Dear Kathy Shaidle:
This non-gas-huffing, student-loan owing, non-smoking, casual-drinking own-dough-earning Indian has one thing to say to you… its disgusting, ignorant racist c*nts like you that make me ashamed to say that I was once a conservative.

Most of the post is exceptionally profane, but not totally out of line when one considers Kathy’s original post:

Canadian Indians take rare break from gas huffing…to disrupt the lives of other Canadians who have actual jobs, and whose extorted tax dollars keep said Indians in booze, smokes and junk food. Not to mention free everything else, including university educations they don’t bother getting…Dear Indians: we gave you liquor, you gave us smokes. I call it even. Now get off your very sizable butts and earn your own dough.

Girl on the Right added her own shots –

When the Natives do absolutely nothing except smoke, drink and f*ck their daughters. This Friday will mark the Native Day of Action(tm) here in Canada. It’s their chance to whine and complain that us white guys who pay 45% in income tax to support their smoking, drinking and daughter-f*cking are ripping them off.

Strong words, certainly devoid of the “political correctness” that everyone is rebelling against these days (to the point where it would be more rebellious to exercise political correctness, whatever that may be). Reading the comment sections of the first and third threads reveals far more complexity in these exchanges than can be covered in one blog post (or five), but the surface battle illustrates the inherent dualism that goes along with being conservative and a minority.

The political left has traditionally used past injustices to minority groups as a call to arms and a recruiting tool. Socialists and leftists figured heavily in the civil rights movement for blacks as well as solidarity movements for natives. Where right-leaning Christians steadfastly upheld segregation and supported police brutality, it was the anarchists and Marxists who marched during the 1960’s under threat of assassination and ostracism from their own ethnic communities. They offered -at least in words- an equal political and social platform for minorities that was previously unknown.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the first large wave of revolutionary intellectual and political action in the black community was infused with Marxist ideals. After working for hundreds of years as slaves and then underpaid laborers with second class citizenship, anything that purported to be “equal” would have sounded good. Having the (mostly) ex slave owners, KKK and segregationists on the side of the big business (re: capitalism) didn’t hurt the leftist cause either.

Around the same time, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was furiously implementing his vision of a just society in Canada via several legislative measures – most notably the Official Languages Act, wage controls and finally The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Aimed at forcing equality on a reluctant Anglo population, these measures proved popular with natives and other historically oppressed groups. Conservatives conversely recoiled at the upset of the old social hierarchy (to this day one can still read complaints about the Charter), while the fiscally-minded were equally horrified by “equality’s” impact on Canada’s national debt, which swelled from $17 billion to over $200 billion. Once again, the minority groups were on one side while conservatives and free-market proponents were on the other.

However, the terms “black”, “native” and “conservative” are big-tent terms that belie many gradients of political thought (the two former terms of course have no political implications). The excessive cost of North American socialist programs combined with the economic failure of Socialist and Communist states (ex: Russia, North Korea and the former East Germany) and the radicalization of the left caused these neatly divided lines to blur:

• The cycle of dependency caused by welfare and similar “handout programs” lead some prominent black thinkers like Thomas Sowell to decry the “generosity” of socialism and favour more market-oriented solutions to poverty.
• The rise of neo-conservatism in the 1980’s promoted a platform that was strongly opposed to the welfare state but was at least initially devoid of the southern-fried bigotry associated with traditional conservatism.
• The increasing secularization and anti-religious sentiment on the left marginalized the traditionally devout Christians in the black population.

Thus the so-called black conservative and native conservative were born, with a dedicated sect of conservatives eager to welcome them to the fold. As someone bold/foolish enough to publicly admit voting for Stephen Harper, I can attest that members of historically-oppressed groups that dare to regard prominent conservative politicians as anything short of the devil will be in for hard times from their own people. The rationale is that the leftists in favour of offering freebies while our ancestors were robbed of earned things … so of course history will be righted by us receiving those things in the form of welfare, social programs, and ultimately reparations.

The problem is that all the reparations in the world can’t create motivation, organization or discipline. A common observation is that these well-natured set-asides are only effectively used by those who would have otherwise found a way to “make it” within the system (ex: in 2005, fewer than 30% of native males aged 25-44 had completed post-secondary education, despite numerous bands offering free tuition and in some cases expenses). The large group of self-destructive, self-pitying “oppressed” types thus continue to neglect their families, engage in disproportionate violence / substance abuse and generally prey on their own people while community activists insist that more taxpayer money will solve all these problems.

Hence, a few brave souls like raskolnikov risk their rez/ghetto passes by daring to criticize the pathologies in their own communities and simultaneous utilize the “evil” market system that has enriched so many incoming Europeans who chose to embrace it. Many are very successful financially and are able to join the Canadian mainstream At this point a critical mistake is made – since so-called conservative philosophy (which is actually classical liberalism) worked for them they believe that they can therefore become actual “conservatives”.

My observation is that this is still not possible. While some conservative thinkers have proven great allies or genuinely seem to care about the plight of certain groups (albeit with different solutions than the leftists who think they have a monopoly on compassion), conservatives are still generallyan old boys network that regard all natives/blacks/etc with equal contempt. The blogosphere is the easiest place to observe raw hatred, particularly in the comments section of posts that were seemingly created for no reason other than to incite hatred. However, contemptuous attitudes can even be found among mainstream commentators and of even politicians (ex: Ralph Klein’s fellow PC Party members quipping that, without his political power, she would be “just another Indian”).

So how should the so-called minority conservative/centrist [I consider myself the latter] approach this situation?

1. Firstly we must acknowledge that we will be forever trapped in a 2-front war. The socialists are only interested in us when we’re broke/needy while the conservatives are only interested in using us as attack dogs against our own groups. Frustrating as it may be, we need to attack and/or ignore the negativity on both sides.
2. We must never presume our allies. INDIVIDUALS and not groups will aid us over time. Some will be on the right and some may be on the left.
3. We should never confound the ideology to the people promoting it. The market system has a proven record of creating greater and more evenly-distributed wealth than any other economic system in history (including, ironically, systems that favor mass redistribution). This doesn’t mean that free market supporters from social privilege won’t still regard us as gas-huffers and gangsta rappers. Bigotry has no economic system or religion.
4. Don’t join in the mindless minority-bashing. This will some fans among the good ol boys in the short term but in the long term we’re all the same to them
5. Don’t join the Victim-Beggar Complex in reaction to right-wing negativity. To do so would virtually prove them right and only add to the prolonged misery caused by social dependency.

The unfortunate consequence of this approach is that every once in awhile we’re going to have to “take the piss” for stupid comments that come from the right, but we can control their actions no more than a mild-mannered Catholic in cottage country can control the murderous acts of the IRA. It is worse to sell out your own principles than to sell out the artificial constructs of your assigned “group”.

Complaints from social activists are typically grounded in fact – most native reserves are in terrible shape, domestic abuse is unacceptably common (I say this as someone who has had family work with Women’s House and the Children’s Aid Society – so many stories …), many black children grow up in an unhealthy environment while many Canadians outside the chic urban centers aren’t exactly “enlightened” about gay rights.

However, social activists exploit these injustices by brow-beating politicians and society into funding high-level “projects”. Most activists seem to follow the same template when shaking down the government –

Shock & Awe Drama
Activists must first make their mark with ostentatious displays of melodrama. Techniques include ambushing politicians during televised events, blocking public communication and staging inflammatory rallies. It’s no mistake that such methods were also used by some of the greatest revolutionaries in history, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. So what’s the distinction? That’s a bit of a grey area – as the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Earlier this year, I got into a nasty argument on Jack’s Newswatch with some anti-Mandela supporters of MP Rob Anders). Ultimately, the distinction can be made in hindsight – if the activists follow the path of events described below then they probably aren’t Gandhi material.

Demonstrate Historical Injustice
Provide impromptu history lessons (real and imagined) showcasing the irrefutable nobility of the target group before the “mainstream” destroyed everything. Again, much of the ad-hoc history is grounded in fact so the trick is to simply edit out the grey areas. For instance, it is permissible to discuss how, until 1960, natives were not even allowed suffrage without sacrificing their treaty claims. European-led genocides like the extinction of the Beothuk tribe (killed by both attrition and disease) in Newfoundland are also fair game. However, the conquest of natives by natives, like the Huron’s decimation by the Iroquois, is strictly off limits. One group must be absolute victims for the victim-beggar complex to work.

Silence the Opposition
Dissident voices from outside the target groups are simply dismissed as homophobes, sexists, racists, or whatever accusation fits. Inevitably, some of the opposition to the activism will be rooted in disdain for the target group, but far more often the dissidence is against the activists themselves and the way they choose to frame the issue. Blurring this distinction is essential to making sure non-sympathetic outsiders don’t spoil the scheme.

This approach can be applied even when the community group isn’t purely political. Last year, Toronto City Council. stripped the Caribbean Cultural Committee (CCC) of their yearly funding for Caribana, citing that the CCC –ritually plagued by financial difficulties- did not file proper financial statements for 2005. Despite the fact that the funding was awarded to another Caribbean planning committee (and one with a strong track record) community activists affiliated with the CCC nonetheless attacked city council and its liason, Joe Mihevc, as racists who supported black exploitation.

Internal dissidence leads to accusations of “self-hatred”, in that to oppose the activist group is to oppose the entire demographic of its clients. Much like a mad preacher presents his authority as being congruent with God’s will, the mad activist claims to speak for all natives/gays/etc. Of course, none of these leaders are democratically elected outside the confines of their groups, but this fact is disregarded. Those gays who don’t want to flamboyantly march in the streets are dismissed self-hating gays who want to stay in the closet. Blacks who don’t want young criminals on the streets and extended welfare programs are accused of wanting to be white. Women who don’t agree with the more radical tenets of feminism are condemned as old fashioned. In all cases, the internal dissidents aren’t considered “real” representatives of their group.

Apply for the Program
No matter that the question was, the answer is always “more government money”. The details are window dressing. Free market be damned. Never mind self-reliance.

Administer the Program
Administration is the fun part. Once the government transfers huge sums of money, the bureaucracy starts to take shape. First an internal structure is solidified within the group and then office space is setup. The amount of actual progress made for the client group varies greatly but one can always be sure that the bureaucracy is well fed. An outside observer would quickly note that the Jane-Finch corridor is still a hell-hole of high unemployment, drug addiction among natives is still epidemic and open homophobia is still pervasive. The typical activist response amounts to “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and this is true – however Government money is often dispensed without any concrete targets.

For instance, a community group may receive $500,000 to setup a job program but neither the group nor the government provides any benchmark to determine whether funding should continue (e.g. 30 or more clients obtaining full time employment after the first 6 months of operation). Meanwhile, less scrupulous members in the group “expense” the money away on dinners, entertaining and even getting their nails done (yes, I actually came across the latter while investigating one community group).

Of course, the victim-beggar complex operates cyclically rather than sequentially. There mere existence of injustice is used as justification for the group to exist, which provides extra incentive for ineffectiveness once the funding is obtained. Thus, the juggernaut of social “correction” rolls on, daring anyone to challenge its legitimacy …

…. Until a conservative government comes into power. Although, not always hostile to community concerns, conservative governments are nonetheless branded as 100% redneck and hostile to activist schemes (as mentioned before, this will be spun into an accusation of overall bigotry). While some good works may fall by the wayside (and I have not encountered any evidence of this happening with the current government) the rest of the country gets a much-needed break and a government committed to strengthening the economy for the benefit of all rather than funneling tax dollars to the loudest few.

Update: Sandy at Crux of the Matter has expanded on this idea with her post “Time to change our “entitlement culture”“. I highly recommend checking out her work!

Planned Parenthood hailed Thursday’s decision by the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday to allow nonprescription sales of the pills to adult women, saying expanded access could prevent up to 1.5 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year.
…
Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. has sold Plan B as a prescription drug since 1999. Nonprescription pill sales should begin by year’s end. The cost “could be slightly higher” than the $25 to $40 now charged, said Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox.

Naturally, abstinence advocates and religious types are up in arms about the proliferation of yet another birth control device (some liken it to abortion since the pill is designed to work after the point of conception). However, these people miss the big picture, as Shay of BookerRising eloquently delineates -

Responsible people will probably remain responsible, by protecting themselves while having sex in the first place. Plan B is also a backup measure for folks who are generally [sic] responsible, but occasionally exhibit irresponsible behavior. However, this especially helps society lower the social costs forced on us by chronically irresponsible people. We shouldn’t have to pay the costs of their actions, so better to cut the repercussions of their actions off at the pass very early on – by preventing conception in the first place – than us suffer later. As a pro-choice advocate, I ask pro-life advocates: would you rather chronically irresponsible folks resort to this pill…or get multiple abortions down the line? I know one woman who has had 10 – yes, 10 – abortions. Others, 3 to 6 abortions. I assume that you would rather that these women take the pill. You are picking the wrong battle to fight. Be pragmatic here.

Shay’s position deserves consideration – sometimes ideologues in the Pro-Life camp need to recognize not everyone is comparatively in love with their religious or absolutist doctrine. Abstinence may be 100% effective against unwanted or “socially unacceptable” pregnancy but so would sterilization. There are people who support both practices but obviously such solutions aren’t universally appealing.

The truth of the matter is that everyone – pro-life and pro-choice- has a role to play in preventing or dealing with unplanned/undesirable pregnancies. If the two factions could set aside their mutual hatred for a little while, they could cooperate to provide a powerful plan of attack:

• Middle school sex education can be coupled with heavy abstinence programs. Most people would agree there is no benefit in preteen or early teen sex (and most women I’ve spoken to who engaged in such activity regret it)
• High school education, allowing for the fact that some kids are obviously going to become sexually active, could add more pro-choice content: birth control pills, condoms, Plan B Pill etc. By high school age, nearly all young people are thinking about sexual activity and will at least contemplate exploring life beyond “just say no”. Society should at least implore them to do so responsibly.
• Upon discovery of pregnancy where the Plan B pill does not apply, pro-life groups should be given the opportunity to promote alternatives to abortion. Adoption is the most obvious alternative and may appeal to distraught young women who do not want to “kill the baby” but also know they are not ready for motherhood
• And finally, as a last resort, access to abortion

If such a plan were implemented effectively and with full cooperation between school systems / churches / governments, the number of abortions in North America could be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, the game of politics would never allow side A to make a deal with the devil on side B. The losers of course are the women with unwanted pregnancies and to a lesser extent society. It is time for compromise.

Authorities raced to Dundas St. East near Shuter around 4am, for a report of a man being shot.
When they arrived in the area, they were in for a surprise – the gunman started taking shots at both the lawmen and the EMS attendant who came to help the wounded victim. A bullet hole hit the ambulance but missed narrowly missed District Supervisor Brian Toshoff.
-CityNews Report

Less than 24 hours after a public plea by police, accused shooter Quinn Borde, age 23, turned himself in. Toronto has officially graduated to the Hollywood-style violence that smug Canadians once associated with the United States. Recent news reports suggest that Winnipeg and Edmonton aren’t faring much better, with police in the latter reeling in its own high profile shooting.

Where is David Miller now? Since the mayor’s inaugural pledge to clean up the city, violence in Toronto has spun out of control. A recent CityNews article confirmed what most residents already know – Toronto’s violent crime is getting worse:

Violent Crime: up 4.7% overall
Homicides: 79 in 2005, up 23.4%
Sexual Assaults: 2,723 in 2005, over 200 more than in 2004.
Non-sexual assaults: Up by 3.7%
Robberies: up 5.7%
(Compared to base year 2004)

6 months ago, Mayor Miller and police Chief Bill Blair haughtily dismissed Curtis Silwa and the Guardian Angels, claming they did not need help in fighting crime. Yet violent crime is becoming not only more frequent but more brazen, as illustrated by the Borde shooting.

As the Canada Day weekend closes, traditionally signaling the start of the Ontario heat wave, Toronto can probably look forward to many more public shootings by incompetent and unprofessional “gangstas” as well as violent robberies and sexual attacks by predators.

We’ve heard enough platitudes from politicians, social activists and pundits who want to pedal quick-fix solutions that have at best short term gains. It’s time for partisans to accept that a reduction in crime will only result from a multi-faceted, unflinching assault on criminals and the conditions that allow them to prosper. Based on the rise in Toronto gun violence alone, the following measures could prove helpful to mitigating the Summer of the Gun II:

Punishment:

• Amend the Young Offenders Act to exempt violent and gun-related offenses. While there may be wisdom in trying to anonymously refocus kids caught stealing from department stores, there is nothing youthful about murder. Light sentencing for juvenile killers is not going to save them from becoming hardcore criminals – they’re already there. Treat them as such.
• Pass laws forcing judges to automatically deny bail to offenders charged with gun or gang-related crimes. Unfortunately, judges don’t seem so concerned about public safety: 20 year old Andrew Smith, out on bail when he participated in the melee that resulted in the murder of Jane Creba, was just granted a hearing for what will be his third bail in under a year.

Community:

• Welcome the Guardian Angels and other watchdog groups to assist in “neighborhood watch” initiatives. A police force is impotent without community support, and Toronto should do everything it can to assist citizens willing to patrol city streets when the police are not around.
• Offer facilities and other non-monetary support to non government affiliated youth groups. The best programs to reach wayward youth are often started and run by other youths, rather than by headline-seeking preachers or professional activists. Support could come in the form of free hall rentals or material donations. In short, give the youth something positive to do.

Immigration:

• Automatic deportation of any immigrants or guest workers convicted of a violent offense, as well as their immediate families.
• Limit the landed immigrant status of lower-wage workers and give negative incentives for single workers to bring children at a later date. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of gang members are not the sons of welfare queens who sit around the house all day but rather hotel employees and other low-wage earners who work 10+ hour shifts and have little time to monitor the activities of their offspring. This isolation can drive already-alienated immigrant children to seek “family” elsewhere
• Set immigration limits for different nations, proportional to the violent crime rates of both immigrants and their second-generation offspring. Immigration should always serve the economic and social interests of the host nation. An identifiable group that requires a large amount of social assistance beyond what is generally needed to assimilate newcomers is a liability to Canada rather than an asset. To avoid possible discrimination, this measure should be employed only after extensive criminal studies have been completed and after the previous measure has been implemented for a number of years.

Sorry, did I miss your suggestions for this problem?
-Larry McLean

Initially, Larry’s comment was dismissed – after all, a cynic rarely thinks he can change the make a difference in the course of world events. After further deliberation, however, I decided it was a nearly immoral waste of intellectual capital to bemoan the state of the planet without at least offering the occasional hint of a solution. So Larry, you’ve changed the course of events at Cynics Unlimited. There is now a new category called “Ideas”, where solutions of varying detail levels will be proposed. Debate on the merits and folly of my ideas are of course highly recommended – a good debate is always welcome.

The first post in the category will be posted during the morning of July 3.