Oooops, hang on…

“There is always a danger that for the sake of political correctness, or a party’s political advantage, we find ourselves filling up the country with too many immigrants who will disturb the balance and upset the people, particularly the young people, of the host community.’

Sir Gulam [Noon, the "Curry King"] says Ministers should make full employment a higher priority than relaxed immigration. ‘We should switch the focus to ensuring everyone has a job. Today some of them are getting the dole and a free house for doing nothing. We have made them parasites.’

This time, it’s personal:

To end where we came in, M J Murphy wrote: “I think you owe Dr. Miller an apology.” Au contraire, I think “Dr Miller” owes me and Oriana an apology. Since he decided to go to such kinky lengths to catch my eye, he has accused me of failing to provide a source for a quote: False. He’s accused me of making up famous rulings of the Ayatollah: False. He’s declared flat out that there is no such thing as a Khomeini “Blue Book”: False. And people pay money to study “responsible journalism” with this guy? At least for his own ill-advised adventures in fact-checking, his unfortunate acolyte, M J Murphy of Toronto, isn’t charging cash.

If I were celebrated toilet photographer Warren Kinsella or [the Guy Who Is Suing Us] I’d sue. But I’m not. Nor, despite a flying visit to the Falklands and a couple of wet weekends in Wales, have I ever been attracted to sheep-shagging. But I imagine it feels a bit like dealing with Messrs Miller, Murphy and the Law R Cool kids: No matter how often you roger them senseless, they keep on bleating. I wouldn’t have bothered with this response were it not for the fact that Professor Waggy-Finger traduced not me but a great and courageous lady who is no longer here to laugh her magnificent scoffing laugh in his face. Oriana Fallaci is a hundred times the man John Miller is. Read her interviews with Arafat or the Shah and ask yourself whether she needs any posthumous lessons in “journalistic ethics” from an unread parochial poseur. And, if you are considering a career in journalism, think about what you’d like to be looking back on in 40 years’ time: Oriana’s resume or Professor Miller’s.  

(KEEP READING...)

OK, by “with” I mean we’re guests on the same show, but in different segments…

I’ll be staying up way past my bedtime to talk to Tennessee’s James Edwards of the irresistibly titled Political Cesspool Radio, around 11:30 PM EST. They record the show, so don’t panic if you can’t stay up. (The show starts at 9PM Central, and we aren’t the only guests as you can see: Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola will be discussing his new book about Hamilton and Jefferson, too.)

Michael Coren writes:

Take the case of Catholic Insight magazine. It is a tiny-budget monthly that caters to orthodox or conservative Catholics.

A radical gay man read it and found some of its arguments about homosexuality to be offensive. Quite right too. If he wasn’t offended the magazine would not have been presenting genuine Catholic teaching, which is directly contrary to the notion that homosexuality is to be affirmed and praised.  (…)

Let us emphasize that what is sometimes said about Catholics in gay magazines is far more offensive than what is said about gays in Catholic ones.

Salim Mansur writes:

The Canadian Islamic Congress complaint — as I wrote following its dismissal by the CHRC in June 2008 — made Canadians take note, unlike any previous complaint, how the censorious provision of Section 13 is a blot on Canadian democracy.

Canadians got instruction as never before, due to the Canadian Islamic Congress complaint, on the principle and value of free speech as the foundation of an open democracy.

They also learned how it can be undermined, given its fragile nature, by the zealotry of those who insist the causing of offence — real or perceived — should be criminalized to protect the sensibilities of designated minority groups in a multicultural society.  (…)

Canada is a mature democracy, and most Canadians are reasonable and law abiding.

For Parliament to constrain free speech beyond the existing reasonable limits through the provision in the human rights act of Section 13 is an insult to Canadians and Canadian democracy, and it should act wisely as Professor Moon recommends. 

Fueled by rising unemployment and food prices, the number of Americans on food stamps buying Oreos, Velveeta, Pepsi, Fruit Loops and corn dogs but absolutely no toilet paper or toothpaste with your money [ there I fixed it ] is poised to exceed 30 million for the first time this month, surpassing the historic high set in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.

Wrongheaded but revealing NYT op-ed:

This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.

Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry [me: because millions of them are in jail??] might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.

(…) don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.

Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected. [me: uh huh...]  

(KEEP READING...)

writes our pal the Twisted Spinster (reporting the welcome news that the herd’s been thinned again…)

but when I was in my twenties my friends and I had a rule for dating: no YLMs (Young Latin Males). Not only were they jealous macho pricks (all the smooth, romantic Latin lovers died of some plague in the Fifties), but the insanity that seems to overcome them when they get behind the wheel could have gotten me killed.

You don’t have to tell me, sweetie. Whenever someone told me I should watch The Sopranos, I always said, “If I wanted to listen to a bunch of fat loud stupid Italians yelling at each other, I’d just move back to Hamilton.” In Grade 13 those of us left at the girls’ school (the Gina’s all got married after grad; college? whazat?) had to take some courses at the boys’ school across the street, and let me tell you: I felt like Dian Fossey…

Thanks to everyone who avoided being trampled to death by doing their Black Friday shopping through my Amazon links!

You bought lots of really pricey electronical doo-dadds, which means a huge “cut” for me as an Amazon associate.

Know what else?  If you join the Conservative Book Club through my links and banners, you get to load up on a bunch of brand new hardcover books for just a buck each, and buy cool stuff like the 2008 Official White House Christmas Ornament (sans Barney, alas…)

As an affiliate, I get an incredible US$15 for each new member who signs up through my blog! (The currency exchange makes that closer to $20.)

Canadians can join too the Book Club too — I did earlier this month, to test out the program for you, and I’m very impressed.

This blog is a labour of love (ok — “hate”) and your support makes a big difference, financially and emotionally.

Thank you.

Well it was, if not nice, then ok while it lasted, but yeah, we are having a sort of “coup” up here in Canada, just weeks after an election in which the Conservatives won a slightly strengthened majority.

See, the way the Parliamentary system “works” is: like Israel and Italy, the opposition parties, when combined, often outnumber the ruling party in terms of seats. So they can band together into coalitions and overthrow the “real” government.

And we all know what bastions of democratic sanity and peace those Italian and Israeli parliaments are!

This suddenly jeopardizes our year long fight to reform the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and repeal Section 13 with its the notorious “hate speech” “likely” clause, a fight that was finally gaining traction and momentum a few days ago…

Ugh.

All this proves what I’ve been saying all along, in essays like “The Donkey in the Bathtub”: we can’t depend upon who is “in charge” in Ottawa to help us fight and win. We must change our culture, not the laws, and simply defy and violate Section 13 into obscurity.

An Ottawa insider who requested anonymity wrote me this morning:

I know you aren’t big on party politics, I don’t blame you. But this coup to replace Harper will matter to your readers in some important ways.

[The opposition] Dion, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are all against changes to the [Canadian Human Rights Commissions].
 

(KEEP READING...)

Grab a coffee and check out new stuff at:

Ezra Levant

Free Mark Steyn/ Free Canuckistan

In fact, that’s not what Mortimer Adler said–he said that there were no  “Great Books” by black writers before 1955, which was the cutoff date for the “Great Books” series, which was intended to put books that were actually Great in people’s homes.

The problem is that there by definition there are no “Great” books written after 1955, because we won’t know if they’re great for some time, and before that few blacks (and few women–the 1990 revision added Jane Austen) wrote at all. Of course, according to Charles Murray, there may have been few “Great Books” written after 1950, by anyone, but that’s different problem.

Saul Bellow became notorious for having said ”Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans?”, in response to the Western Civ brouhaha at Stanford, which is the assault on “Dead White European Males” that Beam thinks Adler ought to have been paying attention to. This is just common sense, but that one sensible remark is still remembered against Bellow.

And what happens to a professor who isn’t a Nobel Prize winner like Bellow, or an internationally known philosopher like Adler? They get the message and conform, or they get sued.