Study shows….. was the favourite expression of a long dead friend of mine. Say it with appropriate tones of cynicism.
Check the questions that were asked of the people in the study. This is a study a conservative might like to believe but, like anthropogenic global warming, deserves a wary eye.
Badly behaved children are more likely to grow up to be left-wing, a study has shown.
A study of 16,000 British people in their 30s found those with troubled childhoods were more likely to favour radical socialist policies.
The study was a follow-up to research conducted when they were children at the ages of five and seven.
Those whose parents reported they had ‘conduct problems’ at in primary school were more likely to favour radical socialist polices and to smash the status quo.
….The parents of the children in the study completed an assessment of their chilld’s behaviour at the ages of either five or seven.
They were asked to say whether their children had problems relating to anxiety, conduct or hyperactivity.
When adults – at the ages of 30 or 33 – the participants filled in questionaires that assessed a variety of traits.
These included economic conservatism, political cynicism, racism, authoritarianism, and attitudes about gender inequality.
The participants were asked how much they agreed with statements such as: ‘Government should redistribute income”, ‘People like me have no say in what Government does”, “Would not want a person from another race to be boss”, “law breakers should be given stiffer sentences” and “Men and women should have [the] chance to do [the] same kind of work.’ The researchers combined the scores into two broad factors: economic and political discontent and social conservatism.
(My own answers to those questions would be:
It already does enough of that, thank you.
no, and neither do you.
It would depened on whether they were affirmative action candidates. I have seen enough over-promoted women French Canadian civil service managers to be skeptical of all forms of affirmative action in management, which always comes down to the idea that there are too many white males in positions of authority. Out goes Reginald Skippon from Yorkshire and in comes Claudette Blanchard from Rimouski to manage ship’s engine repair in the Coast Guard. You know the drill.
Penalties are hard enough already. Someone should read the penal code if they disagree.
Yes, they should. But see answer 3 above.)
Dr Lewis found that childhood conduct problems led to economic and political discontent in adulthood – and this was true across social classes and regardless of the individual’s intelligence.
He added that conduct problems in childhood may reflect difficulty with self-control and long-term planning or early rejection of authority – either of which could lead to economic or political discontent.
Dr Lewis said: ‘We all wonder from time to time why it is that those on the other side of the fence came to be that way,’ Lewis notes. ‘These findings take us a little further down the road to answering that question.’
The trans movement is asking Americans to accept and indeed to make their lives and their perceptions of reality conform to a set of extraordinary ideas based on very little debate. These claims are often put forth in the language of psychiatry and psychology, and they implicate the lives of real people, many of whom suffer genuine, sometimes unbearable anguish. Which good American can say no to the cries of a suffering minority, especially when they are amplified by scientific authority?
The science isn’t there yet, in point of fact. The case for accepting and advancing the cause of transgenderism is, at root, a radical philosophical argument—one that goes to the heart of what it means to be human. Accepting the trans movement’s argument requires us to lend credence to an extreme form of mind-matter dualism, and involves severing the links between bodily sex, gender identity, and erotic desire.
But first: What do the activists claim? If there is one unshakeable tenet, it is that gender identity and expression—a person’s self-concept as a gendered being and how that person outwardly manifests it—are different from the sex organs that have distinguished male from female since the emergence of the species. They argue that while a physician might “assign” a sex to a newborn, that label may well be at odds with the baby’s true gender. As the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) puts it in a guide for journalists, a transgender person is one “whose sex assigned at birth is different from who they know they are on the inside.”…
At the same time, the activists hold—and this is their second major tenet—that gender itself is largely a social construct, since it is society that labels various traits or characteristics “masculine” or “feminine.”…
The third tenet is that gender identity and sexual desire have nothing to do with each other. According to a model school-district transgender policy drawn up by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, sexual orientation is “a person’s romantic and/or physical attraction to people of the same or opposite gender or other genders. Transgender and gender nonconforming people may have any sexual orientation.” PFLAG likewise bifurcates gender identity and sexual preference: “It is important to note that gender identity neither relates to, nor determines, sexual orientation…. People who are transgender can also identify as gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, or queer….
Now we have the necessary elements to put together the vision of the human person offered by the trans movement. Each person has a strong innate sense of gender that, according to the activists, may or may not align with his or her physical sex. When the two don’t align, we are dealing, in essence, with brains or minds that are trapped in bodies with the wrong sex organs.2 It is incumbent on the rest of us, then, to recognize the “true” self that is so trapped and help it break free from the prison of the body.
This is a profoundly metaphysical, even spiritual, vision.
As we come from a country where seasons forcibly affect our beings, where we suffer from winter, rejoice in spring, relax in summer and get to work in the fall, why do we not have appropriate holidays to mark the seasons?
Yes I acknowledge that Christmas (25th December) is laid over the winter solstice (December 21st) in the northern hemisphere, by religious and social fiat. That is one out of four.
Easter varies by 28 days (a lunar month) + 7 days. It is celebrated on first Sunday after the first new moon after the spring equinox. As a movable feast, it is useless as an equinoctial celebration. As the observance of the death and resurrection of Jesus, Easter is too explicitly Christian. It has never taken off the way Christmas has, largely because the pagan origins of Yule coincide with the solstice, whereas Easter was made a movable feast by a decision of the Church in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. The summer solstice is overlaid with St Jean Baptiste Day in Quebec and a week later English Canadians get July 1st, but neither is explicitly about the summer solstice.
We are too busy working on September 21st to pay much attention to the autumnal equinox, but we ought to mark the passing of the year more formally.
My plea is for a set of holidays that acknowledge we are on a planet that revolves around a sun, and which tilts and wobbles. We do not mark sufficiently our place in the universe. Having holidays like this would allow parents and educators to instruct the ignorant. If you think I exaggerate, I can relate my experience of a nice 50-year old taxi driver I had in Washington, D.C. last year, for whom the relationship among the solstices, the tilt of the earth, and the relationship of the seasons to these facts, was a revelation. I am not kidding, and he was not kidding me.
So yes, folks, for this and many other reasons, I favour statutory holidays on the summer solstice, and the spring and autumn equinoxes. Christmas is well covered, thank you.
In Arabic, “din” means ‘law’. In Hebrew “din” means ‘religion’.
Slow Islamization of the West is accomplished through two simple rules: 1. Once you get in you cannot get out. 2. If any of the parents are Muslim, all the children are Muslim.
A very slow conversion rate results in a society that, after a 1000 years, goes from 95% Christian to 95% Muslim.
Only the Wahhabist faction of Islam is truly dangerous, says Taleb. Wahhabism drives the tolerant majority of Muslims to intolerance. Shia and other forms of Islam are not a problem.
The same dynamic of intolerant minorities works on campuses. The social justice warriors drive universities because they are an intolerant minority.
Having heard this, I understand better why, in the Scottish Reformation, a Scottish earl chained a bunch of extreme Calvinists to a rock and drowned them at high tide. He understood the power of intolerant minorities.
Taleb: “Anything that does not involve costly signalling is not a religion. Gods demand sacrifices. No sacrifices: no religion.”
One of the costly methods of signalling your Christianity – or freedom from Islam – is not eat the sacrificial meat of Islam, halal. Costly signalling is the basis of real religion, says Taleb.
Everyone seems to think I am a member of the Ontario PC party, everyone, it seems, but party headquarters. I did not get my validation number in the mail, and nor did a friend of mine, who is a heavy-duty insider. Was it the Post Office? Or was I considered deviant? Or have I forgotten to renew my membership? Who knows?
I was sitting at a dining table with a lot of old-stock Ontarians last week. At least half the table were Conservatives, all had voted. Most were for Christine Elliott. I sent her a $100. I have nothing against Caroline Mulroney; I welcome her entry. I would have Doug Ford over for a beer any day, and we would have firm mateship and agreement. What I want, however, is a prime minister of a province who knows the bureaucracy, who can get legislation through parliament, manage the cabinet, fire the wicked, re-organize as required, mobilize the electorate, and not be too impressed with herself (a pronoun to use in this conjuncture). I do not want someone who has not been in cabinet yet. I want someone who knows how to run a meeting, control the agenda, and talk to the civil servants in such a way that they willingly execute the policies of the new regime. Accordingly, Christine Elliot looked to me like the only one who qualified.
May this evil spawn of Satan, these slow-motion Maduros of the Ontario Liberal Party, suffer in opposition for decades.
Mr. Dress-up is seen with his Chief Science Advisor, Bill Nye, Science Guy, in conversation.
Nye seized the opportunity to challenge Trudeau on his support for the controversial Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project in Alberta and British Columbia. He said research suggests that Canada could be powered entirely by renewable energy right now, “if you just decided to do it.”
Oh sure, Bill. We could get this kind of policy by people who do not know that solar panels do not work at night, that wind rotors do not turn in the calm of minus 40 temperatures, and who object moreover to the smoke from woodstoves. But sure, yes, we can be powered entirely by renewable energy if we just decided to live at the level of poverty enforced upon North Koreans.
If Gómez Dávila’s brand of reaction was different, what then did he actually stand for? For Gómez Dávila, the reactionary’s task in our age is to resist democracy. By democracy he means “less a political fact than a metaphysical perversion.” Indeed, Gómez Dávila defines democracy as, quite literally, “an anthropotheist religion,” an insane attempt to rival, or even surpass, God. The secret of modernity is that man has begun to worship man, and it is this secret which lurks behind every doctrine of inevitable progress. The reactionary’s resistance, therefore, is religious
in nature. “In our time, rebellion is reactionary, or else it is nothing but a hypocritical and facile farce.” The most important and difficult rebellion, however, does not necessarily take place in action. “To think against is more difficult than to act against.” But, all that remains to the reactionary today is “an impotent lucidity.” Moreover, Gómez Dávila did not look forward to the establishment of a utopia; what he wanted was to preserve values within the world. For this purpose, not force but art was the more powerful weapon.