Was the McCain funeral a catharsis for Establishment?

Meghan McCain speaks at a memorial service for her father.
Meghan McCain speaks at a memorial service for her father.

There is an old saying that, “actions speak louder than words.” As a CNN analyst said this past weekend, John McCain’s funeral was more of a “call to arms” against President Donald Trump than a eulogy.  In my opinion, it was also a five-day catharsis. I mean, if you look and listen carefully to what all the various speakers said, you will hear McCain’s voice loud and clear — he hated Trump and everything he stands for. Which means, McCain also hated all 63 million voters who elected Trump.

Yes, I have no doubt the Senator dearly loved his 2nd wife and children. And, I have no doubt they loved him equally as much in return. And, obviously some of his close colleagues, like Senator Lindsey Graham, loved him too. But, what those who were Democrat or Never-Trump Republicans saw and heard at the various funeral events was an opportunity, not only to mourn McCain, but to lash out at the reason for their new political reality.

True, no one ever actually said Trump’s name aloud. They didn’t have to. For example, it was at that second funeral in Washington that McCain’s daughter Meghan got caught up in her father’s anger saying: “The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

Which showed that Meghan had forgotten her father’s 2008 slogan — COUNTRY FIRST!  I mean, that slogan was not all that different from “Make American Great Again.” I mean, if you put America first, you are hoping to make it great.

Yes, I know that Senator McCain was a good man and a well-respected U.S. Senator. That is a given. But, he was not the saint the establishment, also called the “swamp,” portrayed him to be.  As a Canadian and a distant observer who likes to follow U.S. politics, it became obvious to me half way through the nearly week long celebration of McCain’s life, what McCain had done. It was he, remember, that decided each of the various speakers at each memorial. Meaning, he could anticipate what was likely going to be said. First, they would remember McCain fondly, which they did. Second, they would talk about all the reasons they hate Trump and what he stands for — as in blaming him for their lack of civility and divisiveness.

McCain also snubbed, not only Trump, making it clear that he would not be welcome at any event but McCain also betrayed his Vice- Presidential running mate of 2008, the person McCain personally chose, Sarah Palin. Regardless of how loyal she had been to him, like Trump, Palin was asked by the family not to attend any events.

Of course, it made sense to have a funeral ceremony in Phoenix. Arizona was his constituency and where the people he represented and loved, lived or used to live. But, the lying in state at the Capital in Washington seemed really out of place because McCain wasn’t a former President. Yet, McCain himself planned both the lying in state and the second funeral. As a result, I can’ t help wonder what those decisions say about him?

The crux of the matter is that all five days of funeral events likely turned out just as McCain hoped.  It was a time not only to remember him, but was a group catharsis for the Democrat left and never-Trump Republicans establishment. If, however, as many in the U.S. liberal media are suggesting, it was also a “call to arms,” Trump and his supporters can expect even more divisiveness and lack of civility in the future.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

Adjustments required to Ontario’s Sex Ed Curriculum

Ontario citizens should not worry about the 1998 Heath and Physical Education Program revisions that include some of the good aspects of what I will call the “Wynne Sex Ed Curriculum.” In the latter case, I can understand why it was hated by so many parents because of the assumption that gender is always socially constructed.

Interestingly, the reason critics are negative about it, is because Ford and his Education Minister, Lisa Thompson, have confirmed that some aspects of the “Wynne” curriculum will still be taught. Which, by the way, is not a flip flop. That is simply how curriculum is revised! Updates and revisions simply include what continues to be relevant.

Here, for example is what the 2018 version looks like in PDF format. And, to the left is a diagram of my favourite model for what it takes to develop a new curriculum.

For those who are not familiar with my background prior to retirement, I should explain that I got my PhD from the University of Toronto (OISE) in the 1980s majoring in two specialities — educational psychology and curriculum. At that time, there were actually professors at OISE who were known to be conservative. In addition, while my research and thesis adviser was progressive in outlook, unlike in today’s political climate, he would listen and discuss differences of opinion.

My point is that I know what I am talking about in terms of the technical aspect of curriculum design, development and implementation. All three aspects are different. At this point, Ford and his committee are still gathering information from parents, teachers and academics. Only after that process is completed and matched to actual scientific research (other than almost entirely on subjective constructivist  “action research methods“), will the design and development start.

Which means, that Ontario parents and teachers may not see a new, revised document, for upwards to a year. And, that is okay. That is what it takes to get it done right.

In the meantime, teachers’ unions are making threats. The very fact that Ford is checking out what parents want for their children’s education, in addition to sex ed, means he is keeping his promise to scrap the “Wynne” program. The Education Act is what it is. The unions have nothing to do with teacher duties, no matter what they scream and yell. The Government runs the show.

Mind you, having been a classroom teacher, I know that teachers have a lot of autonomy when it comes to making unit and day plans based on an Ontario document about such things as health and physical education. And, discussions between teachers and students are not always predictable.

So, what was the problem with the “Wynne” sex ed curriculum when compared to the 1998 document? The main difference from the 1998 version and the “Wynne” version was, as I said at the start of his post, the notion that gender is more socially constructed than biological. Sometimes, that topic got into the aims and objectives at each grade level in a sneaky way.

For example, as I wrote a few years ago in my old blog, in Grades 1, 2 and 3 the objectives involved identifying body parts, including genitalia, the stages of human development and visible and invisible differences. It’s not hard to guess what kind of differences might have been emphasized.

Similarly, in Grades 3, 4 and 5, physical differences in males and females and strategies for managing stress come up. Again, understanding human development is good. The problem is that we know, anecdotally, that some students in early grades, as early as the age of 10, have been supported to transition to the opposite sex. This is much too early for such a notion because children are still maturing.

In fact, Jean Piaget would turn over in his grave at this type of social manipulation of cognitive and physical development.

Last but not least are the intermediate grades 6, 7 and 8. It is unbelievable what they were taught under the “Wynne” program. True, older pre-teen kids can handle learning about sexual relations and consent. However, what many may not realize is that the sexual relations they are talking about include not only heterosexual, but homosexual relations as well. How it is done. The differences. And, last but not least, they are taught all about masturbation.

While that is information most 12 and 13 year olds probably already know, as a curricula objective, it is based on pure loosey goosey liberal ideology. It is also very one-sided for all the people who don’t buy the idea that gender is socially constructed as opposed to biological and genetic.

Look, when someone is an adult and decides to live as the opposite sex to what they were born, fine. That’s their informed, mature adult choice. Same with gender re-assignment surgery. But, progressives need to understand that children are developing socially, cognitively and physically well into their late teens and what they don’t need is well meaning teachers and LGBTQ advocates pushing gender confusing notions at them, particularly given that the suicide rate among adult transexuals is very high.

The crux of the matter is that while there was some good in the “Wynne” sex ed document, in terms of openness about how boys are different from girls, there was definitely too much social engineering going on based on progressive, liberal ideology that is simply not supported by solid scientific research — other than, as I said earlier, research that is constructivist in nature.

How odd, then, that liberals and civil liberty advocates now want to sue the Ford government because they dare to update a health and physical education curriculum to suit the majority of Ontarians. The title of this Toronto Star column, for instance, calls the possibility of a new and/or revised health curriculum, a ham-fisted roll-back approach.

Hogwash. It is called democracy. The Ford caucus is currently the Ontario governing party, winning an election fair and square. Meaning, there is nothing ham-fisted about developing a new curriculum with topics and objectives that the majority of Ontarians can accept and support — and who have had an effective role in its development.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

Where is Trudeau on NAFTA?

Where are the Andrew Scheer Conservatives in all this?In the United States, the stock market hit a high this morning, with the Dow jumping 250 points and Nasdaq hitting 8000 — on the rumour that a NAFTA deal was coming with Mexico. That’s how important NAFTA is to all three countries!

So, where does Canada come in if this latest agreement is only with Mexico?

I mean, many of us remember that on June 14th, 2018, in Toronto, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that Canada would not be at the U.S./Mexico NAFTA negotiations because both had to deal with their bilateral issues before trilateral concerns where added. In effect saying, “don’t worry, be happy,” because once those issues are completed, Canada would re-join the discussion.

Freeland’s actual words were: “Once the bilateral issues get resolved, Canada will be joining the talks to work on both bilateral issues and our trilateral issues.”

Well, it would seem that President Trump has other ideas about Canada’s involvement. Today, for example, Trump said clearly that he plans to scrap NAFTA. As Alex Pierson wrote so eloquently on Twitter a short while ago, “Canada is screwed.” Well, for the sake of thousands of jobs, particularly in the auto industry, I sure hope not. But, it seems as though Trump wants separate deals with both countries.

Why? My best guess is that unless Trudeau and company are willing to convince Quebec’s dairy industry that a compromise must be made regarding their supply management system, there will be no agreement. And, make no mistake, Trump is after that system. For example, I listen to many of Trump’s rallies and at his most recent in West Virginia, he reminded everyone about Canada’s dairy cartel.

Without a doubt, the Trudeau government seems stuck on stupid. Removing themselves from discussions with Mexico was a mistake. Trying to include climate change and other progressive Liberal values was also a mistake. It was a trade agreement, not a cultural agreement. As a government, perhaps the problem is that the Trudeau Liberals spend too much time preaching to everyone, including calling any Canadian who dares to ask a question about the illegals crossing into Canada a racist.

Look, I am totally in favour of immigration. Most of us are children or grandchildren of immigrants. What is wrong now is that the asylum seekers walking across the U.S. Canada border are illegal and undocumented. We have no idea, most of the time, knowing who they are and where they are from. But, just like all immigrants, the asylum seekers will eventually need jobs, jobs that are already in peril given our dependence on U.S. trade.

Which makes me wonder where are the Andrew Scheer Conservatives are in all this? I mean, their unwillingness to talk about the dairy issue was apparent in the CPC’s recent convention. So, I ask, if the Conservatives win the 2019 federal election, which I hope they do, what would they do differently than the Liberals are doing now?

Anyway, in the above video and Fox column, Trump says loud and clear: “I’ll be terminating the existing deal [NAFTA] and going into this deal….[and] ‘we’ll see’ if Canada can still be part of the trade pact….'”

Ah, the famous Trump “We’ll see.”

The crux of the matter is for the Trudeau Liberals to tell Canadians the truth about what is really doing on and for Andrew Scheer and his Conservative caucus to tell us what they would do differently and better.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

Crux of the Matter back & at Jacks Newswatch

Since my health has improved I want to do occasional blogging about politics and educational issues again. As such, I am taking Jack at Jack’s Newswatch up on his very kind invitation to write “Opinion” on his site on a regular basis.

As such, what I will do is use this site to link to anything I wrote in the past, as well as in the present and future. With respect to what I wrote in the past, however,  only the text will be visible as old images and links will no longer work.

Stay tuned!

[…]

The Niqab & incrementalism in “Camel & the Tent” Arab folktale

Canada is nearing the end of a vicious media fed anti-conservative federal election campaign — a campaign that somehow has become stuck on the issue of Muslim women wearing the niqab (that covers the face) during Citizenship ceremonies.

Or, the latest, that PM Stephen Harper would consider a niqab ban in the federal public service. Of course, most media and the Liberals and NDP are not explaining how they are twisting what the PM actually said in response to a question. Want proof, check out the actual interview he had with the CBC’s Rosemary Barton.

Anyway, regardless of what the court has ruled, most Canadians are still in favour of a ban. No, not because millions of people are bigots. But, because people are fed up with incrementalism.

Demands of entitlement for:

  • Prayer spaces or rooms in schools and other public places.
  • Separate times for female and male swimming.
  • Separate eating arrangements.
  • Niqabs in Citizenship Ceremonies.
  • Men or women only university and college classes.

But, perhaps worst of all, the demand and acquiescence to allow Muslim services to be held in some of Toronto “publicly funded” high school cafeterias where Muslim girls have to sit separate from the boys and those with their monthly periods must sit at the back of the cafeteria (because they are seen as unclean).

In my opinion, then, the niqab has simply become the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Speaking of camels, read this short version of the Arab folk tale about the master and the camel. Short version or long version, the camel starts off outside the tent and the master inside. Both are cold. Over time, however, little by little, the camel takes over the tent. Completely. With the master eventually being outside in the cold.

The crux of the matter is that the niqab is the current symbol of the “camel” type of incrementalism that could, over time, destroy our open and accepting society. Or, another way of putting it, the camel story is a metaphor for what is happening right now regarding Muslim expectations of entitlements.

Yes, newcomers can and should keep their cultural and religious practices, but in private or without forcing others to accommodate. Otherwise, over time the greater Canadian society will become a reflection of the society they left behind.

Comments are open but fully moderated.

Remember the 100 reasons to vote Conservative on October 19th, 2015

The anti-Harper Conservative Government spin is at its peak and is ugly, to say the least. Not only is it ugly, but most is either not true, exaggerated, or out of context. Mike Duffy, for example, has nothing to do with the Conservative record any more than the allegations against Mac Harb relate directly to the Liberals. In both cases, those men made individual decisions and now have to answer for them.

But, perhaps worst of all, is how nasty things are getting in the blogosphere. I am finding, for example, a lot of “anonymous” commenters leaving messages that are clearly suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) — comments that I do not publish but have to read and moderate.

To them, I say the following: Your emotional anger is not allowing you to look rationally at the consequences of your NOT voting for your Tory candidate. And, what might those consequences look like?

  • The HST/GST back up to 15%/7%.
  • Cancelled income tax cuts.
  • Cancelled income tax credits.
  • Cancelled family income splitting.
  • Cancelled senior income splitting.
  • Cancelled pension tax credit.
  • Added new carbon taxes.

Think I am exaggerating? Those items are just the tip of the iceberg. Yesterday, for example, at the Liberal announcement of their costing, their member said nothing was off the table. Nothing! And, as far as the NDP, just remember the recent Leap Manifesto and know the reality of the NDP ideology.

In other words, people need to look at what will happen to this country if they vote for the NDP or Trudeau Liberals — which are no longer the Liberals we knew from the 1970s through the 1990s. Both parties now have ideologies that have been discredited, be it socialism in the extreme or global warming/climate change theory. I mean, the essence of climate is that it is always changing and has been since animals and people have roamed our planet.

Vote well Canada. Don’t shoot yourself in your foot as there is no redo until another election is held. Remember as well that, no matter what the naysayers claim, there are at least 100 reasons to vote for your Conservative candidate.

Wake up Canada to NDP Obama-lite PC socialist multi-culture relativism

As my title suggests, it’s time that Canadians woke up to what an NDP federal government would look like. To imagine, they need only look to our Southern neighbour and what has happened to the U.S. military under President Obama and his Democrats — where political correctness and multi-cultural relativism has become a sickness.

I mean, what kind of a world do we live in when a decorated U.S. Green Beret — Charles Martland — serving in Afghanistan is, not only systematically discharged, but now denied an appeal. Why? For facing down and shoving an Afghan who was alleged to have sexually assaulted a young boy child and beaten his mother.

Suggesting that the United States is now a politically correct socialist world, President Obama’s world, where too much is relative in the name of diversity and multi-culturalism. A “look the other way because it is their culture” type of attitude.

A quote from the New York Times column linked above:

“’At night we can hear them [young boys] screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,’ the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. ‘My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.’”

Think about this Canada. This is what a federal NDP and/or Trudeau wish-washy Liberal Government would look like. I mean, even the Nobel Committee regrets giving Obama the Peace Prize!

Plus, there is these two quotes about Martland’s situation from a Fox News column (H/T Jack’s Newswatch # 8).

Even as the U.S. military denies reports that American troops were told to ignore Afghan child abusers, an 11-year Green Beret who was ordered discharged after he confronted an alleged rapist was informed Tuesday that the Army has denied his appeal.”

The memo, dated Sept. 14, comes as the Defense Department comes under criticism amid reports that U.S. soldiers were instructed to look the other way when Afghan troops and officers were sexually abusing boys.”

There is also this Google page where there are 584,000 items related to this matter.

So, make no mistake about it, the crux of the matter is that political correctness and multi-cultural relativism, if we continue to let it, will rot the very foundations of Western society for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Update:  Please note that all comments will be fully moderated until after the October 19th, 2015 federal election.