|
|
Reply Privately Here
Updated Diligently But Irregularly
|
|
First Things Daily Article Reciprocal linking is appreciated, but not required. |
Mark Steyn's many well-wishers will be pleased to see that the attacks on him through various Canadian Human Rights Commissions seem to have backfired. The statement from the Ontario Commission was the straw that broke the camel's back. The straw in this case was a statement from the Ontario Commission that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Islamophobia charges against Steyn and Maclean's magazine, but which nonetheless went on to condemn the defendants and what Steyn had said in America Alone, this despite the fact the matter is still before two other Commissions. Steyn himself helpfully supplies us with a compendium of outraged elite opinion:
First, star columnist Rex Murphy:
The story just gets better and better, from the point-of-view of political comedy if not of jurisprudence. The great secret about totalitarian liberalism is that it has never been hard to rout, in circumstances where someone refuses to be cowed and there is a measure of publicity. This is apparently true even in the extreme case of these Canadian Commissions.
Speaking of outraged elite opinion, that pseudonymous calumniator Spengler at Asia Times says that he has been asked for advice by a distraught candidate for the American presidency, who reports his problem thus:
Spengler's advice is couched as an excerpt from The Arabian Nights as tasteless as it is colorful. He ends with this conclusion:
The only surprising thing about this incident is the pretence that the Senator's views are exotic or original. FrenchieCat was one of the few sources I could find online (at least as of a few hours ago) that let the obvious out of the bag:
What's the Matter with Kansas is well-enough known to have its own Wikipedia Page. It was one of a flurry of books that followed the election of 2004, books in which Democratic theorists considered what to do about the "values voter." Also from this literature, Thomas F. Schaller's Whistling Past Dixie suggested that the Party might prosper by trading gun rights for every other item in the agenda of the cultural Left. Like Frank's book, it argues that values voters suffer from false consciousness, which means that their political views are best understood as symptoms. (As far as I know, by the way, only Mickey Kaus among the major online commentators has dared to use the term "false consciousness" to describe what Obama was referring to.) David Callahan in The Moral Center provides an analysis and prescription that is actually a bit closer to what the Obama campaign has embraced: yes, values voters do perceive real moral failings; progressives should embrace religious language to place those perceptions in a context of Liberation Theology.
These views may or may not have merit, but they are scarcely unusual. Actually, I was under the impression they were the orthodoxy among informed Democratic activists. John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei try to suggest in a posting on Politico that the situation with Hillary Clinton is quite different. I doubt it. There is nothing at all in Hillary Clinton's background and current behavior to suggest she believes otherwise: like Obama, she worked with Alinskyite groups, too, and is familiar with the concept of false consciousness. The difference is that clips of her expounding this sort of analysis cannot be found on YouTube, or at least not yet.
Harris & Vandehei also offer this observation:
I don't think that Obama will take any great hurt from the incident, at least as far as the contest for the Democratic nomination goes. Obama's supporters agree with him about Frank's analysis. Undecided Democrats will not greatly mind the condescension; people rarely do. The point about the rift in the Democratic Party is correct, however. It's quite as serious as the one among the the Republicans caused by immigration.
Meanwhile, while we are all nattering about the presidential candidates' latest alleged "gaffe" and moaning and weeping about the rise in mortgage foreclosures, there is good reason to suppose that something appalling is about to happen:
'Food prices, if they go on like they are doing today ... the consequences will be terrible,' IMF managing director Dominque Strauss-Kahn said...In recent months,
rising food costs have lead to social unrest in several countries such as Haiti and Egypt as governments grapple with a growing crisis sparked by a whole series of
price increases in basic commodities.
In the developing world, governments have been forced to increase subsidies for basic foodstuffs and fuels or to cut back on agricultural exports, as in Thailand with
rice, in order to ease price pressures in their home markets.
This is not globaloney, though we may note with disquiet that some of the comments about this development do not always appreciate that the problem is not "inflation": the higher prices are accurately reporting an inadequate supply. Because Paul Ehrlich's population bomb turned out to be a dud, we have forgotten that widespread famines and food shortages have occurred in modern times, and could do so again. Asia Times Spengler has taken note of the matter in characteristic fashion:
Actually, it's not just the Arabs: civil unrest is popping up in quite a lot of places. Not food-price inflation, but real rises in food-prices are just below the political radar in the United States. This could become an issue very soon.
|
Thank you ---John J. Reilly
|
| Copyright © 2008 by John J. Reilly |