here.
In answer, I give you the parallel between the development and present condition of New York City and Toronto. (They are both fine places to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!) Toronto may have been a pretty provincial "white-bread" city until about 60 years ago, but now both cities can only be described (being charitable) as "communities of communities".
Torontonians often refer to their city as "The Little Apple", leaving out the adjective "wormy" which can be applied to both big and little apples. They see Toronto as just as "world class" as New York, which means just as blighted and just as divided by race and ethnicity. You want to see ghettos? New York's got them...in spades! [Oh please... Ed.]
But perhaps -- dare we hope? -- New York and Toronto are not metaphors for the countries in which they are situate? If we could detach them from the neighbouring land mass and let them drift out into the Atlantic, we might be left with a more homogeneous North American society.
The idea of multiculturalism rests on the assumption that there is no majority community with a shared culture and shared values. Multiculturalism treats the USA and Canada as blank slates on which anything at all can be written. This is wrong.
Canada and the USA are western democracies, founded on Christian principles. In recent years people have been trying to remove the "European cultural bias" (not to mention God Himself) from our constitutions. Yet we do seem to have embedded in our DNA some quaint notions, such as:
* One person, one vote.
* Freedom of speech.
* Freedom of the press.
* Freedom of assembly.
* The right to dissent
* The supremacy of secular law.
* Religious tolerance
Granted, some of these values, like "one person, one vote", weren't there from the beginning. And some, like the idea of equality of the sexes, have yet to be fully realized. But they are in the makeup of the overwhelming majority of native-born Americans and Canadians.
Seems to me multiculturalism, to have any validity at all, should be a two-way street. The host country should accommodate and welcome newcomers IF -- and only if -- the newcomers also make attempts to integrate and accept that not everything will be the same as in the country and society they left.
If immigrants cannot get onside with the concepts of integrating into our society and adopting our core values as their own, I would say there is no place for them here.
Multiculturalism: a failed experiment?
Let's start with the provocative quote: two paragraphs from "When multiculturalism doesn't work", a long but worthwhile article by Ingrid Peritz and Joe Friesen, in today's Globe and Mail.
As the first generation of Canadians raised under the banner of multiculturalism graduates to positions of power, fissures are emerging in the Canadian mosaic. The proposed law to ban niqabs for those seeking public services in Quebec, the controversy surrounding the so-called honour killing of Muslim teenager Aqsa Parvez, the backlash against Tamil asylum seekers, the arrest of a Canadian-born doctor and Canadian Idol contestant in an alleged Islamist terror plot – all of these raise questions about Canada's nurturing of cultural difference. Even one of Canada's most prominent visible-minority politicians, Ujjal Dosanjh, accuses multiculturalism of allowing Sikh extremism to take root here.
[All of these stories have been mentioned in Walt's blog. Use the search feature to find my comments.]
Our European allies call multiculturalism a failed experiment. Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and even our Commonwealth cousin Australia have all, to differing degrees, blamed multiculturalism for separating peoples, weakening national cohesion and encouraging Islamic extremism.
Now some observations. Niqabs, hijabs and honour killings have get a lot of press, but there are other serious problems with multiculturalism as found in Canada and (to a lesser degree) the USA.
Item: Most Chinese immigrants hang onto their Chinese or Hong Kong passports. (According to Chinese law, dual citizenship is not allowed, but Chinese law is, shall we say, less than uniformly applied. Westerners dealing with China and the Chinese had better learn at least one word -- guanxi.)
Item: Recent arrivals from non-European countries show a distinct lack of enthusiasm for learning English (or French). And why should they? Everything from ATMs to the police to automated answering machines serve them in their own languages. Cities like Toronto have become modern-day Babels. There are parts of the Greater Toronto Area where an English-speaker can't even read the signs. But at least a linguist can figure out which ghetto he's in.
Item: Speaking of ghettos, ethno-racial segregation is now commonplace. Most North American cities have long had their Chinatowns, Greektowns and Little Italies. But now we have Little Indias being further subdivided into the Tamil village, the Punjabi quarter (hello Sikhdale!) and the commercial section where everyone's name is Patel.
Item: Speaking of the Indian communities (note the plural), let's not ignore "ethnic protection", now becoming evident in such sectors as trucking and transport, which are largely controlled by Punjabi gangs.
Item: Politicians of cities with large "minority" populations have long known the benefits of ethnic segregation. How can a "McCarthy" get elected in an Italian neighbourhood? (Answer: probably better than a "Smythe-Jones".) Would a "Khan" ever be elected in a Sikh ghetto? (Answer: he'd have a Chinaman's chance!)
Item: Segregation continues even in death. A large part of Calgary's Queen's Park Cemetery is now a "Chinese [only] Section". And Toronto has its own Chinese cemeteries. Which just goes to prove that segregation by race, ethnicity, even religion is voluntary.
Since the beginning, we've had separate cemeteries for Catholics and non-Catholics, and separate school systems too in some places. So what? It seems to me the natural human condition to want to be with people who are "like us", even in death. Multiculturalism, especially when enforced, goes against our natural human "hard wiring".
Conclusion: Multiculturalism is not a recipe for long-term socio-political stability. It is an experiment in social engineering whose all too apparent failure is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
If the USA and Canada are not to be still further fragmented, our diverse peoples increasingly alienated from one another, we must discard the multicultural model imposed on us by the liberal elites. It's time to revisit the old concept of the melting pot, where people try to become unhyphenated Americans and Canadians.
As for immigration -- now that debate on the subject seems to have been initiated -- let's close the doors to all but those who are ready, willing and able to fit into our society, rather than expecting us to reshape our society to accomodate them.
As the first generation of Canadians raised under the banner of multiculturalism graduates to positions of power, fissures are emerging in the Canadian mosaic. The proposed law to ban niqabs for those seeking public services in Quebec, the controversy surrounding the so-called honour killing of Muslim teenager Aqsa Parvez, the backlash against Tamil asylum seekers, the arrest of a Canadian-born doctor and Canadian Idol contestant in an alleged Islamist terror plot – all of these raise questions about Canada's nurturing of cultural difference. Even one of Canada's most prominent visible-minority politicians, Ujjal Dosanjh, accuses multiculturalism of allowing Sikh extremism to take root here.
[All of these stories have been mentioned in Walt's blog. Use the search feature to find my comments.]
Our European allies call multiculturalism a failed experiment. Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands and even our Commonwealth cousin Australia have all, to differing degrees, blamed multiculturalism for separating peoples, weakening national cohesion and encouraging Islamic extremism.
Now some observations. Niqabs, hijabs and honour killings have get a lot of press, but there are other serious problems with multiculturalism as found in Canada and (to a lesser degree) the USA.
Item: Most Chinese immigrants hang onto their Chinese or Hong Kong passports. (According to Chinese law, dual citizenship is not allowed, but Chinese law is, shall we say, less than uniformly applied. Westerners dealing with China and the Chinese had better learn at least one word -- guanxi.)
Item: Recent arrivals from non-European countries show a distinct lack of enthusiasm for learning English (or French). And why should they? Everything from ATMs to the police to automated answering machines serve them in their own languages. Cities like Toronto have become modern-day Babels. There are parts of the Greater Toronto Area where an English-speaker can't even read the signs. But at least a linguist can figure out which ghetto he's in.
Item: Speaking of ghettos, ethno-racial segregation is now commonplace. Most North American cities have long had their Chinatowns, Greektowns and Little Italies. But now we have Little Indias being further subdivided into the Tamil village, the Punjabi quarter (hello Sikhdale!) and the commercial section where everyone's name is Patel.
Item: Speaking of the Indian communities (note the plural), let's not ignore "ethnic protection", now becoming evident in such sectors as trucking and transport, which are largely controlled by Punjabi gangs.
Item: Politicians of cities with large "minority" populations have long known the benefits of ethnic segregation. How can a "McCarthy" get elected in an Italian neighbourhood? (Answer: probably better than a "Smythe-Jones".) Would a "Khan" ever be elected in a Sikh ghetto? (Answer: he'd have a Chinaman's chance!)
Item: Segregation continues even in death. A large part of Calgary's Queen's Park Cemetery is now a "Chinese [only] Section". And Toronto has its own Chinese cemeteries. Which just goes to prove that segregation by race, ethnicity, even religion is voluntary.
Since the beginning, we've had separate cemeteries for Catholics and non-Catholics, and separate school systems too in some places. So what? It seems to me the natural human condition to want to be with people who are "like us", even in death. Multiculturalism, especially when enforced, goes against our natural human "hard wiring".
Conclusion: Multiculturalism is not a recipe for long-term socio-political stability. It is an experiment in social engineering whose all too apparent failure is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature.
If the USA and Canada are not to be still further fragmented, our diverse peoples increasingly alienated from one another, we must discard the multicultural model imposed on us by the liberal elites. It's time to revisit the old concept of the melting pot, where people try to become unhyphenated Americans and Canadians.
As for immigration -- now that debate on the subject seems to have been initiated -- let's close the doors to all but those who are ready, willing and able to fit into our society, rather than expecting us to reshape our society to accomodate them.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Fluctuations
Walt enjoyed a little story sent by Agent 3.
I was at my bank today, 3 writes. There was a short queue, just one lady in front of me, an Asian lady who was trying to exchange Chinese yuan for dollars.
It was obvious she was a little irritated. She asked the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get one hunat fiffy dolla fo towson yen. Today I only get hunat foty! Why it change?"
The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations."
The Asian lady replied, "Fluc you white people too."
I was at my bank today, 3 writes. There was a short queue, just one lady in front of me, an Asian lady who was trying to exchange Chinese yuan for dollars.
It was obvious she was a little irritated. She asked the teller, "Why it change? Yesterday, I get one hunat fiffy dolla fo towson yen. Today I only get hunat foty! Why it change?"
The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations."
The Asian lady replied, "Fluc you white people too."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)