Turning the clock back and forth

I support ending this stupid practice.

Advertisements

The ironic Canadian

Ahem.

“Americans always comment on how polite and nice we are,” he said.

But it does not mean he can resist a maple leaf bumper sticker. “’I’m Canadian, f— you,’ that’s my mentality, and I’m not afraid to say it,” he said.

Also:

In the distant reaches of central Europe, there are apparently enough fond feelings for Canada that the region can support a periodical on the topic: The Central European Journal of Canadian Studies.

Sounds riveting.

Entitled

One of the more repulsive ingredients in the legislative sausage these days is the manipulative naming of bills. In its most grotesque form it involves naming the bill after some tragic victim of whatever crime the bill is supposed to prevent or upgrade from illegal to super-duper illegal. Type “[popular girl’s name]’s law” into Google and you’re almost guaranteed to turn up some legislative push, usually surrounding child molestation or abduction. And since these are already criminal offences, the laws are usually desperate attempts on the part of politicians to show how much they care by doing something.

On a related note, Canada’s Conservatives have picked up the bad habit of giving their proposed legislation prejudicial names as well. Thus, the “Fair Elections Act”. Whatever the merits of the bill, does it really need such a heavy handed title? Have our elections—including the one that brought the current government to power—been hitherto unfair? I don’t see how this even works. It should have been obvious that opponents of the bill were going to respond by attaching the entirely predictable prefix. Inevitably this is the sort of thing you get when you put the most mindless of mindless partisans in charge of “reforming democracy”.

If it were up to me, I’d pass a law mandating that bills before parliament be given dull names like “An act modifying the Elections Act.” Of course parliament can’t bind its successors that way, but what are the odds that more than one in ten politicians could give a concise definition of parliamentary sovereignty without looking it up?

House of Cards

Andrew Klaven, on the milieu of House of Cards:

This is devastating to left-wing philosophy, because the central flaw of leftism is not its ceaseless cynicism about business, individualism, religion, or the common man—it’s that its cynicism evaporates into unicorn-and-rainbow stupidity when it comes to government.

What we are seeing here is the return of geography

I considered posting on the topic du jour (des dernieres semaines, I suppose, by now): the Ukraine, or just Ukraine. (The definite article has been dropped by the people who decide how we ought to talk today. The ‘the’ has been deprecated, according to Wikipedia, which also suggests that the editors of Wikipedia learn how to write by reading software manuals.)

But anything I might have had to say on the topic has been better said at greater length by people with far more knowledge. I have however, discovered this useful guide.