Bash some heads together or be chopped separately

This past weekend has seen an unprecedented series of public demonstrations in France as an outpouring of solidarity and “don’t-tread-on-me” in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  World leaders (though notably no-one from the USA) lead the crowd, and the one in Paris was estimated at 2 million people, bigger than Liberation Day in WW2.  At the same time, the anti-Islamization marches in Germany continue, and may be gaining traction.  The latter is hard to be certain of, as the media is determined to tar all of these people as Nazis and supresses and distorts reports.  In these two events you see that Europe is approaching critical mass in terms of the threat of Islam to Western Civilization. 

The West has spent much time, blood and treasure of fighting amongst itself, but in the post WW2 period one could be excused (on casual reflection) of thinking that this internecine fighting is behind us.  I think that in the post-nationalism period the struggle has changed from being international to being a “civil war” in every Western country at the ideological level.  In other words, the West is wilfully destroying itself. 

Not all of it of course, but the self-loathing strain of “white guilt” progressivism is firmly entrenched in our university and media making it the default position of the latter.  The idea that anything done by white men is the worst thing ever seems to be the basis of it, and as such it encompasses everything from Marxists (the cultural variety) to radical feminists and many other sub-groups besides.  I run into this on a regular basis online, and have greatly curtailed my activities there (mostly to here) as these people are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they don’t even try to debate, just insult and belittle. 

How many of them are having second thoughts in the wake of the Paris attacks, and the ones before them in Ottawa and Sydney is anyone’s guess, but the hard core (who I estimate at c. 10% of the population) will cling to their “Écrasez l’infâme” attitude toward their own society no matter what.  They are, no matter what their actual proportion of the population, a minority and at some point, hopefully now or very soon, the majority who don’t feel like bowing down to these jihadis will accept that some heads need to be cracked to maintain what we have. 

Canada is overhauling its’ laws to deal more proactively with terrorist wannabes (we’re already arresting them) but France I’m sure already has what it needs to deal with them, including now the public and political will.  The EU overall needs to tighten up to track these guys (and girls) when they travel to Syria, etc. and either nab them before they go, or (better to my mind) let them go and revoke their passports as soon as they clear the EU.  Couple that with contributing military force to battle them wherever they went and we have most of a plan to manage this threat. 

People need to be (and are) arrested for supporting Salafist causes, and the net has to expand to Facebook etc. posts.  Post a message supporting Islamic State,  10 years in jail.  Conspire to support them, life.  Make it painful and you will weed out the lightweights, or at least muzzle them.  The intelligence services can track them (hopefully) when they go underground, and I’m sure (as much as I can be with no inside knowledge) that many a plot has been foiled already.   

Whatever laws are passed and whatever action is taken, it has to be balanced with not making life difficult for law-abiding citizens.  For routine investigation and enforcement this is very do-able, and the (let’s face it, pinprick) attacks those guys can make do not justify martial law.  That’s here; in France they have a much larger problem with extensive “no-go” areas in the banlieues of Paris and elsewhere, and  military reinforcements have been sent.  This is the tactical response required to the situation, and as long as the usual whiners shut up when the necessary “profiling” takes place and supporters are rolled up the problem is, as mentioned previously, manageable. 

Soluble?  No measures which would leave our societies recognizable as “free” could reduce the threat to zero, and even the alternatives (police/military state) aren’t 100% solutions.  “We” must decide that our way of life is worth defending and do so at all levels.  That will necessitate hating a bit less the society that allows you to publicly call for its’ downfall and (sometimes) replacement, if for no other reason than you’d rather not be lumped in with the jihadis who do the same.   You can and will be judged by the company you keep, even the virtual kind.   

It's not paranoia if they ARE out to get you

t has not escaped my notice that I am a minority viewpoint in today's society. This doesn't make me doubt myself or my views, as they are based on observation of the world as it is, not as I think it should be.

This it could be said is the difference between a conservative and other people, and indeed, this article makes that point:

Traditional conservatism, or what’s better called Toryism, is not about hiding from the scary outside world. It’s a worldview that, as A. J. P. Taylor described it, “rests on doubt in human nature; it distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future.” Conservatism isn’t defined by gun-nuttery or rabid fundamentalism. It’s about prudence in the face of progressive utopianism and revolutionary fervor. When the conservative looks into the mirror, he sees a broken, fallible man capable of good, but never perfect, things. Liberals and government apparatchiks in the media don’t see him that way. Progressivism seeks to crush human nature and the idea that man isn’t meant for greatness. A progressive’s reflection never shows humility, only a hubristic belief in fixing all the world’s wrongs. For the left, right-wingers, including social conservatives, are ignorant troglodytes in need of forced enlightenment.

It continues to draw disturbing parallels between past purges of "undesirable" elements of society by various "progressive" regimes of the past and the thought-crime policing which is going on today, but you can read it there.

I'd like to say that I think the author is off his rocker/meds but I really can't. We're not at Reign of Terror level yet, but having unfashionable (but harmless) ideas can cost you your job, no small thing in today's economy. Of course this is a small price to pay for a better world, right?

The word utopia means literally "no place" since perfection cannot exist in human affairs. Make things better? Certainly better, but perfect? No. That is my troglodyteist conservativeness speaking of course, because after a certain point the quest for "equality" becomes a zero-sum game. More women in the workplace equals less men in it; not a misogynist rant, simple math. Should we hobble the potential of 50% of the population to maintain someone's advantage? I'd say no, take all the best and brightest. Well, then that disadvantages the dim and useless.

It's easy to see how equality of outcome is completely separate from equality of opportunity, as with true equality of opportunity the cream will rise to the top of whatever you're looking at. If you game the opportunity, making it "more equal" for some, it descends into farce with manifold unintended consequences. Quotas and "affirmative action" undermine any confidence in the products of a system, as you can never be sure of the quality of any member of the preferred groups. Were I a black neurosurgeon I would really resent this. Meritocracy is problematic for those who don't make the cut, but I bloody well want my doctors and engineers selected by that process.

Freedom of speech is if not dead at least gravely wounded, mainly because if you don't toe the line you'll be shouted down. Nobody debates any more as they are either too certain that they know everything or afraid to state their real views in public. None of this is new under the sun, and Voltaire would likely recognize the constraints of the current regime, having had his run-ins with l'ancien. That's progress for you.

Red is Red and Blue is Blue, and Never the Twain Shall Meet

News of the day-or-so is the Malaysian Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine, but I'll wait for that to settle out a bit before I comment on it. For now, something completely different, certainly off my beaten path here.

The general scenario is Sarah Palin getting a job on "The View" television show. I despise The View as a coven (no offence to actual witches) of shrieking harpies; although that is a personal opinion, it is relevant to the situation.

To say that Sarah would be a minority viewpoint on that program is to understate things significantly, but the "minority report" is important to the credibility of any undertaking. The writer for The Daily Beast to whose article I have linked doesn't see it that way however.

1. Co-hosts Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg would crush her.

The View isn’t Fox News, where hosts fawn over Palin like she is dropping pearls of wisdom instead of inane comments.

It’s not going to work out that way on The View, because in past years, Rosie and Whoopi would frequently slam the conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s right-wing politics. For example, there was the time Whoopi schooled Hasselbeck on the reason why women need to be the ultimate decision makers when it comes to their reproductive rights. The audience clearly sided with Whoopi, breaking out into thunderous applause as she finished her comment. Expect more of the same with Palin on the panel.

2. Palin’s daily dose of idiotic comments. Currently, we are stuck waiting for periodic appearances by Palin to make unintentionally hilarious remarks, like when she said Paul Revere “warned the British,” not the colonists. Or when she insisted that “We’ve got to stand with our North Korean allies.”

Listening to Sarah Palin talk about history is like watching an episode of the new Comedy Central show Drunk History. That show, based on a hit web series, features horribly inebriated people telling their versions of history. With Palin on The View, it will be like Drunk Historyfive days a week.

3. Sarah Palin’s views will be tempered or she’ll be fired. Here’s the most serious issue for Palin: She can’t play to both mainstream and probably not very political American housewives (The View audience) and the Tea Party wingnuts.

ABC’s parent company, Disney, is not going to let Palin be the Palin that most of us hate (or love.) Sure, Disney wants ratings because they equal profits. But I very much doubt that Disney will allow Palin—or any one person—to cause damage to its corporate image.

If her views are to be "tempered" (read: supressed, mocked, censored) why the hell would they bring her on? The answer is of course to use her as a punching bag for cheap points and laughs with the show's base just like Liz Hasselbeck before her, the token Christian conservative. The real mystery is why would Palin want to put herself in that position? Sarah is, bless her, not the sharpest knife in the block, but should have drawn to her some smart people as advisors by now. Her coming out with this idea calls that assumption into question, but whatever.

My point here is more on the ideological divide in public discourse shown very starkly by choice of language and personal vilification/mockery of those who don't conform. The linked article is relatively mild as these things go, but is still about as clever and subtle as a sledge hammer, 'though I'm certain the author would differ. Most likely he'd call me a bunch of names and tell me how ignorant I am while feeling smugly superior. I don't know this for a fact, but past experience with the broad "type" (determined by his treatment of his subject here) places a high level of confidence on that prediction.

Too much exposure to this sort of zealotry has soured me on online discussions, as it is impossible to keep things to the facts of a situation. Recently I called someone on a flippant remark completely at odds with reality, and the response was a constant barrage of assumptions about where I get my info from, words put in my mouth and complete dismissal of the possibility that I had any idea whatsoever what I was talking about. I consider myself sharper than Mrs. Palin. (she does have other redeeming qualities however) and the way I really displayed it there was that I walked away from a fight I could never win.

Here in my obscure corner of the internet I can say what I want, and I like it that way. I am happy to debate things with people who see things differently than I do, but the old concept of "agree to disagree" seems to be lost, so it's not worth it.  I know that I don’t know everything; it’d be nice for a whole lot of other people to realize the same thing but I’m not holding my breath.  Or ever watching “The View”, Sarah Palin or no Sarah Palin.

That (Big) Bird has Flown

I have been quite remiss in keeping this up-to-date, but you get what you pay for as always and I'm back, so let the rejoicing begin. With that out of the way, I have not managed to whip up a sense of righteous indignation/outrage about anything of late but I do have some observations on recent events and these follow, maybe (no promises) even in some coherent fashion.

At this point it has been universally recognized that Mitt Romney clobbered "The One" in the first candidates debate last week, and I really wish I didn't understand why so many people were surprised by this.  Take a look at Romney's accomplishments vs Obama's and you'll see the difference between someone who gets (real) stuff done and someone who talks a good game.  At least, until the latter doesn't when faced with someone as smart as him (surprise!) who has an actual plan, or at least direction.

Some online poll says that I agree with Romney's positions about 85% versus something like 12% for Obama so full disclosure on which way I'm leaning on the faint chance that it wasn't blindingly obvious.  Also irrelevant since I don't live there and won't be voting for anyone, but I will say it here (and I'm not alone) that America needs to dump Obama's crew if they are to have any chance to get back on their feet.  There is no magic bullet that will do it, but the axe has to swing around the bureaucracy quite a bit, and PBS is but the leading edge of it.

If domestic issues bore you (though they shouldn't, since you live "there") we have vast room for foreign policy improvement from the last 10 years.  I use 10 years to encompass not getting out of Afghanistan in 2002 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq (for no material or geopolitical gain) from 2003, not to mention the mess Obama made to compound all of that.  Following the "triage" approach I advocated in the last blog entry one needs to know one's enemies, and no amount of ignoring people who want you dead will change how they feel; just ask Lara Logan, she should know.

Apparently the current US administration's assertions that the assault on the Benghazi consulate was "spontaneous" never convinced many people (and none who paid any attention).  This, especially including the murder of the US Ambassador and other US nationals on what is under international law US soil, is grounds for some major payback; indeed wars have been started for less in a less pussy-footing age.  What has Obama done?  Sent the FBI who spent less than a day investigating, and no time at all running the terrorist fucks to ground and killing them with smart bombs and Spec Ops guys.

I have always asserted that there is no point having a big stick unless people believe that you will use it.  The way to make them believe is use said stick to kill people who mess with you.  This will make your enemies think twice and your friends multiply when they see that you both can and WILL protect them.  Instead, the Obama legacy to America's already dismal foreign policy is to lose what influence they had, even a year ago, in the Middle East.  Just ask Hosni Mubarak; oh wait...

Since everyone (whose opinion matters) likes a plan versus mere complaints, here's what I think the US has to do to get back on its feet:

1. Cut all aid to countries which are not actively helpful to US/Western interests;
2. Pull all major ground forces out of everywhere in Asia and the Middle East;
3. Leave a "trip wire" in startegic areas; intel-gathering locations with robust defence and enough offensive punch to punish anyone who whacks the hive. Back this up with Carrier Task Forces, weighted toward the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
4. More work for these Carrier groups, keep Chinese territorial aggrandizement in check, particularly in relation to the legitimate territorial claims of China's neighbors.  The second-biggest (but the biggest practical one) stick in the arsenal had better be good for something other than hoovering up taxpayer dollars.
5. At home, chop, de-fund and repeal as necessary to trim the bureaucracy and cut red tape which holds  back economic progress and energy security.

Practically I see the establishments on either side of the US political landscape keeping any useful changes from being made, the proliferation of special-interest and NIMBY groups having made any decisions on the simplest of projects virtually impossible.  I see Romney as a better choice than four more years of Obama (and it increasingly looks like O sees it that way too!) but I'm not so naive as to think there's a magic bullet.  Well, "enlightened despot" has the best chance, but that's the rarest of beasts, and not on the menu in the States anytime soon. 

It's good to have a King

I opened this up yesterday realizing that I'd written nothing here in the better part of a month, but was at a complete loss for topics. This has happened before of course, but is happening more often the last year or so as I realize i don't have much to say which is new. Well, who does anyway; it's a post-scarcity world for ideas too. With that in mind, here's what I think about what David Brooks thinks about our modern elites.

Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment.

As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess. If you went to Groton a century ago, you knew you were privileged. You were taught how morally precarious privilege was and how much responsibility it entailed. You were housed in a spartan 6-foot-by-9-foot cubicle to prepare you for the rigors of leadership.

The best of the WASP elites had a stewardship mentality, that they were temporary caretakers of institutions that would span generations. They cruelly ostracized people who did not live up to their codes of gentlemanly conduct and scrupulosity. They were insular and struggled with intimacy, but they did believe in restraint, reticence and service.

This is very much my argument in favour of continuing with our (Commonwealth) constitutional monarchy. The Royal Family is raised like this (and it even takes, sometimes), providing some institutional continuity much pooh-poohed by "progressive" republican elements in our society. To wit:

Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous). Wall Street firms, for example, now hire on the basis of youth and brains, not experience and character. Most of their problems can be traced to this.

When things are ALL about results it can be efficient, however ruthless efficiency is no way to live. It's also no way to run a business, i.e. for "shareholder value", but this is the trap that publicly owned companies run into. It is almost universally true that short-term solutions are not good in the long run. The corollary is that long-term things have no solutions, just management.

"Nothing ever ends", Watchmen fans. If I could, I'd be setting things up for my kids and great-grand kids, and it once was that the rich (elites) had estates, Duchies, Earldoms, etc. that were handed down. You can look at this as outmoded feudalism, or you can look at it as a multi-generational company providing some certainty for the tenants.

Yes, it's de riguer to be against "the Establishment", but please somebody explain to me what that is these days? The banks? Publicly-traded companies; if you want stop the ridiculous bonuses that executives get, buy up enough stock to vote them down. Unless you'd rather just smash things because life is insufficiently handed to you. Political elites? Don't make me laugh; they are merely opportunistic and know they have a limited shelf life.

Of course there is some shadowy world-wide oligarchical elite and with enough money there is a whole lot you can influence and get done. After that though we're in Yertle the Turtle territory and if the plebes have a real problem things can go seriously sideways in the planning cycle. That's Entropy, and a multi-generational elite will account for it. They would not, for example invade Iraq and have nothing to show for it but a lot of dead and injured troops and worn-out equipment.

We have something to the best of my immediate knowledge fairly unique in history: the USA as incipient Empire which is controlled by the new meritocratic elite. Accordingly it is REALLY bad at the Empire stuff, since that requires a long-term goal and the personal investment of the planners. The latter you will most certainly not get with a "democracy", so expect more schizo foreign policy behaviour from whatever passes for "America" these days.

The Road to Hell is paved by the good intentions of the new intellectual elites in academia (who make their way into politics; hello, Obamas) and the media. The problem of course is the Marxist/socialist cant that people are prefectable, they just need to be shown the way. The old-school view is that most people are fucked and it was your Duty to lead them by example. You will rarely if ever hear a social progressive talking about Duty, as it's viewed as archaic and patriarchal or something. Not surprising, because serving as an example severely circumscribes your freedom to do what you want. The mechanical difference between the approaches is that Example leadership pulls, the Nanny State pushes.

Different elite paradigms, different problems. There is theoretical upward mobility today, but in the old days there was in the Feudal system too (William the Conqueror, anyone?). All systems bloat and ossify over time, and the newer meritocratic version has merely done so more quickly and by different mechanisms. The much railed-against credentialism of today is the prime means of keeping the riff-raff in their place. As each generation gets positions, they increase the qualifications required beyond what they needed to get there. Forty years ago you could get in pretty much anywhere with High School (admittedly they actually taught something useful back then), but that generation turned that into a BA, and in many cases they now want post-grad and experience.

That's enough from me on that (for now) but the more I think about it the more real opportunity there was under the ancien regime vs. the current system. I'll close with an axiom to keep in mind when people talk about "equality": free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.

Working for the Clampdown

Being of a generally libertarian bent, I'm never keen on anything that gets in the way of people minding their own business. The corollary to that is of course that I am VERY much in favour of things which put a stick in the spokes of people who make life harder (or shorter) for people like me. This can mean anything from sclerotic bureaucracies and over-reaching police to professional victims who will grind things to a halt because they're not happy.

Enter the Great Mask Debate of 2012. Montreal, indeed much of Quebec, has been regularly disrupted by mobs of "students" bitching about their entitlements. There has also (finally!) been a lot of talk and maybe even some action about the masked idiots participating in these marches. There is still a lot of hand-wringing about what if anything to do about this, but as usual I have some ideas.

Concern #1: Civil liberties. No ban on hiding your face is an imposition on your right to free assembly for peaceable purposes. Things vary country to country, but in Canada we have rules for things that happen in public and there never was carte blanche to disturb the peace. There are laws (finally being enforced) that prevent you from camping in city parks etc. A whole lot of people have been breaking these laws, all of which are there to ensure that business and public life can carry on without undue imposition from mobs.

Concern #2: Enforcement. "You can't arrest everyone if they're all wearing a mask!" No, and it was impractical for a Roman Centurion to slaughter his entire command for cowardice, etc. too. The solution then, as now is Decimation. Taken literally it means "to take one in ten", e.g. kill every tenth man. There is no reason a less-lethal application couldn't set the example. I would apply this with a bit of "profiling" i.e. take preferentially the people who most looked like they were up to no good, but a smattering of "harmless" looking types should be collared as well so that people don't figure that bright colours or hippy, etc. clothes will give them a free pass.

Concern # 3: Violent reactions to #2 above. If you are concerned about the reactions of criminals to the enforcement of the law, you might as well disband the police and give the country over to violent anarchy. "Criminals?" you say? "Isn't that presumptive? These start as peaceful protests!" Well,  ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say, so here is some education for all those participating in a public assembly. This is from the Criminal Code of Canada, but wherever you live I pretty much guarantee you have something similar.

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Marginal note: Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peacetumultuously.

Pretty neat eh? Check this next bit, this is the part you really need
to know.

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Marginal note: Punishment for unlawful assembly 
66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Consequences, people, consequences; these students are supposedly bright types and may in fact know the above already. Likely they (or at least some of them) do, hence the desire to avoid said consequences by say, hiding their identity? Anyway in for a penny, in for a pound; I like these parts too so I'll keep rolling with the CCOC.

Reading proclamation
67. A person who is
(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor
or sheriff,
(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those
expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person's deputy,who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:
Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled
immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or
to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for
which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[This would be lots of fun in this exact form in Quebec right now...]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67;
1994, c. 44, s. 5.
Marginal note: Offences related to proclamation
68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life who
(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not
opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 69.

"...liable for imprisonment for life..."! I don't see that happening but if you want to go out and "smash the state", capitalism, globalization, what-have-you, be very aware of the ice you're walking on. One final bit of the section worth noting for the authorities:

Neglect by peace officer
69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Peace, Order and Good Government. That's what Canada is all about. We make no pretense in our Constitution of any "pursuit of happiness"; keeping the wheels on is what this country is all about from its' founding to present. This means that our public officials have a DUTY to do their jobs and keep the yobs off the streets even if that means making them (the yobs) unhappy. I suspect that once you slap fines on your average protestor for wearing a mask, only the hard core (who were going to be a problem anyway) will keep at it. Then comes the richly deserved head-cracking and  tear-gassing.

Making this work is in two parts: enforcement and moderation. The students in Quebec are losing what public support they may have had, so the time is ripe for a crackdown. I've used the phrase "pour encourager les autres" before, and taking enough of these protesters into custody (to be punished as appropriate) will gut the movement and restore order sooner rather than later.

It's possible to go too far (the "kettling" etc. in Toronto two years ago ) but despite the propaganda, another Tiananmen Square is simply not going to happen if a few dozen idiots get picked up and fined for wearing a mask. Random civilians will not be swept up for minding their own business, and that's one of my tests for a tolerable restriction on our behaviour.

Demobcracy

Democracy is rather famously the worst form of government except for all of the others, and it's certainly a shibboleth these days that it is the best, full-stop.  As is my wont I am here to Devil's Advocate that assumption, and current events are certainly pointing out the instabilities inherent in the concept of free-for-all democracy.

Most recently and closest to home, students in Quebec are protesting (more or less violently) the decision to raise their tuition rates.  This is no "Arab Spring" but the idea is similar; they don't like what's happening and they vote against it with sit-ins, and some arson and smashing of things.  Leaving out the details of that protest (except to say I have no sympathy since everyone else in the country already pays far more than they do), this is an ancient problem getting a modern treatment.

First, the ground rules in a standard liberal democracy: they are Representative Democracies.  This means we have a system used to elect representatives for our local interests, and it's an understatement to say that this has limitations.  Regardless, it's the system we have, and it's a "model" of democracy which works adequately as long as people work within it.  "Model" in this case means something which represents the actual thing, and of course anything which isn't the thing itself can't display all characteristics of it.  Details are lost, values are approximated.

A REAL democracy would have everyone voting individually for everything.  Of course technology brings this closer all the time, but ask yourself if you'd really like to see that.  It is pretty obvious that you can (in fairly homogeneous societies) put peoples' political leanings on a curve with distinct Left and Right tails.  Each of these tails overlaps into the Centre, and it is my belief (not tested) that the Right is bigger than the Left.

So what?  The polarization of the electorate in Canada and the USA is very evident in voting patterns indicating a "core" of people who feel certain ways about certain things.  This is of course a model, not the real thing, but it's serviceable.  Of the two tails the Right is bigger, as this encompasses the conservative/leave me alone strains of the population.  We'll say this is 35% of the population.  The other end, the entitlement/nanny state I'll put at a hard 20%.  In between there are a lot of people who don't feel terribly strongly about very much, and that 45% or so will either form a default plurality bloc or bleed off in either direction as circumstances warrant. 

With the map (a.k.a. model) laid out, back to my point.  The above groups display certain basic characteristics, some of them common.  Both tails think they know better than everyone else, and the Right and the Centre will overwhelmingly go with "the Devil they know" than smash everything in pursuit of "Revolution".

Enter the sore losers.  Election didn't come out the way you wanted? Scream "cheating", "recall" or whatever is likely to get you what you want.  Sit-in, smash and burn things, distort peoples' statements, act outraged at everything you don't agree with, lie, and resort to ad hominem attacks on the opposition.  It is to be noted (neatly backing up my numbers) that 2/3 of Quebec students are quietly completing their semesters.  I think this excerpt says it all:
At McGill University, classes and exams have been largely unaffected by the student unrest. Only four departments -- Gender, Sexuality and Women's studies; Graduate Art History; Social Work; and French Literature -- are on strike. (emphasis mine).

This is not to say that any one group has a monopoly on dirty tricks.  Much mud is slung in all directions, but the TEA Party vs "Occupy" comparison is educational as it directly compares both ends of the political curve.  TEA Party groups came out for the day, then went home sans rampage.  Occupy groups squatted somewhere and formed impromptu communes and mini-Woodstocks.  In Oakland Ca there were labour and trade disruptions as well as the usual vandalism and not-always-civil disobedience.

The latter are not the people who keep the lights on in our civilization, the former are.  The evil baby-raping Right Wingers protest within the law of the land and go home, voting their preferences and conscience at all opportunities.  The "you're too stupid to know what's good for you" Left cries "foul" and tries to physically change the terms of the discussion.

There are a lot of different brands of ideas and the farther you go in either direction the less common ground they have.  With this in mind, the dangers of unbridled democracy should become evident.  Here is the reductio ad absurdum of "Democracy is always good":

Last year, the White House began peddling the line that the uprisings in the Middle East were a repudiation of the al Qaeda model of seeking change through terrorism. The argument was that while America opposed violent extremism, the rise of nonviolent radical movements was just fine, and even commendable. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri quickly dismissed this claim, saying that from the terrorists’ point of view, it didn’t matter whether an Islamist victory came through violence or not. The means were unimportant except as they related to the end state: the imposition of hard-line Shariah-based laws and policies. (emphasis mine again)

Of course we've been down this road many times, recently and obviously with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  The thing that people seem to forget is that any political system is a tool, a means to an end.  If the end is the means, anything done within the means is legitimate. 

When you think "Democracy" do you think "one man, one vote, once"?  Theocracy? Democracy can be used to achieve these end-states as easily (more easily, really) than it can produce a stable liberal democratic system.  Hitler was legally elected too...

Life is a struggle (ultimately futile) against Entropy, and anything we do in life requires maintenance.  If you want to live in a society which allows free speech and freedom of association, that cannot be maintained by burning everything down each time you have a grievance.  I started this post yesterday (30 April) but as I wrap it up today it is May Day and further Anarchist/nihilist stupidity can be expected over the Western world.  As the Gender Studies students and loutish vandals co-mingle at various "protests" the former will not recognize themselves as the vectors of the latter "Black Bloc" assholes.

Coming back to the freedoms (speech and association) I mentioned earlier, there can be no absolute freedom in anything.  Although poorly understood, the Universe has rules which are necessary to keep things turning and every other sub-system needs some definable structure too.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and if you squeeze the trigger on your "revolucion" don't be surprised when your Robespierre pops up, Reign of Terror and all.

Too smart for our own good

I have threatened to write about Energy Policy, but before I get into the nuts and bolts of that (superficially at least) I want to say something about ideas and ideology.

I regard myself as a conservative, but this does not mean that I am a slavish follower of Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter, or to be more local, believe that Stephen Harper can do no wrong. Conservative, to me, means someone who likes what is proven to work and adopts new things because they will work too. Not "should" work, WILL work; chances need to be taken from time-to-time, but not with everything, and not "just because" or for the sake of Change.

The worst possible reason to do anything is for Good Intentions. This I see as the key dividing line between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will do something to achieve a set goal, liberals are prone to big picture stuff that runs counter to typical human interests or responses. It's also a key reason that liberals commonly attack their opponents as not being very intelligent. Sarah Palin is an excellent current example of this. Sarah is no Rhodes Scholar (aside: I wonder how many of the lefty recipients of that even know who Cecil Rhodes was and what he stood for?) but neither is 99.99% of the rest of the population.

True disasters are the province of the 99th percentile of brainiacs, so a MENSA card is not in my books a prerequisite for political office. You do need to be clever enough to develop and defend your ideas, but an IQ of 125-140 will allow you to do that as long as you're willing to work a bit harder than the more "gifted".

Sarah looks great on TV, but does she really have the "optimal" brain power for the job she may or may not be seeking? I have no idea (I honestly suspect "no") but she DOES connect to a lot of regular people. The elites hate her of course, but she strikes me as a practical sort for the most part, and politics needs more people who want to make things work and less lawyers who want to change things. One thing I am certain of is that Sarah Palin could not be more of a disaster in the White House than the much "smarter" Barack Obama.

What the hell does this have to do with energy policy? Any planning will be done by the government of the day and ideology plays into it. Sarah Palin's "drill baby, drill" is about keeping the lights on, something that conservatives tend to be big on. Obama has hobbled domestic energy production and intends to do as much more of it as he can through cap and trade, etc. His positions are ideological (thank you, big brains), not practical

Sixty percent of Canadian voters are not happy about the Conservative majority government we currently have, but this government will ensure that nothing overly progressive happens to our economy, and that is both the basis and necessity for establishing a sustainable cheap energy future. Anyone who doesn't support that outcome is either too stupid to have a worthwhile opinion or too "clever" for our/their own good.

Conservatives know that there are no free lunches, and liberals/socialists expect someone else to pay for theirs. With the latter group neutralized for the time being, hopefully some productive work can get done. What I think that means is (probably, what do you want for free?) next.

Oh, treasure the use of the weaseling phrase that never quite says what you mean...

I didn't think I had much to say about the ongoing Sotomayor foolishness in the US, but never say never...

In fact, today's post has more to do with the spinelessness of politicians than the judicial activism that runs unchecked in the US (see the post by Steve Setzer about 2/3 down the page here), although that too is something that is of concern to anyone who claims to believe in representative democracy.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said one would hope the rulings of a "wise Latina" with a breadth of life experience would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law."

 

"Too strong and direct" eh? If that's what you really think and you want to make any claim to being a leader, or at least someone with actual principles, bloody well say it. I've seen left-ish defenders of Sotomayor talking about "context", but it's a red herring. She said what she said, and he said what he said. I have no respect for anyone who won't back up what they say, or if necessary, admit it was stupid/uninformed, etc. Qualified retractions are embarrassing and disingenuous, because it means that you're not willing to take the heat for what you really think.