"It's kind of shocking to realize the person known as the father of modern economics, Adam Smith, didn't think the pursuit of wealth was a very good idea," say Russ Roberts. "He thought it was corrosive, thought it was bad for you, thought ambition was bad for you, thought the pursuit of fame would destroy your character and your happiness, your serenity, your tranquility.
Brighton bomber Patrick Magee has returned to the town 30 years after his deadly device ripped through the Grand Hotel killing five people.
The Republican, who was handed eight life sentences in 1986, planted the bomb that targeted Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Cabinet during their annual conference in 1984.
Magee was back in the city to take part in a panel discussion following a screening of documentary Beyond Right & Wrong at The Old Market in Hove.
The programme is focused around Magee's reconciliation with one of his victim's daughters. Lord Tebbit, an old fashioned Tory if there ever was one, is not so Christ-like:
Lord Tebbit wrote of the aftermath, including the two years his wife spent in hospital “before coming home to try to rebuild our life together”. He said: “That has not been easy. Although I suffered multiple injuries which have left me seldom without pain, I have few disabilities. Sadly, my wife’s life has closed in and her suffering is unrelieved.”
Had the Brighton bombing occurred twenty years earlier there is no doubt that Magee would have been hanged. I would not have shed a tear. Whatever the merits of the Good Friday Accords, which freed men like Magee, there is no reason to grant him the slightest time or interest. Let the rat scurry off to his corner and die.
Trudeau was raised a Catholic as a child, saying prayers and reading the Bible with his father and two brothers. By the time he was in his 20s, he had become a “lapsed Catholic.”
Then came the death of his younger brother, Michel, in a British Columbia avalanche in 1998. To help deal with his grief, he attended a course on Christianity.
“It came at exactly the right time. Trusting in God’s plan. For someone as rational and scientific and logical and rigorous as I am, to accept the unknowable and to re-anchor myself in faith was really, really important to me.”
“Since that moment, I still consider myself and have re-found myself of a deep faith and belief in God.”
Now look at this cute guy and his adorable family:
Justin Trudeau is doing his baby trick again, and his communications director is having a minor convulsion. She sucks in her breath just a little as he wraps his fingers around his son Hadrien’s feet and hoists the giggling five-month-old in the air in the palm of his hand.
It gets worse.
An earnest, yoga-practising, whole-foods-eating earth mom, Grégoire is the sort of person who talks about growing vegetables in the backyard, then corrects herself and says that she doesn’t really grow them: Mother Nature does. She’s got a sticker on her Odyssey minivan that reads, Love Is the Answer.
I shouldn't have had breakfast before reading this. Really should have skipped breakfast all together. The article is from Chatelaine, so deep discussions of monetary policy would be unexpected, still this soft soap coverage is grating after a time. It's not that the Once and Future King is receiving positive coverage, it's the appallingly personal nature of the coverage. From every page and every word a voice beats in the back of my head wanting to scream: I don't care about you're god damn family!
Long time readers will know that I consider politics to be a low profession, a few honourable exceptions notwithstanding. Politics, whatever the moral status of its participants, is still a serious business. It matters because it impacts the life of the nation. To see something so important, so potentially dangerous, reduced to this kind of trivia is disgusting. A debasement of an already debased political process.
This is beyond ideology. However great the damage Tommy Douglas wrecked upon the land, he was an intelligent man who was passionately committed to his ideas. His memorable turns of phrase, his uncanny knack for explaining complex ideas to ordinary people, made him a political force. You could debate a man like Douglas, or M.J. Coldwell or Ed Broadbent. Men of substance and education whatever their personal beliefs. How do you debate Justin Trudeau? How do you fight a handsome blancmange?
The triumph of Justin, which isn't quite as complete as his media allies project, rests upon his appeal to women. The appeal is not to equality or liberation. Heavens no. It is instead completely and utterly patronizing. The marketing pitch for Trudeau 2.0 is older than he is: Women's issues, women candidates, women media messaging and a strong emphasis on young mothers. Some fedoras, the odd trench coat and a few cigarettes dangling from the participants' lips and you'd swear it was still 1957.
Look at the imaging:
The handsome dashing father with his demur and supportive wife.
Justin says little of substance and his wife says nothing. No Hillary in the making here.
The family home is relentlessly upper middle class. Just posh enough that you might be invited.
The family image is intensely nuclear and traditional. No step fathers or divorcees in the picture.
There is only one minor concession to modernity: Abortion. But even the rhetoric in defense of abortion is as stale as Don Draper's cigarette ash:
“The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better."
Justin, of course, has met very few pro-life campaigners. No doubt they are kept away from his sacred presence least they generate a poor photo-op. The majority of pro-life campaigners in modern Canada are youngish women, not old men. As a rule old men, that would be men who grew up in the 1960s, are terrified of venturing any sort of opinion on abortion lest they be judged sexist. The psychology is similar to white men of that generation who are terribly insistent that they're not racist. The sort that speak with excessive fondness of Sidney Poitier much to the confusion of their younger colleagues.
Half a century after the beginning of the sexual revolution the Trudeau Campaign, both partisan and media, has finally told us what women want: A rich, handsome husband who will whisk them away from the workaday world and sire them healthy and attractive children. Or at least as many attractive children as they find convenient.
When Chatelaine at last publishes pictures of Sophie Trudeau barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, the circle will be complete.
Jobs, then 29, was present at a dinner in Mrs Thatcher's honour, held at the US ambassador's residence in London in April 1984.
Edward Streator, a US diplomat who also attended the dinner, told the Telegraph that the idea behind the event was “to get a powerhouse of leading American businessmen to come over and meet the prime minister.”
He added: "It's almost certain Thatcher and Jobs would have met because it was a small event and an effort was made to introduce everyone to the prime minster.”
The menu for the dinner shows the pair were offered a three course meal starting with sea bass and finishing with a rasberry dessert.
“Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are?” Trudeau said.
Terrible things happen when Justin's handlers go to the washroom.
Yes we all know that his staffers believe that the military is for emotionally stunted brutes, an anachronism which has no place in our post-modern world, thing is that they're clever enough not to say it out loud. It's like saying that you think the Prime Minister hates puppies. You believe it as a matter of course. But by saying it out load you sound crazy. There are things, it is understood, that should never pass a Liberal's latte soaked lips.
While much mirth has been derived from Justin's latest gaffe, the Boy Blunder has struck upon an important point. What exactly is the point of the Canadian military?
Polite Canadian society does not like to admit, though it is perfectly understood, that Canada's presence is but dust in the military balance. It's been about half a century since anyone regarded the Canadian military as a significant player. Current events in Iraq are not, whatever some conservatives might imagine, a replay of World War Two. This is a minor policing operation in which the middle powers are providing diplomatic cover for the actions of the Great Powers.
Among the relatively large nations of human history Canada is almost unique in one respect: We don't strictly speaking need a military. There has not been a direct existential threat to Canada in more than a century. The only nation capable of invading is the one nation that would never try. Our security has been under written by either Britain or the United States for over two centuries. Tomorrow we could dispense with the whole of the Canadian Forces and, leaving aside the communities in which our few military bases are located, I doubt anyone would notice.
So why have a military when we don't really need one?
The two basic answers that present themselves are influence and honour. Without a credible military there is no reason for the Great Powers to pay us anything but lip service. Your heft in the international community is dependent upon guns and dollars. Most countries need a combination of the two, the exception being Japan for obvious historical reasons, in order to be taken seriously. When the big decisions are made on trade, diplomacy and the handing of international disputes people listen when you bring something to the table.
OK perhaps you don't give a damn about any of that. Even in the very best of circumstances, Canada doubling it's defence budget, we would barely crack the top ten countries in terms of power and influence. So why bother? Just ask the Americans to protect our borders, including the Arctic, and deal with the loss of sovereignty and national dignity. That's a course, which I suspect, most on the Canadian Left would want to pursue if they thought it politically practical. It isn't practical because it would offend ordinary Canadians perceptions of Canada as a serious country. Like it or not serious countries need a military. Even if it is increasingly seen as a token force.
The concept of national honour is even more nebulous than international influence. It is at this point that the utilitarians simply reject the argument out of hand. National honour is not something tangible so why should we care? If we can free ride off a generous and essentially benevolent neighbour, why not do so?
Imagine a young man who has inherited a great fortune. He is freed from the responsibility of having to earn a living. Instead of pursuing some kind of productive career, however esoteric or simple, he instead lives the life of a playboy. What is the instinctive reaction of most people? Even though he collects not a cent from the taxpayers he is, in a moral sense, a parasite. We have a natural contempt and loathing for such men. Not because they are rich but because they are feckless. By contrast people extend to Justin Trudeau, even his critics, a modicum of respect because he is at least trying to do something useful with his life. That he is failing miserably is another thing entirely.
Canada without a military is not unlike that feckless heir. A country that would live off the efforts of other nations too honourable and responsible. Nations that understand the need for a common defence of the free world. Instead we would be a nation free to morally preen over the decisions of the Great Powers, without the necessity of having to be blamed for the consequences. The security bum of the Western world. That's a vision which, unfortunately, appeals to many on the Left. As a matter of self-respect Canada needs a military commensurate with its wealth and good fortune in the world. In the life of nations honour is just as important as guns and butter.
Subsidizing the world's 17th most spoken language:
The Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada (RCCFC) will receive more than $1.2 million in support of its efforts to promote French‑Canadian language and culture.
Jacques Gourde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, and Member of Parliament (Lotbinière–Chutes-de-la-Chaudière), made the announcement at the annual meeting of the RCCFC, on behalf of the Honourable Shelly Glover, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.
A portion of the funding announced today comes from the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013–2018.
One day, mes amis, everyone in Calgary will speak French. Pierre Trudeau promised.