Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lino... who wrote (724)	10/3/2001 12:14:10 PM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 37959

I couldn't begin to address Sharpton -- I've heard the name, and have a sense of his reputation, but that's about it. But I'll take a crack at the other one. Bear with me, though, it's rather convoluted. Part of what's going on with our boomer academics is a reaction to how they perceived the society in which they were raised. They thought the Canada of the 50s was rigid and authoritarian, and that as kids they were ruled by guilt. Out of that came the idea that anything that made someone feel bad was evil. And anything that made them feel better was good. IMO that's the key to the revolution in the Zeitgeist, leaving in its wake forlorn flotsam of conservatives wondering what happened. In their reaction against guilt, the boomer left could not tolerate any one or any thing that took a stand. Canada's politicians decided that we could afford a mushy foreign policy with the objective of not offending. The U.S. clearly could not. The Americans had to take a stand. Indeed, it's hard not to descend into cliche --- "truth, justice and the American Way". They may not have always got it right. In fact, when they got a bit fuzzy about what they stood for (e.g. in Vietnam), it didn't go well. But they found their way again in the 80s. They stand for something, something that's traditional. And the boomer left can't stand it. Anything that had status in the 50s is subject to derision now, as the boomers continue in their now-patterned behaviour. The church? Hedy Fry is so petrified of burning crosses that she imagines them, but when a group of militant feminist lesbians desecrated a church in Montreal a couple of years ago, there was nary a peep. The church is now beyond the pale. The family? If there's anti-matter, imagine anti-Robert-Young. "Father knows zip" (and isn't needed anyway). As an extension, if you were somehow a "victim" in the past, the law doesn't apply to you. Indians can shoot at fisheries officers and blockade roads with impunity. If a white guy had a gun in his possession anywhere within sight of a cop, his ass would be in jail before he knew what day it was. And if the white guy was shot by the cop, well, he should'a known better. If the Indian shooting at the cop gets killed, the public enquiry will go on forever. Now extend that to foreign policy. Name any group that's ever been oppressed by the west, and whatever they want to do today is fine. And heaven help the U.S. if they take a stand. That's the thinking. There's remarkable hatred for the society that spawned them, or accepted them in the case of immigrants. Think of their approach to immigration policy. When boatloads of people were showing up on the shores, the boomer left felt sorry for them, and damned anyone who would suggest they be placed in custody, let alone deported. Their view of national sovereignty is the logical extension of Trudeau's view on nationalism. Nationalism is the cause of war. If we undermine sovereignty, there can be no nationalism. So those in charge implement an immigration policy that is inconsistent with sovereignty. It seems remarkable that someone sufficiently motivated to emmigrate could so despise the society they sought to join. Or is it. I doubt that Trinidad offers the kind of financial support to their academics that's available here. Moreover, where other "rich" countries apply critical standards to the work of the academic studies they fund, the "standards" in Canada are a joke -- just look at a list of titles funded in any given year by SSHRC. So she can come here and be paid to promote her hatred of this society, and work to undermine it. And she is supported by the indigenous boomers who are guilty on the one hand, and on the other share her goals to oppose a society that stands up for something. Let's face it, if there were standards, someone would at least demand consistency. Consider her argument when she was running for the presidency of NAC. You had to elect a "woman of colour" to fight racism, because any white woman would be racist. But she's presuming an attitude based on the colour of the person's skin -- what's that if it's not racist? In some ways the worst thing that the boomer left has done is to hijack the public policy agenda. Look at what the government has done in the last three weeks. The only thing that Chretien has been genuinely worked-up about is the report that some Muslims have been harrassed. Of course that's a bad thing, but let's keep it in perspective. Governments now get re-elected by bleating about victims -- the homeless, gays, whoever. Doing anything substantive isn't necessary. And not only is it not necessary to do anything substantive about more traditional issues (the economy, defense, governance), you don't even have to talk about them. The winner is whoever is the most sensitive. Geez, that rant just toasted half an hour. Herewith endeth the sermon: for the guilty boomer is the root of all evil.