The good not-so-grey-anymore Globe and Mail, which likes to think of itself as Canada's version of the New York Times, has a lead editorial today entitled "Strike multiculturalism from the national vocabulary".
This is quite unaccountable! For nigh on four decades the Globe has been so politically correct as to make one [meaning Walt. ed.] puke. This is like the Times coming out for Ron or Rand Paul!
Now the question is, whence cometh this Damascene conversion? Is it a trial balloon floated by the Prime Minister's Office, with which the Globe is not entirely unconnected? Or could it come from an even more sinister source? No... There is no more sinister source!
Or could it be that the Globe has taken note of the comments posted by its readers, which run about 8 to 1 against immigration from the third world, multiculturalism and "progressive thinking" in general.
Anyway, good for the Globe for having dared, for whatever reason, to bell the cat. Now let's see who lines up behind them.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Does Mr. Liu know about this?
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other freedoms are guaranteed in the constitution of the People's Republic of China, whose 61st anniversary was celebrated (by some) a week ago. As with many things in China, what you get is the opposite of what you see. Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion, is a joke, and a cruel one at that.
One man who dared to invoke his constitutional right to speak out is Liu Xiaobo.
In December 2008, Mr. Liu and other intellectuals, published Charter 08, a lengthy manifesto that called on China's Communist Party to uphold individual rights and relinquish its monopoly on power.
Modeled on Charter 77, the manifesto drafted by Czechoslovakian rights advocates three decades earlier, Charter 08 eventually garnered some 10,000 signatures before government censors pulled it from the Internet. All mention of it is now fobidden in China and it has disappeared into a 1984-like "memory hole".
But Charter 08 and its creator have not been forgotten in the West. Mr. Liu has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of “his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.”
One wonders if Mr. Liu knows about the honour which has been bestowed on him. That’s because he also has been consigned to the "memory hole". Now he spends most of the day in a prison cell he shares with five others in the obscure city of Jinzhou, 300 miles from Beijing.
Why is Mr. Liu there? Because the Communist Chinese government, last December 25th, gave him a little Christmas present -- an 11-year sentence for “inciting subversion of state power”. So much for freedom of speech in China.
Here, courtesy of Agent 3, who lived and worked there for three years, are the five rules for survival in China.
1. Don't think.
2. If you think, don't speak.
3. If you think and speak, don't write.
4. If you think, speak and write, don't sign your name.
5. If you think, speak, write and sign your name...don't be surprised!
If only Mr. Liu had known! Walt joins Agents 3, 78 and 88 in congratulating him. A file-bearing cake will be sent as soon as we can figure out which guards to bribe.
Footnote: Click here to read "Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident", from today's New York Times.
One man who dared to invoke his constitutional right to speak out is Liu Xiaobo.
In December 2008, Mr. Liu and other intellectuals, published Charter 08, a lengthy manifesto that called on China's Communist Party to uphold individual rights and relinquish its monopoly on power.
Modeled on Charter 77, the manifesto drafted by Czechoslovakian rights advocates three decades earlier, Charter 08 eventually garnered some 10,000 signatures before government censors pulled it from the Internet. All mention of it is now fobidden in China and it has disappeared into a 1984-like "memory hole".
But Charter 08 and its creator have not been forgotten in the West. Mr. Liu has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of “his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.”
One wonders if Mr. Liu knows about the honour which has been bestowed on him. That’s because he also has been consigned to the "memory hole". Now he spends most of the day in a prison cell he shares with five others in the obscure city of Jinzhou, 300 miles from Beijing.
Why is Mr. Liu there? Because the Communist Chinese government, last December 25th, gave him a little Christmas present -- an 11-year sentence for “inciting subversion of state power”. So much for freedom of speech in China.
Here, courtesy of Agent 3, who lived and worked there for three years, are the five rules for survival in China.
1. Don't think.
2. If you think, don't speak.
3. If you think and speak, don't write.
4. If you think, speak and write, don't sign your name.
5. If you think, speak, write and sign your name...don't be surprised!
If only Mr. Liu had known! Walt joins Agents 3, 78 and 88 in congratulating him. A file-bearing cake will be sent as soon as we can figure out which guards to bribe.
Footnote: Click here to read "Nobel Peace Prize Given to Jailed Chinese Dissident", from today's New York Times.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
If they were only white...
The Big Issue that is absolutely off-limits this election season is immigration. North or south of the world's longest semi-defended border, everyone wants to talk about it but no-one is willing to talk about it, for fear of being prosecuted for "hate crime".
Let's mince no words. The real problem is not that "those people" are immigrants. There is a grudging acceptance of the proposition that America and Canada do need more newcomers, because without them our populations would shrink. That's because of our continuing sins of abortion and artificial birth control.
No, the problem is that we are letting in the wrong sorts of immigrants. An influx of skilled, white immigrants, willing to accept our society's values, learn our language and try to assimilate, would be a Good Thing, as it was with those who came from Europe following the Last Big One.
But those who are washing up on our shores now -- literally -- are not that kind.
What is bothering people is that the current wave of immigrants is non-white. And they seem determined not to just to remain so, but to flaunt their very different cultures and religions, demanding that we accommodate ourselves to them, not the other way around.
Today's Globe and Mail has a relevant and thoughtful column by the always provocative Margaret Wente, entitled "A few frank words about immigration". Frankly, you should read it. It seems Canadians are about to embark, at long last, on a long-overdue debate. Be part of it.
Every
Let's mince no words. The real problem is not that "those people" are immigrants. There is a grudging acceptance of the proposition that America and Canada do need more newcomers, because without them our populations would shrink. That's because of our continuing sins of abortion and artificial birth control.
No, the problem is that we are letting in the wrong sorts of immigrants. An influx of skilled, white immigrants, willing to accept our society's values, learn our language and try to assimilate, would be a Good Thing, as it was with those who came from Europe following the Last Big One.
But those who are washing up on our shores now -- literally -- are not that kind.
What is bothering people is that the current wave of immigrants is non-white. And they seem determined not to just to remain so, but to flaunt their very different cultures and religions, demanding that we accommodate ourselves to them, not the other way around.
Today's Globe and Mail has a relevant and thoughtful column by the always provocative Margaret Wente, entitled "A few frank words about immigration". Frankly, you should read it. It seems Canadians are about to embark, at long last, on a long-overdue debate. Be part of it.
Every
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
"Disadvantaged youths": what is to be done?
Walt is following with interest an e-debate -- OK, a discussion by e-mail -- between Agents 3 and 17 about what, if anything, should/can be done with/to/for black youths, now known in PC circles as "disadvantaged persons".
These kids (?), it seems, are "depraved on account of they're deprived". They come from dysfunctional homes, usually without fathers, so naturally they become gangstas. And their alienation from mainstream society also manifests itself in bizarre dress, incomprehensible jive talk (or gansta rap or whatever it's called these days) and generally antisocial behaviour.
For two cases in point, see "Pants on Ground Prompts Bullet in Butt", an incident in Memphis, and "Boy, 14, among youths facing gun charges", from Toronto.
What to do? That's the $64 question in Toronto, Memphis and just about every North American city. If anyone has a workable suggestion not involving firing squads, Walt would be pleased to read and publish it.
These kids (?), it seems, are "depraved on account of they're deprived". They come from dysfunctional homes, usually without fathers, so naturally they become gangstas. And their alienation from mainstream society also manifests itself in bizarre dress, incomprehensible jive talk (or gansta rap or whatever it's called these days) and generally antisocial behaviour.
For two cases in point, see "Pants on Ground Prompts Bullet in Butt", an incident in Memphis, and "Boy, 14, among youths facing gun charges", from Toronto.
What to do? That's the $64 question in Toronto, Memphis and just about every North American city. If anyone has a workable suggestion not involving firing squads, Walt would be pleased to read and publish it.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The effect of the affect
OK, I remember now. It's the confusion of "affect" and "effect".
Normally...normally..."affect" is a verb and "effect" is a noun. So...
How does the new bylaw affect you? but
What is the effect of the new bylaw?
But, English being what it is, "affect" can sometimes be a noun and "effect" can be a verb.
"Effect" (the verb) means to cause something to happen, to bring about something. For example, "President Obama promised, if re-elected, to effect any change that didn't get effected the first time."
At one time, the noun "affect" was synonymous with "affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling". In modern times it is sometimes used by the shrinkers of heads, meaning "feeling or emotion" or "an expressed or observed emotional response". So, "The effect of his affect was quite shocking."
All clear now? You're welcome.
Normally...normally..."affect" is a verb and "effect" is a noun. So...
How does the new bylaw affect you? but
What is the effect of the new bylaw?
But, English being what it is, "affect" can sometimes be a noun and "effect" can be a verb.
"Effect" (the verb) means to cause something to happen, to bring about something. For example, "President Obama promised, if re-elected, to effect any change that didn't get effected the first time."
At one time, the noun "affect" was synonymous with "affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling". In modern times it is sometimes used by the shrinkers of heads, meaning "feeling or emotion" or "an expressed or observed emotional response". So, "The effect of his affect was quite shocking."
All clear now? You're welcome.
Say it right!
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, abuse of the English language is something up with which I will not put. I am tired of hearing and reading the following mistakes in the media.
I do not blame the bingo-callers who say these things while reading the news, for they are chosen for their looks and not their education. I do blame the writers and editors who commit these errors to paper or screen.
"Incidences" for "incidents"
"Incidence" means the rate or range of occurrence or influence of something, especially of something unwanted, e.g. "the high incidence of heart disease in men over 40". The word would almost never be used in the plural. If you have a number of occurrences (actions or facts or instances of occurring) of, say, murder, those would be "incidents".
"Service" for "serve"
Where I grew up, "servicing" was what you took your car or your cow in for, at the appropriate season. "Serving" you was what the butcher or the baker or the propietor of the general store did if you had cash money in your hand and they weren't out fishing.
There was a third one, beginning with "A", that I meant to write about, but it has slipped my mind. That's what happens when you get to an advanced age.
I will add it when I get apoplectic (that wasn't it) enough to remember it. Meanwhile, I refer you to a good online resource: www.dictionary.com. I wish media types would check it once in a while.
I do not blame the bingo-callers who say these things while reading the news, for they are chosen for their looks and not their education. I do blame the writers and editors who commit these errors to paper or screen.
"Incidences" for "incidents"
"Incidence" means the rate or range of occurrence or influence of something, especially of something unwanted, e.g. "the high incidence of heart disease in men over 40". The word would almost never be used in the plural. If you have a number of occurrences (actions or facts or instances of occurring) of, say, murder, those would be "incidents".
"Service" for "serve"
Where I grew up, "servicing" was what you took your car or your cow in for, at the appropriate season. "Serving" you was what the butcher or the baker or the propietor of the general store did if you had cash money in your hand and they weren't out fishing.
There was a third one, beginning with "A", that I meant to write about, but it has slipped my mind. That's what happens when you get to an advanced age.
I will add it when I get apoplectic (that wasn't it) enough to remember it. Meanwhile, I refer you to a good online resource: www.dictionary.com. I wish media types would check it once in a while.
Monday, October 4, 2010
An example of state intervention in one family's life
Following up on my previous post, I can't resist quoting one paragraph from Neil Reynolds's advance review of The Servile Mind: How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life, the new book by Professor Kenneth Minogue. The columnist cites, from the book, a horrific example of the British government's plans to control the personal lives of ordinary people.
Prof. Minogue writes from Britain, where the Labour government (2007) began seizing “unacceptable” families and holding them, without consent, for extended periods of behaviour-modification training by cadres of civil servants from eight government departments. These families had a record of drug addiction, child violence and poor mental attitudes. Where, he asks, will this cleansing end?
Before you say that such things would never happen in the USA or Canada, think of how many instances you're aware of where an agency like Child Protection Services has stepped in to take children out of homes which they deem "unsuitable".
I was discussing this with Agent 3 yesterday. He remembers a case in rural Ontario where the local Children's Aid Society (the equivalent of CPS) took two children away from their parents because a city-bred social worker was appalled that their farmhouse had only an outdoor toilet and she had noticed "a couple of bruises" on one child's arms.
The parents had to fight the CAS for custody of their own children. The small-town judge who heard the case suggested that the CAS had been a mite over-zealous, and gave the kids back. That was over 40 years ago, but Agent 3 opines that there is, if anything, more state intervention in our lives today than there was then.
When, he and Walt ask, will the almighty government remember that the government that governs best governs least? When will they leave us alone?!
Prof. Minogue writes from Britain, where the Labour government (2007) began seizing “unacceptable” families and holding them, without consent, for extended periods of behaviour-modification training by cadres of civil servants from eight government departments. These families had a record of drug addiction, child violence and poor mental attitudes. Where, he asks, will this cleansing end?
Before you say that such things would never happen in the USA or Canada, think of how many instances you're aware of where an agency like Child Protection Services has stepped in to take children out of homes which they deem "unsuitable".
I was discussing this with Agent 3 yesterday. He remembers a case in rural Ontario where the local Children's Aid Society (the equivalent of CPS) took two children away from their parents because a city-bred social worker was appalled that their farmhouse had only an outdoor toilet and she had noticed "a couple of bruises" on one child's arms.
The parents had to fight the CAS for custody of their own children. The small-town judge who heard the case suggested that the CAS had been a mite over-zealous, and gave the kids back. That was over 40 years ago, but Agent 3 opines that there is, if anything, more state intervention in our lives today than there was then.
When, he and Walt ask, will the almighty government remember that the government that governs best governs least? When will they leave us alone?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)