Bud Talkinghorn on the Quebec Effect, Missile Defense -- and the Feminist Effect on Freedom of Speech

Quebec and the Quaker mentality

The reluctance of the Martin government to spend much time or money on the military is rooted in its influential Quebec wing. Traditionally, the Quebecois have hewed to a Quakerish pacifism line. They were not even motivated to defend their old motherland, France, during the two world wars. According to one COMPAS poll, conducted on Feb. 25/26, 31% of Quebecers don't even think Canada should have a military. And their resistance to the missile defense shield must have played into the Liberals' decision to let the Americans go it alone. The combined weakening of federal Liberal support in that province and the dismal ratings for Charest on the provincial front have forced them to acquiesce to Quebec's wishes.

This case of the tail wagging the dog has gone on for so long that I'm surprised that Ontario doesn't rebel. After all, the Ontario Liberals are the real power base for the party now. Yet it is the truly slippery Pierre Pettigrew who is setting our foreign policy. Pettigrew, who was the minister responsible for the HRDC job-creation scandal, managed to escape, thus leaving Jane Stewart to take the full blame. His diplomacy leans so much toward the French model that he actually has an apartment in Paris--paid for by the Canadian taxpayer no doubt. I suspect that if he had his way, Canada would become one of those French sub-departments, like the Ivory Coast. Unless his influence is truncated or eliminated entirely, we are going to have problems with our near and (trade-wise) dear neighbours to the south. That would surely topple the Liberal Party in Ontario, which depends so much on trade with the States. Martin is on a high wire and Pettigrew might push him off.

© Bud Talkinghorn




Mr. Dithers finally makes a decision about missile defense

Paul Martin is going into the big Liberal convention with a shaky hold on his authority. So, gambling that the Americans will pass off his bowing out of missile defense as the usual, he can then appease his Quebec supporters. He must kowtow to the (security-wise) effete Quebecois, if he hopes to win another election. However, he might find that the Americans are tired of propping up their weak sister to the north. Or that Bush and Rummy don't start to perceive Quebec as Cuba north. -- another, closer member of the axis of evil, which manipulates Canadian foreign policy. Increasingly, the ROC sees Quebecois as mini-me Frenchmen--petulent and deluded. For that matter, prithee, explain the difference to me between Canada's stance and that of France's on defense. Oh, I forgot, Martin promised at the NATO meeting that we would contribute 30 troops to help Iraq rebuild. France has committed itself to sending exactly one officer.

While the American ire at Canada won't lead to a military invasion; it can certainly have an effect on our trade relations with them. A few hefty tariffs on major Canadian exports could help Martin develop a backbone, however. For now though, we can see the streak of opportunism that so defines Martin's character--do what is expedient and to hell with any principled stand.

© Bud Talkinghorn

PS: Effects already -- Condi Rice has cancelled a meeting with PM and a radar establishment that was to have been built in Labrador -- won't be. NJC




Freedom of speech is alive in North American universities--but only if you don't mind being burned at the stake for employing it.

A long festering problem at many universities was brought to the fore recently. Lawrence Summers, Harvard's President, in an impromptu speech tried to explain various factors that might account for male dominance in science faculties. Oh the horror! Didn't he realize that there could only be one explanation for it--gender discrimination? Even to speculate about other possibilities is heresy to the politically correct, i.e. the feminist and left-wing socialist professors. A female science prof stormed out of the meeting, and like Paul Revere, her gallop sparked a rebellion. Within days, there were demands for his resignation. Students entered the fray and began mini-protest marches. The number of women I saw in one TV news clip, suggested that the Women's Studies students must have been given the day off.

Summers did what every academic today must do when he offends some militant clique on campus, he apologized profusely--indeed five times. "Sorry", the protestors said, "not enough abasement." He then promised to increase the female staff in sciences. Instant affirmative action was nice, but still not enough. Total annihilation of this sexist swine was the only acceptable recourse to answer his repugnant statements. A meeting of 500 Harvard staff was convened so Lawrence could put forward his case. Because he again mentioned innate gender differences, he was attacked by some. However, it appeared that the majority of the staff would forgive him his misogynistic utterances. Case closed? Not by a long shot. The rebellion spread to other universities and from there to the airways. TV loves a conflict. If it bleeds, it leads. And Lawrence and his supporters were gushing lots of it.

In Wednesday's (last week, I assume, NJC) Lou Dobbs' report on CNN, there was a panel discussion. The panel was composed of three female science profs, and one male gender researcher. Dobbs opened up with his thought that the entire Lawrence affair was completely over-blown and suggested that the PC language police were acting like Gestapo. "Don't you three women believe in freedom of speech?", he asked. "Of course we do," they said in unison. However, the common sense idea of free speech went south with every comment they made afterwards. The poor male, Dr. Sax, could hardly get a word in. Considering that he was the only one that could comment scientifically on gender difference with any degree of expertise, he should have been allowed more air time. I sensed even he was afraid of speaking "untruths". Two of the women appeared to have a big axe to grind about men in general. One of them, after demanding that the sexes by seen as equal, actually told Dobbs she thought women in her department were "superior" to their male colleagues. Dobbs stated that that comment was contradictory and sexist to boot. The woman wouldn't back down. I wonder if she will be pilloried for that comment? I somehow doubt it, as by PC definition, "sexism" is a hard-wired male trait. They do make some exceptions to the mantra that the genders are equal.

To put this ridiculous tempest in a teacup debate to rest, I suggest that you read The National Post's two articles on it (Feb.23). One has the aforementioned Dr. Sax explaining just how different males and females are in thinking. The other one points out the statistical fact that at the top of the IQ ranges--from which Harvard chooses--males outnumber females by a 7 to 1 at the 145 range and 30 to 1 at the stratospheric 160 range. To compensate for the ladies, men are far more prevalent at the retard ranges. However, feminists are not interested in quality, they want quantity -- of females. If the standards of Harvard fall, that's too bad. As Steve Sailer, the author states,

"Most of these female complainants know from their own experience with their children the intrinsic differences. However that commonsense is out of bounds when it comes to Ivy League universities. That, more than anything Mr. Summers said, is the real scandal here."

© Bud Talkinghorn