Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Nicol says, "So what."

Atheists around the world took great comfort in this and revealed themselves as little more than faith based followers of another kind for it.

The most childish notion that the Einstein quote brings with it is the notion that all atheists are defacto "smart" and all theists defacto not. This is simple, facile and juvenile reasoning.

Remember, belief in God is a philosophical and theological question. Not a question of science. Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but neither a philosopher nor theologian.

Do atheists really believe that only an atheist can be a scientist? That scientists are not also swayed by the culture of the day or political correctness? That notion is laughably unsophisticated.

Also remember that Einstein was writing at a time when we did not know that atheists under the guise of Marxists would create the greatest genocides in human history.

Perhaps had he lived in the modern era Einstein would realize whose views were truly "childish".

Monday, May 05, 2008


One of the topics that I have always found fascinating is the notion of the feminization of the modern male. I actually used to buy into it wholeheartedly. That a generation of men, weaned on feminist theory in academia and role models who skew more Leo Dicaprio than John Wayne were far more passive than their right wing counterparts.

Now, I am not so sure.

One of the things I have noticed lately - say in the past couple of years - is how aggressive my left-wing male friends have become with me. Even if I do not bring up the topic of politics or religion, they seem to always have an edge on. When challenged casually on a subject of progressive othodoxy they will most often resort to vicious snark and sarcasm for long periods of time, not wanting to talk it out more rationally. This is not true of them all of course. But many of them.

Two weeks ago, a very left-wing actor friend and I were working at a private school for the day. He came in all edgy and snarky from the get go (it was a private school in a small town- he thought it was beneath him) and started making asinine remarks.

Finally, I made a comment about how most of these rich kids were probably Che Guevara lovers. He went silent and then acted like a petulant, spoiled brat all day. Snark, sarcasm, verbal bullying behaviour. He wouldn't even sit for longer than 5 minutes at lunch to eat with the staff. On a break when we went into the small town he mocked me and a cafe clerk when he couldn't get an espresso. Total cliche stuff, here.

The relation between science, Darwinism and feminism has always been tenuous at best as is evidenced by this over a decade old article in the NY Times.

"Many feminists have eyed certain aspects of Darwinian thought with deep suspicion, particularly when evolutionary explanations have been marshaled to explain human characteristics like the inequality of the sexes in most cultures around the world, or boys' supposed superiority over girls in mathematics. To many feminists, the relentless search for an innate basis to complex human behaviors smacks of a quest for easy answers -- and handy excuses for the status quo. "

Darwin took a view of human evolution and sexuality that was very much in line with natural law; that aggression in males is a natural trait. Feminist theory of course says this is not true and it has only been indoctrinated into males by a "patriarchal, right-wing Judeo-Christian power culture".

This is a flawed theory, not the least is the fact that there are aggressive males in cultures that are not Judeo-Christian and are matriarchal.

So, if we take the scientific approach that Darwin is correct and aggression in the human male is natural, it would make sense that left wing males who adhere to a doctrine of modern progressive feminism which tells them to repress their aggression would be the ones most likely to have that rage simmering under the surface. That is not to say that every left wing male is on the verge of walking into a post office with a rifle. That would be silly.

But think of the past 30 or so years in our culture since feminism really became an influential ideology.

Did "war mongers" George Bush or Ronald Reagan ever have the bursting anger moment that feminist Bill Clinton did on Fox news a year or so ago?

Who brutally thrashed that protester a few years ago, Jean Chretien or "neanderthal" Stockwell Day?

Where do you think you would be more prone to find violence: at a weekend gathering of Hells Angels or at an anti -American "peace" rally? If you're honest, I think the answer to this one is up in the air.

Think of all the violent protests from the 60's? University protests in general? Are they ever peaceful?

Think of blogging culture; which ones use the most violent language and are the most extreme? Right or left? I do not know of any mainstream conservative blogs that even approach the level of anger and vitriol that even a casual glance at rabble will show. I realize there are extremes on both sides but you have to go to some very dark corners of the internet to find extreme right-wing blogs. Left wing blogs that routinely call for the "rape" of Ann Coulter as a "joke" are commonplace.

When I was in university, I long maintained that the worst and most aggressive students and profs that were opposed to free speech and dissent were the left -wing men...not the women.

The men I know who are the most sexually aggressive, least likely to use condoms and leave women lying in the lurch are also the most die-hard feminists.

Even in my current life, I find most of my left-wing female friends will disagree with me, but listen and find what I say fascinating. I rarely feel disrespected by them. Many of the males, usually respond with anger, sarcasm and childish aggression.

Who are modern pop cultural left-wing male role models for the Gen-X and Y'ers? Saying "pretty boys" like DiCaprio is too easy. No, their role models are passive-aggressive aging man-boys like Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, Sean Penn etc.

All right, Sean Penn is just aggressive.

I realize all of this evidence is anecdotal, but I believe there is something to it. The reason I had to choose an article from 1994 is because we are not allowed to ask these questions anymore; feminist theory being the orthodoxy of our culture.

It would also account for why women still have problems on the corporate ladder when the wealthiest corporate men in Canada and America claim to be Liberals and Democrats. Bay Street has overwhlemingly went Liberal since Chretien and Obama is the current big corporate face in the States.

Again, I am not talking about aggression in a "who supports the war or owns a gun" sort of way. I mean aggression in a latent, repressed, passive- aggressive, ready to boil over kind of way.

I think that in a generation or two, this might be a topic well worthy of study.

Sunday, May 04, 2008


From Joan Tintor, we find that Charles Caccia, Liberal MP for the Davenport riding from 1968 -04 died this weekend from a stroke.
I lived in the Davenport riding from 2001-2004 and remember Caccia very well.

I remember that when I called his constituency office to make an appointment I could never get through.

I remember that when I left messages they were never returned.

I remember that when I looked for a website he did not have one.

I remember when I wrote him regarding same sex marriage I did not get a response. Not even a token form letter.

I remember that he gladly exploited his Italian Catholic heritage to get votes from a largely naive Italian Catholic riding while all the while being one of the most left-wing, viciously anti-Catholic MP's in Parliamentary history.

I remember that under his watch the Davenport riding was one of the poorest ridings in all of Canada and Ontario and not once did I see him do a thing about it.

I have no idea where Charles Caccia is right now. I hope he is in a better place. I hope he made peace with God before he died. In my opinion, he exploited the good will of the people of Davenport while doing nothing for them that I could see for over three decades. He plied on the naivete of the Italian-Canadian community (yes, as an Italian I can say they are painfully naive and exploited by Liberals like Caccia and Joe Volpe). Based on my time in Davenport I can say nothing good about Charles Caccia as an MP.

Not. One. Thing.

I saw poor old Italian-Catholic men wearing his buttons knowing he did nothing for them. I saw conservative Catholics vote for him knowing that once he got to parliament his votes held their views in contempt.

It is rare I say a bad thing about someone on this blog. I try to deal with ideas...not names.

For Charles Caccia, because he was Italian and I am too I will make an exception.

If someone can find one good thing he did for that community let me know and I will publish it. But for all I saw, he was a decrepit leftist who exploited his race, nationality and religious heritage to sit in parliament for decades and do nothing.

May God have more mercy on his soul than he did on his constituents.

Thursday, May 01, 2008


Child poverty is not a joke. But the notion that a Liberal government could pass a resolution to end it is.

"Almost a decade after the deadline by which the House of Commons was unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty, Statistics Canada says there are still almost 900,000 children living in the poorest of homes. "

Perhaps we can also pass legislation to end murder and stife. Perhaps another House of Commons resolution could be called upon to eliminate really bad hair days and stubbing your toe. Then we can pass another legislation whereby we can all be born with pots o' gold under our cribs and rain will turn to beer on days of important sporting events.

I am constantly amazed at how upside down most progressives see the world.


I have wanted to write about this issue for some time in more depth but many things have made it very difficult, not the least of which is encroaching parenthood and career opportunities.

But this article in the Globe I did want to comment on.

David Cronenberg on Bill C-10:

"In essence, all Canadian filmmaking is independent filmmaking and we are very dependent on government money to have a film industry, and so denial of that money is tantamount to censorship. Everybody knows it. They can put up their fa├žade all they want, but everybody, including them, knows it."

Cronenberg wants us to buy into a view of defacto censorship. The problem with this is that Cronenberg incorrectly assumes that there is not already censorship that occurs at the funding agencies as to what films will or will not get financed and who gets the money.

As a screenwriter in Canada, I have no problem telling you that there - is - defacto censorship in the English Canadian Film Industry as to what films get financed, what subject matter is chosen and how much money people will get. The Quebec system is very different and they have a good merging of art and commerce.

I had lunch with a former reader at one of the funding agencies last summer. She told me that when she started she would be - told - to refuse development money for well written mainstram scripts by unknown writers in favour of lesser quality scripts by more esoteric filmmakers who were already in the system and depended on the money for support.

Much like the Human Rights Commissions which started out with noble intentions and then morphed into a place where they just need to be torn down, that is what is wrong with this system. That does not mean that there have not been good films or filmmakers produced under the system. People like Atom Egoyan, Bruce McDonald, Paul Gross and many others are very talented but there are too many sub-tier "artists" that get money that are not.

Let's put it another way...we all know and love American film.

Imagine if you looked back on the history of American film and there were no films about football. No films about baseball. No films about Vietnam, WWII or Iraq.

No superhero movies.

No Raiders of the Lost Ark, no Star Wars. No Field of Dreams, no Knute Rockne. No Apocalypse Now, no Green Berets. No It's a Wonderful Life. No Foxy Brown, no QT. No John Wayne or John Ford. No Oliver Stone, no George Clooney.

What if the only films America made were by Todd Haynes and Todd Solondz.

Don't know who there are. Look at the resumes. That's what we have in Canada. Mostly films made by extremist fringe "artists" and "personalities" who do not have to answer to the public to get their films made. It is a gravy train that keeps on moving. It is an impenetrable system to those who are not in the loop.

The rules for funding regulations constantly get re-written and you never know if you qualify. And if you do qualify but are unknown, you might get a call telling you that you do not qualify and will have to fight to get through (that happend to me and two other people I know). If you do not qualify but know people in the doesn't matter. I know one person who did not qualify but was friends with readers at the agency and said he was promised thousands. There are no checks and balances and nobody ever gets questioned.

A corporation knows it might get audited. With Canadian film funding agencies, there are no such scenarios.

It is a corrupt, broken system.

Cronenberg must know this and is also being disingenuous because the majority of funding for his films comes from either Britain and America. Cronenberg (who is wealthy by any common defintion I might add) takes token amounts from the funding agencies for script development so that he can qualify for Canadian awards. He does not need the money and has had numerous offers to direct Hollywood blockbusters throughout his entire career. He has been offered everything from Top Gun to Beverly Hills Cop 2 to Basic Instinct 2. And I say this as someone who is a fan and loves the man's work. I even loved his most controversial work Crash. I even defended him in film school when the feminists said he was a misogynist and not a "true" Canadian filmmaker.

Cronenberg does not have a dog in this fight. Neither does Sarah Polley who is also a Hollywood darling and very wealthy. They have no problem getting work.

What bothers me are the multitudes of filmmakers (writers, actors, directors etc.) who are getting conned by these two into buying into a system that will - NEVER - allow them to make the films they want.

Young film school students who are buying into a myth that they are fighting alongside their heroes like Polley and Cronenberg for free speech when the very system that they are fighting for will see them out of the industry in 5 years waiting tables.

Cronenberg says this is defacto censorship because Canada has an independant system. The problem is, the reason we have that system is because left-wing filmmakers like Polley and Cronenberg do not want a system based on private capital. They will take private capital gigs when they want to...they just do not want other artists to have the same opportunity.

Bill C- 10 will not change the industry. It will be this way for a long time. But plenty of filmmakers out there are not being heard who - do - want change. Not even conservatives, just people tired of the same people getting the same funding to make films that nobody wants to see.

I do not want a conservative film industry. I just want a level playing field where all Canadian voices are heard. That is not happening now.

Bill C- 10 is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction.

Anyone who defends the current system is the true censor.