Loading...
The Citizen, 2010-06-03, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2010. PAGE 5. Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. – John Stuart MillQuestion of the week: are U.S. right wingers – and I mean the wingtip right wingers – collectively dumber than the back side of a ditch? The evidence is persuasive: The Birther nutbars; the pack-a- pistol-to-Starbucks clowns. And of course, the ultra-right spokesmouths – Glenn ‘Bonkers’ Beck, Sean ‘Howler Monkey’ Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, aka ‘The Loony Loofah’. And hey, on behalf of gender equality: Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and the Queen of Cracker Crazies: Ann Coulter. How is it possible, in any gathering this side of a neo-Nazi rally, that this last-named creature can draw houseflies, let alone a paying audience? She calls Muslims “insane savages”, claims that Jews should be “perfected” and says of the weaselly, pasty- faced coward who killed 168 civilians in the Oklahoma City mass murder: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building.” Ann Coulter ought to be standing at a crossroads in Roswell, New Mexico wearing a sandwich board and an aluminum foil beanie and screaming about intergalactic Space Lizards taking over the earth. Instead, she’s making a tidy living speaking to enthusiastic audiences across the continent. Go figure. In the 1860s, philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill took a long look at the blue end of the British political spectrum and concluded with the quote that this column began with. A new study conducted by the London School of Economics seems to concur. Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at LSE, produced research showing that young adults who identified themselves as ‘very liberal’had an average IQ of 106; young adults who called themselves ‘very conservative’ had an average IQ more than ten points lower. What’s more, says Kanazawa, it makes sound biological sense. “We are designed to care only about people we associate with,” he says. “Liberalism – caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure those strangers do well, is evolutionarily novel.” As for conservatives, Kanazawa proposes that they are simply hard-wired to be less philanthropically inclined. “Conservatives tend to act on their evolutionary instincts and tend to favour the interests of their own ‘tribe’”. And if you think these are the ravings of an ivory tower Marxist academic, guess again. Kanazawa calls himself “a libertarian with a strong distaste for liberals”. But, he says, he’s also a scientist, and bound to report the facts as he finds them. In any case, the U.S. right seems to be intent on bleeding to death from repeatedly shooting itself in the foot. Moderate voices have been mum for years and stupidity reigns. A recent poll of Republicans showed that the biggest beef of 87 per cent was that federal politicians “think they are smarter than the rest of us”. Well, duh. They’re supposed to be smarter than the rest of us. That’s what being one of ‘the elect’ means. It does explain however, why Sarah Palin, who is so demonstrably not smarter than the rest of us, remains the front runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Has she got a chance? “Sarah Palin isn’t intellectual enough to be president.” That from Jeb Bush, brother of you-know-who and undoubtedly an expert in presidential intellectual unsuitability. Conservative pundit George Will says bluntly: “She is not going to be the president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.” David Frum, ex-speechwriter for George W., says “I think she has pretty thoroughly proven that she is not up to the job.” Them’s the facts, but no one on the far right is listening. A hundred and fifty years ago, right wingers didn’t take kindly to JS Mill’s dissing of conservatives either. So much so that Mill wrote a letter of explanation: I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Alas, we live in an age when reasonable Conservatives – and gentlemen – are equally scarce. Arthur Black Other Views Clowns to the right of us… In what its network called the television event of the decade, the phenomenon called Lost wrapped up its sixth and final season late last month proving one thing: it’s not how you start, it’s how you finish. The final season made a lot of promises, stating that the time for questions was over and the time for answers had come. Coming from the show that had asked more questions than any other show in television history, this seemed like it would be a tough one to keep. If you don’t believe me, check the internet. There are thousands of articles from people hoping all their questions would be answered. One website even went to great lengths to list 100 questions that it felt went unanswered, making a short video listing them all in a matter of minutes. Without getting too far into it, a show that saw a monster made of smoke, the dead rise from the grave, a big underground crank that changed space and time, a disappearing island and a polar bear in a surprisingly tropical environment, came pretty close to making sense in the end, but made no effort to answer many of the little questions that had popped up along the way. But that was alright. In the end, the show dedicated its last few hours to its characters, presenting tidy ends to stories about redemption, love, fate and destiny. And for the most part, people loved it, no matter that there were enough loose ends hanging to string a baseball, the show finished with what people wanted to see and proved that a strong finish can make all the difference. I started watching the show several years ago by force (the girlfriend kind) and was baffled as to how a show so ridiculous could garner as many viewers as it did. So there was no tougher turn-around than me, and after watching the finale, I was turned around. Kind of like the space and time crank. I figure this is why athletes like Derek Jeter and Kobe Bryant, who are great in the regular season, but seem to rise to another level in the playoffs, are so revered, because they know how to finish, win championships and perform when an important game is on the line. Those players win championships and they make fans forget what shots they may have missed or how many times they may have struck out in the regular season, because they brought home a championship, which is kind of what Lost did. It gave its viewers an ending that they could be proud of, that they could hold close to their hearts, giving the characters their due time to wrap up their lives on screen, making the audience feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Because there’s nothing people like better than a good ending. A lot of people said they hoped Lost would finish strong, because it would validate their viewership for the past six seasons. Having said that, in their minds, the final two hours of the series could make or break the series, with die-hard fans saying that if the ending was no good, they will have watched six seasons of television for no good reason. I think more often than not, people forget the journey and how much fun it was. So, really, in the end, what’s in an ending? It’s similar to people’s obsessions with legacy, asking basketball players in their twenties how they feel this year’s playoffs have altered their legacy. It’s not all about the end, it’s about the journey and how people often fail to, to borrow a driving school term, get the big picture. It’s like John Lennon said, “Life is what happens to you when you’re busy making other plans.” McGuinty called nanny premier Lost (and found) Dalton McGuinty has a new, unwanted nickname and it will be mentioned often in the 2011 election and may even help decide the outcome. Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has accused the Liberal premier of being a “nanny premier,” meaning he interferes constantly in residents’ lives with rules and restrictions they don’t need. McGuinty has brought in more laws supposed to protect residents than any previous premier. This writer can vouch for this, having covered the legislature for more than four decades during which no premier produced as many, and before that laws to protect were in less demand. Some extreme right-wingers in the Conservative Party have grumbled for years McGuinty was creating a nanny state, but none of its leaders had used the phrase, one reason being much of the public favours many of his laws to protect. John Tory, leader before Hudak, also was a moderate Conservative raised in a tradition government intervention could be useful and supported many of McGuinty’s laws to protect, as did some other Conservative MPPs, so they would have difficulty calling them nanny state laws now. But Hudak placed himself firmly among those who believe McGuinty has gone too far with laws to protect by saying, while his party focuses on creating jobs and defending the family budget, the premier worries about saving residents from the menaces of plastic bags and dandelions growing on their lawns. While Conservatives focus on improving healthcare and ensuring students can read and write, he said, the premier muses about teaching sex education to six-year-old children and policing what kind of dogs people can own. Hudak said McGuinty does not trust Ontarians to live their own lives, but creates jobs for bureaucrats, and the Conservatives want him out of residents’ personal lives, homes, backyards, fridges and wallets. The Conservative leader has not been specific about which of McGuinty’s laws he would kill. Plastic bags fill garbage dumps and last almost forever, so the fewer the better. McGuinty has banned pesticides that get in water and harm the environment. His ban on smoking in workplaces, enclosed public spaces and cars in which children are passengers is hands-on healthcare, because hospitals are reporting they are admitting fewer patients who have smoking-related illnesses. McGuinty has attempted to prevent the proliferation of just one breed of dog, pitbull terriers, the most dangerous, and attacks by them have decreased, so an opponent who attempted to reverse this policy in an election could get bitten. McGuinty has put some curbs on what students can eat and drink by ordering elementary schools to remove junk foods such as potato chips and pop from vending machines and replace them with healthier snacks. He also has required bars and liquor stores to post signs warning pregnant women alcohol can cause birth defects, but it is difficult to see a critic whipping up enough indignation to repeal these. The Conservatives would be embarrassed if their party wanted to cancel McGuinty’s law that bans talking on hand-held cellphones while driving, because its original proponent was a far-sighted Conservative, John O’Toole. The same day Hudak accused McGuinty of being a nanny premier, news media were reporting homeowners eager to install new, energy-saving technology are being massively defrauded by companies falsely pretending they can provide it. Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski said it is shameful the province is not protecting consumers, an instance where the Conservatives sought more, not less protection. Hudak can claim some of McGuinty’s laws are inadequate; for example, many are being cheated by door-to-door sellers of energy contracts half-a-decade after he promised to end this; and some will agree he has too many laws that protect anyway. But collectively these laws to protect are among the best things the premier has going for him and an opponent will have difficulty winning an election by drawing attention to them. Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk Shawn Loughlin SShhaawwnn’’ss SSeennssee Letters Policy The Citizen welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must be signed and should include a daytime telephone number for the purpose of verification only. Letters that are not signed will not be printed. Submissions may be edited for length, clarity and content, using fair comment as our guideline. The Citizen reserves the right to refuse any letter on the basis of unfair bias, prejudice or inaccurate information. As well, letters can only be printed as space allows. Please keep your letters brief and concise.