Meritha (my wife) and I often get into political discussions, and a recent morning was no exception. How is it that the Left can undertake projects – some of them certifiably insane – and are successful, while conservatives see things that need to be done, or more often, undone, but can’t succeed?
Conclusion? Leftist culture is, by nature, collectivist, whereas conservatives are, by nature, individualists and leery of anything that could be associated with a herd mentality.
No question, herd mentality, or tribalism if you will, really dumbs things down, but that has nothing to do with conservatives working together to undertake big projects. In fact, in 2012, I began an online community based on the idea that conservatives were going to have to work together as a community if we were going to stop the Post Modern, Marxist advance. I called the community Let’s Do It Ourselves (LDIO™) taken from a line in Mark Steyn’s book, After America, Armageddon.
We produced several videos, and one of them included the fact that my very conservative Mennonite ancestors have, for centuries, and still do, come together for Big Projects. Go to this link and click on, “Going Back for our Future”)
The current Big Project for conservatives, is to reverse 80 years of Post Modern Marxist destruction of Western culture. We cannot do it as individuals.World War II wasn’t won by little platoons, it was won by the Allied Forces. This will require us to build a community of tens, and then hundreds of thousands, and then millions, of thoughtful, moderate, committed conservatives. If we don’t do it, Western civilization will end.
Projects need a catalyst, and in 2013, LDIO™ lacked one because the Conservative Party was in power in Ottawa, and the Purportedly Conservatives were in power in Alberta, and conservatives were apathetic. Then from 2015-19, Rachel Notley and the NDP gave Albertans a taste of, government of the people, by unionists, and for the unions. Justin Trudeau gave us 4 years of chaos, corruption, and embarrassment. Somnolent conservatives began stirring. Then in the fall of 2019, the rationally impossible happened when Justin Trudeau was re-elected Prime Minister. Conservatives finally awakened and said: “Enough!”
A year or so before I started LDIO™, another fellow named Bill Baerg had also recognized the need for an online conservative community, and so began a Facebook Group called: “Rex Murphy for Prime Minister”. The group didn’t grow much during the first few years, but after the 2019 re-election of Justin Trudeau, it took off. It’s now at over 7000 members and growing rapidly.
I met Bill recently, and we found that we share the vision for a community where conservatives that think carefully about issues, want serious conversations about solutions, understand strategy, and want to be involved in coordinated, pragmatic action, can find a home.
Bill is in ill health and has asked me to take over administration of Rex Murphy for Prime Minister. I’m honored to do so. If you’re not yet a member, I would encourage you to join us! Go to Facebook and click on the Groups icon, (heads), and search for the Rex Murphy for Prime Minister group.
More in subsequent blogs, on ways to perpetuate Rex’s legacy of intelligence, common sense wisdom, and wit.
I’m Dave Reesor
If you have family or friends that would enjoy or benefit from membership in a group that takes issues seriously, but with good will and good humor, encourage them to join Facebook, if only to join the Rex Murphy for Prime Minister group!
Once in a lifetime, perhaps only once in two or three lifetimes, a transformative politician comes along and sets a country in a new direction. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. She became British Prime Minister in 1979 when the nation was in social disarray, and economic peril, and had sunk from a leading position during World War II to where Britain was commonly referred to as “The Sick Man of Europe”. Margaret Thatcher took on the unions, and socialism, and transformed Britain back into Europe’s most important nation, with London again as the world’s most important city after New York.
More recently, Hugo Chavez and his socialist comrades, successfully, but in the wrong direction, transformed Venezuela from the wealthiest country in South America to the poorest, in just 20 years!
Canada’s Pierre Trudeau came close to Chavez’s record. First elected in 1968, the socialist policies he initiated had by 1993, transformed Canada from an economic success to an massively indebted nation where 4/10 of every tax dollar was spent on interest on the debt. in January 1995, the Wall Street Journal declared Canada an honorary member of the Third World.
Now, for 4 ½ years we have endured Pierre Trudeau’s offspring who theatrically declared that he would: “Grow the economy from the heart outward” and that “The federal budget will balance itself.” Instead, his policies have driven hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, and tens of thousands of jobs from Canada. A third term of Justin’s “growing” and “balancing” act would leave Canada in the same position as Venezuela. Transformation is critical!
Enter Dr. Leslyn Lewis If Dr. Lewis is elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, she will be the most transformative Prime Minister since Pierre Trudeau, only transformative in the right direction. And she will beat Justin Trudeau quite easily as a large, independent, randomized poll recently proved. Here’s the exact question posed to Canadians.
Below are four biographies.Choose the one you think would be best to lead the Conservative Party of Canada in the next election:
Male. Former MP and Cabinet Minister. Lawyer. Former Crown Prosecutor. Former leader of a political party. Non-visible minority.
Male. Current MP and former Cabinet Minister. Air Force veteran. Lawyer. Non-visible minority.
Male. Current first-term MP. Lawyer and former small business owner. Non-visible minority.
Female. Lawyer and entrepreneur. PhD in law and Masters in Environmental studies. Visible minority.
The result? Leslyn Lewis beat each of McKay, O’Toole and Sloan by over 2 to 1 overall, and by even wider margins with WOMEN, and nearly 3 to 1 with MILLENNIALS! This is solid majority win territory!
To check out the survey, Search leslynlewis.ca and then MENU. Click on MEDIA. Choose NEWSLETTERS from the dropdown, and scroll down to, LESLYN CAN WIN! Also check out MILLENNIALS, and WOMEN. There are many more excellent and encouraging articles.
Stay on MEDIA, or follow the sames steps to MEDIA and drop down to MEDIA where there are many interviews and newspaper articles. If you like what you see, and I’ve even had NDP supporters tell me that they do, then share her website link directly, or Like, and Share this blog. And talk to your friends and family! Leslyn started in January as a political unknown but her visibility is rocketing up. She’s clearly what is needed to rebrand the Conservative Party, and WIN. We need to help her increase her visibility, so she can win the leadership of the Conservative Party in August, and then end Justin’s political career, permanently, in the next federal election!
No, that’s not an exaggeration. Today is that critical day because it’s the last day that you can buy a membership in the Conservative Party of Canada, and you need that membership to be able to vote on a new leader in August. And that vote will hopefully set a new direction for Canada, and particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, for the rest of this century.
There is no question that for the last 60 years, Canada has been a declining power. In World Wars I and II, Canada punched well above its weight, and gained enormous respect internationally. Even in the1950 – 1953 Korean War, 700 Canadians successfully fought off 5000 Chinese Communist soldiers at the battle of Kapyong Valley. Without the heroes of Kapyong, Seoul may well have been recaptured and Kim Jong Un would now be running all of Korea and being an even bigger menace than he is now. And in 1957 Canadian diplomacy was instrumental in heading off a major conflict involving Egypt and the Communist world, and Israel, the United States, Great Britain and France.
But since then Canada has drifted into increasing irrelevancy until we’ve arrived at the point where Canada’s Prime Minister is regarded, by serious people, as an un-serious clown on the world stage. Unless there is a Conservative Party of Canada win in the next federal election, the downward slide will continue.
Even if you’re a western separatist, as I am, we are going to be stuck within Canada for the next ten to fifteen years, and, be beside Canada thereafter. Considering the amount of damage the Liberal government has done to us in the last four years, I shudder to think of what they could do to us with another eight or ten years. It’s critically important to the West that they are turfed from office at the earliest possible opportunity.
Today, Friday, May 15 is the last day that you can buy a membership in the Conservative Party of Canada, and without that membership you cannot vote for the next leader. And the next Conservative leader is going to be critical to Canada and to Albertans, including separatists. I’m sure you’re aware that we’ll have a choice of four leaders, but that’s for after today, until August 21. Today, if you don’t already have a membership you can get one here.
And if you can’t get around to it, allow me to be a bit blunt. If you don’t like the result after the next federal election will you promise not to complain about it?
But, if you agree that our descendant’s future hangs on the next election, please forward this to your entire email list.
For those of you that follow me on Facebook and Twitter and in my IWUZ.ME blogs, I don’t think it’s a surprise for me to tell you that I’m a social conservative. But I’m a moderate social conservative. I do believe in traditional marriage and I believe that it was breathtakingly presumptuous for Progressivists to insist that we throw out thousands of years of tradition which recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman, in favor of same-sex marriage. And many in the LGBT community agreed. Same-sex relationships being recognized in law as civil unions, as they are in many “progressive” European countries, would have been fine. But that ship has sailed, and it’s up to us that believe in traditional marriage to make it stronger.
Regarding women’s rights, I am pro-choice, just not unlimited choice. I’m pro-life, but I recognize the fact that we will never completely end abortions, and therefore believe we should compromise and set limits around abortion. I agree with the author of the guest blog I published last week, that social conservatives need to take a well thought out position, and then to articulate that position over and over again until people understand it. And we should be pragmatic; Gain what is possible.
We need to do that as individual conservatives, but in the public sphere it would be wonderful if we had exceptionally well-qualified people to articulate the socially conservative position. A few days ago I ran across the name Leslyn Lewis, and I am convinced that Ms. Lewis is one of those persons.
She’s hardly known as yet, but she’s running for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Ms. Lewis would bring a new gravitas to the entire spectrum of debate; from fiscal conservatism, to social conservatism, to legal conservatism.
Here’s a rundown of her qualifications. Single mom, Entrepreneur, a Bachelors Degree from the University of Toronto Trinity College, graduating Magna Cum Laude; a Masters in Environmental Studies from York University; an MBA Concentration in Business and Environment from the Schulich School of Business; a Juris Doctorate from Osgoode Hall Law School, and a PhD in International Law from Osgoode Hall Law School. I’m not aware of any leader of any political party in Canada, or the United States, in my lifetime, with equal, non-political qualifications.
I think that even if Ms. Lewis doesn’t win the leadership of the Conservative party, and she probably can’t, she would elevate the level of the discussion around Conservative leadership enormously. Because of that, Meritha and I are supporting her for leadership of the Conservative party. If you’d like to see a higher level of debate, here’s what to do.
Have a valid membership in the Conservative party. If you’re not sure, or can’t find your number, phone the party at 1-866-808-8407 and get your membership number.
Let’s make sure that as the Conservative Party elects a new leader, they have the highest quality debate possible!
I’m Dave Reesor
If you agree that it would be advantageous for the Conservatives to have the highest possible level of debate, on real issues, please, right away, Like, and Share with your family, friends and colleagues so that Ms. Lewis can be part of the discussion. As lawyers say: TIME is of the essence!
Conservative parties, and even Progressivist parties, always include people that are uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. In most developed countries – other than Canada – there are limits to abortion depending on the stage of the pregnancy. In Canada there are no laws, and no legal limits, and, we’re not even supposed to talk about the issue. We should, because with DNA we now know that a new, completely individual human life begins at conception, and Canada should join other modern nations in recognizing that fact.
A few weeks ago I received an article suggesting that social conservatives should approach the abortion issue pragmatically, rather than idealistically. The author asked me if I would be interested in publishing it on my blog, anonymously. The author’s data is correct, and since I’m in philosophical agreement on the issue, I’ve agreed.
Please read it carefully, and then let us know what you think.
I’m Dave Reesor
A smart Conservative approach to abortion in Canada
I estimate that only 10% of Canadians support the status quo: abortion is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, every reason, or no reason. Sex-selection abortions (parent or parents unhappy with the gender of their/his/her unborn child) are perfectly legal in Canada, and this victimizes unborn girls far more frequently than unborn boys.
Most Canadians, upon hearing that abortion in Canada is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, respond by getting upset and denouncing this fact as a lie. But facts are facts. There is no Criminal Code prohibition on ending a human life until the baby is fully outside of his or her mother. Prior to that, the unborn person has no legal personhood. Nor are there other laws or policies, federal or provincial, that place any restrictions on abortion, or impose requirements of any kind. The number of late-term abortions is not large, but this does not mean that late-term abortions are illegal.
The remaining 90% of Canadians fall into various shades of belief on the spectrum, from hard-core pro-life (make all abortions illegal) to mostly pro-life (allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or serious fetal deformities/handicaps) to middle-of-the-road (undecided or no strong view) to mostly pro-choice (late-term abortions and gender selection abortions are not OK).
Why, in a democracy, do we have five political parties (Libs, NDP, Conservatives, Greens, Bloc Quebecois) chasing after 10% of the vote, and expressly rejecting and repudiating the 90% of voters who want at least some restrictions on abortion? My best guess is that a small, extremist pro-choice minority has successfully mobilized vocal support for the status quo, but without speaking honestly about what the status quo actually is: abortion legal during all nine months of pregnancy. It’s much easier to attack the hard-core pro-life position (that probably 90% of Canadians disagree with) than it is to justify late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions.
Another reason why the five parties now represented in the House of Commons are chasing after the 10% minority is that the pro-life movement, in the past 50 years, has been dominated by “absolutists” who refuse to discuss any public policy option other than a total and immediate ban on all abortions. Serious pro-lifers who would like to reach their ultimate goal step-by-step have been frozen out by groups which have not achieved any legislative or policy victory in the past 50 years. Pro-life advocacy for popular measures like banning late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions has begun to emerge in Canada only recently.
The Conservative Party of Canada has as many options on dealing with abortion as there are positions on abortion. Looking at this purely from the angle of winning votes (and putting aside moral questions about ending the lives of people before they are born), I suggest that one approach is particularly foolish, and another approach particularly smart.
The foolish approach is to join the Libs, New Democrats, Greens and Bloc Quebecois in chasing after the 10% of Canadian voters who actually support the status quo. Why wade into this crowded field? Why ignore the 90% of voters who are unhappy with the status quo?
Apart from ignoring the 90% of voters who want at least some restrictions on abortion, the Conservative Party is seen (correctly) as profoundly insincere when it pretends to be chasing after the 10% of extremist pro-choice voters. Everybody knows that many CPC candidates are pro-life, including its most recent leader, Andrew Scheer. Everybody knows that the CPC, unlike the other four parties represented in the House of Commons, is not really and truly enthusiastic about the status quo. Lack of sincerity breeds mistrust.
The 10% of voters who support gender-selection abortions and late-term abortions are never going to vote for the Conservatives. And, without advocating directly for late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions, the 10% extreme pro-choice group will successfully capitalize on the CPC’s lack of sincerity in order to generate doubt and mistrust that hurts the CPC amongst many (perhaps most) Canadian voters.
The smart approach would be for the Conservative Party to appeal to 90% of Canadians by advocating for a ban on late-trimester abortions and gender-selective abortions.
This position would generate howls of outrage from at least three sources.
First, the Liberals, NDs, Bloc and Greens would denounce this CPC position as utterly wicked, bad and wrong; a regressive assault on the fundamental rights of women; a backwards and misogynist approach; a threat to reproductive choice, etc.. And, for a few weeks or possibly a few months, these denunciations would work political wonders temporarily.
But the political positions of candidates and parties need to be repeated frequently before they sink it. It will take a lot more than one news conference for the CPC to communicate to voters its proposed ban on late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions. However, after repeating this position for 6, 12, 18 or more months, 90% of voters would realize that they agree with CPC policy on abortion. It would only be a matter of time before the other four federal parties were on the defensive, having to explain to 90% of Canadians why they support late-term abortion and gender-selection abortion.
The second source of outrage would come from the biased, left-wing media. In harmony with the four parties whose ideology they share, the so-called “mainstream” media would declare that the Conservative Party had committed political suicide simply by failing to pander to the abortion orthodoxy accepted by only 10% of Canadians. Like the other left-wing parties, the media party would try very hard not to inform Canadians of the fact that abortion is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, or of the fact that gender-selection abortion is legal in Canada.
The third source of outrage would come from a small number of established but ineffective pro-life activists who would denounce the Conservative Party as a pro-choice enemy. Of note: a small number of pro-lifers were already doing this when Andrew Scheer was leading the CPC. After the October 2019 election, some pro-lifers very publicly called on Andrew Scheer to resign as CPC leader for not being pro-life. But most pro-lifers in Canada realize that the goal of full protection for all unborn children will never – never – be fully realized in one move. Rather, when it comes to any political issue (taxes; immigration; deficits-and-debt; health care; education; aboriginal rights; LGBTQ issues; etc.) change is almost always incremental. In short, the pro-life “absolutists” have little influence over other pro-lifers, or over the Canadian public at large.
In summary, if the CPC adopts a policy of banning late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions, it will align itself with 90% of Canadians, and will not lose votes from amongst the 10% pro-choice extremists who would never vote for the CPC in any case.
The CPC position against late-term abortions and against gender-selection abortions will engender loud but useless outrage from other federal parties, from the media party, and from a very small number of pro-life activists who lack political influence and clout.
If the CPC is committed to withstanding the initial waves of vocal-but-shallow opposition to its new policies, it will put the other four parties on the defensive; they will be obligated to defend an extreme position that only 10% of Canadian voters agree with.
A smart approach or a foolish approach … it’s up to the Conservative Party to decide.
Rather than writing my own blog this week, I’m going to provide a link to an excellent article that should be read by every Albertan, and every Canadian, and every American, and every sentient citizen in the Western world. It examines the stark contrast between the intellectually chaotic and unrealistic world of modern Progressivist policy, against a carefully researched and analyzed political platform that should be a feature of every election campaign.
The article provides the most authoritative analysis of the recent Alberta election that you are ever likely to read. It’s 5 to 10 minutes long, and worth every second.
Mark Milke is an economist’s economist, and it was brilliant of Jason Kenney to get him involved early in developing Alberta’s United Conservative Party’s platform.
And since winning the election, the Kenney government has tasked an expert panel to develop a roadmap to get Alberta’s economy back on track. It is led by former Saskatchewan NDP, (yes, that’s N D P) Minister of Finance, Janice McKinnon, who guided Saskatchewan from fiscal ruin to balanced and surplus budgets. No matter whether you are a Jason fan or not, you must admit it was a brilliant managerial and political move by Jason Kenney!
Meritha and I like Dr. Jordan Peterson, who is, shall we say, an uneasy member of the faculty of the University of Toronto. We also like American radio host, Dennis Prager, who on Prager University produces five-minute videos by extremely well informed and thoughtful people.
This conversation between the two of them displays the best of Jordan Peterson, and is something I would encourage every intelligent and informed person to take the time to watch. It’s informative, and while it reflects on what Western civilization has lost, and why, it’s inspiring and tells us that there may be a way back.
Having said that, Peterson makes a statement that I profoundly disagree with.
Peterson’s position has always been that he doesn’t know for certain that God exists, but that he lives as though He does. He suggests that if we truly believed that God existed we would live far better lives. Okay, possibly so, although no ordinary human has ever lived perfectly.
But then Peterson states that: “Jesus Christ was the only Christian.” That’s categorically untrue and makes it evident that Peterson still has some work to do on the subject, and I’m sure he will.
But Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity is for sinners, like me. In fact, everyone who has ever truly been a Christian, is a sinner, and more importantly, knows it.
And that’s the whole point. The difference between Christianity and religion, is that religions are about highly uncertain human efforts to find and appease God. Christianity is entirely about God finding and definitively rescuing imperfect people, and then, from an attitude of gratitude and responsibility, those imperfect Christians try to live the way that Jesus called for in the sermon on the Mount and his other homilies.
Peterson’s imperfect understanding of Christianity aside, if you don’t watch anything else this summer, or read any of my blogs, (but please do!), watch this 30 minute video, with your family. It’s excellent!
During the United Conservative Party (UCP) leadership race, I would have preferred to be able to remain neutral. But I can’t. I don’t think it’s a secret to anyone that I’m a small C conservative who believes that the politics we get are a result of the culture we’ve created.
This blog and the Let’s Do It Ourselves (LDIO™) online community, are dedicated to creating a culture in which individual rights are protected by the State – not overrun by the state; where parents and not the State, are acknowledged as those who have the primary interest in the greatest good for their children, and where citizens cooperating on the most local level possible, to accomplish important tasks, is recognized as preferable to governments, “doing something.”
I have believed, and have argued for many years, that one of the big problems for conservatism, has been too much timidity; our leaders make a panicky grab for the reverse gear as soon as someone from the mainstream/left-wing media challenges any of our ideas. That has to end.
I’m concerned that with Brian Jean, it won’t. He has proven repeatedly that he is terrified of the media, and that the very phrase, “bozo eruption” causes his heart to palpitate.
Objecting to school administrations coming between children and their parents is absolutely not a bozo eruption. Brian Jean seems to believe that it is.
Objecting to children being provided links to pornography on the Alberta Education (Alberta taxpayers) funded, Gay Straight Alliance, or GSA website, is not a bozo eruption, nor is it being hysterical or sensationalist. Yet that’s what the Alberta government and its comrades in the radical LGBTQ community have done, and said, and no one in the political arena has spoken out against it.
As the NDP government continues to advance it’s objective of sidelining parents from their children, their many support organizations like Progress Alberta, and the Alberta Teachers Association, brazenly misinform the public about the economic realities of alternate schools, (in fact they subsidize the public system), and the rights of parents to choose their child’s education, (it’s the law, and common sense), and they attack anyone who objects.
The fact is that the only UCP candidate that has been prepared to stand up to this illegal behaviour by the Alberta government, is Jason Kenney.
Since founding LDIO™, I have tried to focus on policies rather than supporting specific political parties. But we are at a critical point in the culture wars, and so I have joined the UCP, and I am supporting Jason Kenney because he seems to be the only leadership candidate not missing a couple of vertebra from his backbone.
There are only 8 days left to join the UCP so that you can take part in this particular battle in the culture war. Buy your membership here!
And if you agree, Like, and Share. That’s how social media works!
Until now, it’s been hard to wrap your head around Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin “the budget will balance itself” Trudeau’s understanding of economics. However, my cousin sent me this Bud Abbott and Lou Costello exchange which clearly and brilliantly illustrates how Justin’s thinking works, at least as regards unemployment statistics.
For your continuing education, I included a link at the end of this exchange, in which Lou Costello educates Bud Abbott on some of the finer points about how the marketplace works.
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in Canada
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.
ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right, 5.6% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?
ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed
ABBOTT: No, Trudeau said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Liberal.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Trudeau.
If you’re too young to know who Abbott and Costello are, or you want further education, please follow this link that I discovered. Finally we have proof of where the left goes to learn math!
One source of negative feedback was Randall. Full disclosure; Randall is my cousin and our worldviews are different, so we spar from the perspectives of Socialism and Atheism, versus Conservatism and Christianity. I hope someday that we can engage in the conversation face-to-face, over a very long lunch.
What I’ve done here is copied Randall’s comments, and then responded to them. Unavoidably, this blog is much longer than usual.
Randall. One system with different schools to fit parent’s interests is a bit contradictory. It would be interesting to see how that would work in rural areas, never mind urban areas!
Dave. How is it contradictory? It’s simply a pooling of school funding through equal taxation levels, and then having equal funding follow each student to the school of their and their parent’s choice.
It’s exactly the same idea as having a publicly funded healthcare system, but with the customer choosing which doctor, hospital or clinic to patronize. What’s unique to both in the Canadian context, is that the student or patient is actually regarded as a customer, rather than an expense; a customer for which the provider must compete with other providers, which forces a focus on excellence in the service provided.
Randall. The worldview that matters is pretty basic: communication, facts, skills and nurturing self actualization with the ability to think independently and objectively. Personal interests, especially religious, must be a private matter.
Dave. Randall, you reveal your bias, and unfortunately, a tint of totalitarianism. Of course we have a Prime Minister who is an open admirer of totalitarians, so maybe that’s the direction we’re heading. And please explain: “nurturing self actualization”??
But it seems to me that you’re basically saying that the worldview that matters, is your worldview. On the other hand, I am not saying that the worldview that must prevail is my worldview. I’m simply calling for freedom of speech, of assembly, freedom of, or from religion, etc., for both you, and me.
I’m saying that if parents wish to send their children to a school that teaches essential subjects from the perspective of their worldview, then that’s their inalienable right. Those rights are not conferred by the government; in fact, it is a government’s essential responsibility to protect those rights.
That is affirmed by The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; Article 26: subsection 3, as well as numerous other International, Canadian, and Alberta declarations and laws. So, what Alberta’s NDP government is trying to do is fundamentally contrary to Alberta, Canadian, and International Law. And, also by the way, also contrary to common sense and decency.
Or, do you actually believe that preteens should have access, through a Department of Education approved website, to instructional videos on oral sex, to pick one of the least offensive examples?
And do you believe that parents should be excluded from knowing when their kids are experiencing gender confusion, or which government approved organizations their children have joined? Again, that’s contrary to the law, and contrary to simple common sense.
Because, how about school marks? If the teacher knows that a student’s parents are really strict about their kids doing well in school, what happens if one of their kids gets an F? The child might be terrified of facing his or her parents, so should they be “outed” to their parents for their bad mark, or should their parents be kept in the dark?
It’s a scientific fact that the many children go through gender dysphoria during grade school years, and even into junior high, but in the vast majority of cases, with their parents love and involvement, they grow out of it. Of course, there are a very small percentage of parents that are abusive, but the law already makes provision for dealing with that.
The Alberta government’s position seems to be that a child’s gender confusion should be affirmed, and even encouraged by the school, but concealed from the parents. Can you defend this?
Randall. Perhaps if churches and ministers paid taxes the government would be able to afford to do a better job.
Dave. I agree that churches and pastors should be held to a very strict standard when it comes to their tax exemptions. But it is a fact that many churches perform invaluable community service in helping people through financial difficulties, addictions, marriage problems, and even in dying. And in most cases, they do a far better job than government funded services, and at no cost to the taxpayer.
Randall. Atheists, at this point, do not need to organize. We live in a democracy (as flawed as it is) and paying our taxes we pay for all the programs government provides (and the subsidies as well…).
Dave. At this point?? Considering the record of the numerous officially Atheistic regimes in the 20th century, that sounds ominous.
Anyway, here’s where our differing worldviews come into stark relief. Socialist/Leftists/ Progressivists (SLP) believe in the all-knowing, all-providing, all-powerful state. Conservatives don’t.
Because conservatives like me have spent the last 60 years observing the SLP worldview being practiced; in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Communist China, currently in increasingly dystopian Venezuela, and on and on.
I personally lived under the disastrous economic policies of socialism in Saskatchewan, although I hasten to add that it was infinitely more benign than the socialist regimes I’ve mentioned. More on that below.
Randall. There is only so much cash to go around. Even wealthy Alberta cannot afford to have special interest schools for every nuance of personal opinion. One public school system for all. Special interests are a private matter. No public money should go to any private school, ever. One “free” private system!!!
Dave. As I proved in my blog, patrons of alternate schools in Alberta currently subsidize the public (Secularist) system to the tune of 30% of their education tax dollars. In provinces like Ontario, it’s 100%. On top of that, alternate schools raise their own capital funding! The Secularist public system benefits by millions from the existence of alternate schools. I know you weren’t a math teacher, but……
Anyway, why are you so against allowing parents to teach their children, within a universally funded education system, an alternate perspective to yours?
Randall. And in your tirade using emotionally charged words like “Nazi” about repeated lies becoming accepted, you forgot to mention Donald Trump. You should be more current…
Dave. Randall, this is my favourite. I knew some people would be offended by my use of the word Nazi. Do you remember Bush-Hitler?
And Harper-Nazi? And just last week, an SLP activist tweeted that Alberta parents that expressed opposition to the NDP’s gender fluidity promoting agenda, were: “Cultural Marxists.”
Now if you assume that most Albertans are quite brainless, you could also reasonably assume that that would be an effective slur. But most Albertans are not brainless, and the poor lady simply revealed herself to be short of an argument.
As you know, I’m no big fan of Donald Trump. But Donald Trump’s lies tend to towards hyperbole, and in some cases are proven to be correct – think of Sweden’s real problem with radical Islamists; whereas the Left’s lies are often a transparent use of Nazi style, “repeat the lie” propaganda, in order to have the lie become fact, and to intimidate those with alternate perspectives.
Anyway, as unappetizing as Trump may be to many, he was hired to drain the swamp, and it’s a reasonable assumption that swamp drainers are not necessarily genteel gentlemen.
One more point about the Nazis. For decades, the left has characterized Nazism / Fascism as being right wing. That is pure, and so far successful, propaganda. Because in fact, the National Socialist party – commonly referred to under Hitler as the Nazis – was socialist in that Hitler saw both individuals and industry as having a prior responsibility to the objectives of the state.
And in that view he was aligned with Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, and more recently, the Hugo Chavez revolution in Venezuela, which has managed to destroy that country in two decades. Its citizens are fleeing to Columbia by the hundreds.
So I’d suggest to conservative readers that we always refer to Nazism as a left wing phenomenon.
21st century SLPs are anti-free speech – routinely shutting down speakers, particularly at universities. They’re anti-freedom of assembly, witness some of Canada’s law societies’ outrageous attempt to prevent a law school being established at Trinity Western University; they’re anti-freedom of religion, and so on.
And they don’t want to discuss it! It’s been my observation that the only people that want no argument are the people that have no argument.
The faces of the Western left used to be those of Tommy Douglas, Alan Blakely, Roy Romanow, Hubert Humphrey, and Golda Meier; reasonable and honorable people all.
SLP faces are now those of Naomi Klein, Rachel Maddow, Jeremy Corbin, the radical management and faculty of far too many universities, and of course, the hopelessly myopic Bernie Sanders, who, having honeymooned in the Soviet Union, still came back a proud socialist. How was that even possible?
Unfortunately, the SLPs current face includes that of Rachel Notley, a woman who I had always believed to be simply a decent person with whom I disagreed. Considering her regime’s actions and attitude, I’m re-considering.
Western civilization is in a very dangerous period for the very simple reason, that those in control of many governments, most bureaucracies, and the media and entertainment industries, are focused on its destruction; in part because Western civilization is anchored by a Judaeo – Christian worldview, which they hate.
Decades ago, English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge presciently wrote the following:“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense.
Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer.
Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”
Randall, I don’t believe we’ve yet keeled over, but we’re on our knees.