TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES

There has been a rather unfortunate disintegration or rather fracturing of the system by which cabinet executives and judicial government personnel are appointed in the United States.   The Constitution lays the foundation from which the process is initiated. In brief, the current practice is as follows:
 

The nomination process for a new Supreme Court justice begins when one either retires from the court or passes away. Thereafter, the sitting U.S. President nominates a qualified replacement. After this occurs, the Senate Judiciary Committee takes over the next part of the appointment process. This committee then vets the nominee's background, history and credentials and holds a first hearing with him or her to question them on their qualifications. The committee then votes on the nominee and the nomination is then sent to the full senate to go forward or with the recommendation that the nominee be rejected. If the nominee is rejected then the president will have to pick a new nominee and the process will start over.

Once at the full Senate, a filibuster can take place if at least one senator decides to stall the nomination by refusing to yield their spot speaking on the floor. If this happens then a vote of cloture takes place, where a 60 vote super-majority would be needed to stop the filibuster. If the 60 vote tally is not reached then the nomination fails and a new nominee must be picked to start the whole process over. If there is no filibuster then the nomination proceeds as normal, with the senate needing only a simple 51 majority vote tally. If the senate reaches that number then the nomination is confirmed and if not then the nomination fails and the process must start with a new nominee from the beginning. One the nominee is confirmed then they usually go straight to the White House to be sworn in, usually buy the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The heads of the executive departments and all other federal agency heads are nominated by the president and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority (although before the use of the "nuclear option" during the 113^th United States Congress, they could have been blocked by filibuster, requiring cloture to be invoked by 3⁄5 supermajority to further consideration). If approved, they receive their commission scroll, are sworn in, and begin their duties. When the Senate is not in session, the president can appoint acting heads of the executive departments and so do at the beginning of his term.

An elected vice president does not require Senate confirmation, nor does the Whited House chief of staff, which is an appointed staff position of the Executive Office of the President.

It all seems to be straightforward, however, the make-up of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is made up of 22 senators, 11 from each party. The Republican Party Senators include Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Josh Hawley (Missouri). There are subcommittees including The Sub Committee on The Constitution which has Ted Cruz as ranking member, and the Sub Committee on Human Rights and the Law which has Josh Hawley as Ranking Member.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of all three of these men can be researched on YouTube. Their concept of integrity and consistent rational thought has the attention span of a gnat.  Actually a gnat has probably more integrity than all three of them put together.  Their cumulative contradictory statements about Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election, the attempt by President Obama to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the last period of his term of office, and about the January 6^th Invasion of the Capitol, are an unparalleled accumulation of lies and deceitful malicious misrepresentations ever uttered.

The fact that Ted Cruz is a ranking member of a subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States, something he has clearly no relationship with, and that Josh Hawley, a dissembler and acolyte of would be insurrectionists, is on a subcommittee involving human rights and law, something he has no connection with, makes no rational sense whatsoever. They are an embarrassment to the Committees, the Senate and the Republican Party. As to Lindsey Graham what can one say, he reeks with asininity.

I realise that my cumulation of insults is illiberal and intolerant, but that these three people in particular should sit in judgement of any kind and question the truthfulness, integrity, rational thought and impartiality of a prospective Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is an insult to any prospective nominee.

I find the performance, of this Judicial Committee, is a demonstration of the prejudice and divisions that are growing within the United States. The party political associations that form the basis on the membership of the committee (11 Republicans, 11 Democrats) is merely window dressing to give an image of equality and fairness.  The Republican Party members are giving voice only to the extreme right wing of the party. Their posture and behaviour are snide, aggressive, arrogant, demeaning, patronising and innately racist. The worst part of it is they are no longer aware of what they have become.

The idea of any bipartisan approach to congressional endeavour is no longer part of the spectrum. Our way or no way appears to be the current mantra. The sole purpose of the present republican leadership is to prevent any progress within the United States in order to regain what they see as power. The absence of any constructive legislation emanating from the Republican side of the aisle is clear evidence of entrenchment of points of view. The intolerance belies any real interest in public service. The concept of duty of care and the idea of a social contract, between legislators and electors, seems to have completely escaped them.

There are very real and very deep divisions within the United States, creating a very dangerous situation that could seriously affect the general state of world political and economic affairs; however, Mr Putin’s war has temporarily eased the tensions by diverting attention to his extraordinary stupidity and short sightedness. A gangster’s true colours do tend to emerge eventually. He has managed singlehandedly to restore some cohesion in NATO, unified the western alliance, as well as, for now, creating a unified foreign policy within the individual states aligned with NATO. The approval ratings of several western leaders have gone up in their own country. Boris Johnson in the UK may be saved from resignation, Macron will almost certainly win the coming French Presidential elections, and Joe Biden has also improved.

World concentration to stop the insanity in Ukraine is paramount, as is controlling Covid 19, but it must not detract from the problems that still need addressing at home. Multi-tasking is possible. The removal of Boris Johnson and his cabinet must be an imperative in the UK.  The drastic reform of the Republican Party, and extracting the poisonous virus that is Donald Trump from its body, is equally of importance.

There is a line written in the film, The Hunt for Red October, spoken by the character of Jeffrey Pelt – national security advisor – “Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.”

Here’s a clip for the buffs:

So keeping one’s options open seems a reasonable perspective to maintain, so long as there are options. On the matters previously discussed, I am not sure there are any.

Dispensing with the likes of - in no particular order- Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Alexander Lukashenko, Victor Orban, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Eric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen (and many other ‘leaders’, who see maintaining political and financial power over the citizen, through repressive legislation from an acquiescent legislature, along with compliant police and security forces who react to their bidding regardless) is not an easy proposition so long as the electorate remains uneducated and complaisant. In some countries, where any opposition is stymied by exile, imprisonment or death, it may take some considerable time to remove such people. What is inexplicable to me, is how such people get elected to office to begin with. A military coup or revolution is one matter, but for a person, who clearly shows signs of a disturbing arrogance and conceit, to be elected, is baffling.

Is it the appeal to the lowest common denominator, the populist moblike mentality of the ignorant and intolerant citizen? It does not seem to take much to bring out pent up racism, prejudice and bigotry. We have all seen ample evidence of mob behaviour in just about every part of the world, and what hurts most is to see it displayed in countries whose founding principles abhor such conduct, and claim adherence to the rule of law.

I know I come back to it time and again, but it is important. Without respect and duty of care our freedoms are in tatters. Being in a position of public service, of any kind, is a daunting privilege. It requires above all else absolute integrity and adherence to truth. It is what is expected. To be at variance with that proposition, in even the smallest way, has been the downfall or disgrace of many a politician who has graced the front pages of tabloid newspapers, usually over some affair or having been caught out in some deceit.

So why is it so different in the current climate. How is it that lies can be tolerated with a simple “Don’t bother me, I’m busy with a pandemic” and “Don’t annoy me with petty squabbles, I’m busy with Putin’s war and NATO”. The first priority of the leader is to be unimpeachable and trusted by every single citizen, whether they agree with her/his policies or not.  There should be no place for someone whose lies fall trippingly on the tongue. The ease with which falsehoods tumble out of the current prime minister's mouth is despicable and depressing.

There is nothing in the entire world going on that absolutely requires Boris Johnson to be involved.!! What is imperative, is that he be removed, just as much as the removal of Putin et al, as mentioned above. A leader who persistently lies to his citizens is no leader. The consequences of some lies may be more serious that others, but it is the lie that leads to the consequences, and the world clearly cannot afford the consequences of any lies. 

ADDENDUM TO YESTERDAY'S BLOG

As an addendum to yesterday’s blog I would add the following comments:

Mr Vintray’s article mentions the research of James Lindgren in the United States in which he claims that “the more racist, embittered, solitary or ungenerous one is, the more one is in favor of the redistribution of wealth and anti-capitalism” and “socialists and anti-capitalists declare much less than the opponents of social redistribution policies to have an altruistic behavior or give regularly to the homeless. In summary, stingy, racist and intolerant socialists and anti-capitalists, according to this academic study!”

I wonder if he has polled the Trump supporters and the various white supremacist organizations currently free to disseminate their hate all over the United States. I noted, during and since the 2020 election, the attitude of many of the 70 million supporters who insult and vilify “democrats” as evil incarnate as well as claiming that all democrats have a socialist agenda. They use the word ‘socialist’ as a slur and automatically assume that whoever is listening thinks the same as they do.

If that is an exhibition of tolerance on the political right, it is a strange sort of tolerance. Lauren Boebert has openly insulted and accused a fellow congress person of being  a terrorist because of the clothes she wears. Marjorie Taylor Greene likewise is not above name calling and insult. Neither of these elected official shows any sort of tolerance. They exhibit open racist ideology, and are far from supporting a redistribution of wealth, more a redistribution of guns.

Indeed, the majority of those 70 million people feel and react in much the same way, which is why they probably supported Boebert, Greene, Trump, Gaetz, Cruz, et al, who are far from tolerant and probably would prefer there were no central government at all, except it would deprive them of a platform.

Given the visual and auditory evidence freely available on YouTube of these people’s behaviour and rhetoric I wonder just on what evidence Messrs Lindgren, Brooks, and Vintray based their conclusions.

Intolerance and generosity clearly have nothing whatever to do with political persuasion. I would suggest they think again about their “conclusions”.

INTOLERANCE (Not by D.W. Griffith)

My school chum Charles Nabet sent me an article from a French Magazine/Journal called Contrepoints with the tag line – Le journal libéral de référence en France which can be translated as “The leading liberal newspaper in France”. 

The piece he sent to me, after some hesitation (he says), is entitled:

Être de gauche rend intolérant et peu généreux ? C’est la conclusion de ces chercheurs

Loin des idées reçues, ce sont plutôt les socialistes qui font preuve d’intolérance selon différentes études universitaires. Pourquoi ?

By Alexis Vintray

The publication states that Alexis Vintray is a journalist and head of development for Contrepoints, the benchmark liberal newspaper in France. He launched the journal in its current format in 2009 and served as its editor for about ten years. He graduated from HEC Paris and the Sorbonne. 

The Google translation reads:

Being on the left makes you intolerant and ungenerous? This is the conclusion of these researchers.

Far from popular belief, it is rather the socialists who show intolerance according to various university studies. Why?

His conclusion to the article:

Conclusion: being on the left makes you intolerant and stingy?

The reader will have understood it, it is not so much the fact of being on the right or on the left that would make intolerant, stingy, etc. in my opinion. The readers of this article who would be the most on the right would therefore be wrong to rejoice in believing that they can attack the opposing camp in this way.

It would indeed be much more appropriate to speak of statism versus liberalism, of closed society versus open society. Of those who expect everything from Leviathan or of those who take their destiny into their own hands. From these choices stem our daily attitude, including generosity. Either we ask others to be generous for ourselves, or we are generous for ourselves.

By dint of asking the State to do everything, we end up doing nothing for the other by ourselves. Going towards ever more socialism and statism is going towards a closed society. Socialism and statism, whether right-wing or left-wing, only lead to a society of intolerant, inward-looking people.

Moving towards an open society implies empowering the individual, ceasing to entrust everything to the State in order to return power to whoever is the source of it: the individual. As some say, "I did not betray my socialist ideal by becoming a liberal". Any individual in good faith who really wants the development of the individual in an open and tolerant society can only want a society of freedom. 

 

(I will post the entire article at the end of the blog – in a google translated version – the French Article can be seen at: https://www.contrepoints.org/2022/03/21/10334-etre-de-gauche-intolerant-et-peu-genereux ) 

In my view the piece is flawed. To begin with, most of the research quoted is from North American academics. The problem with American libertarians is they are so tied up with “free enterprise” and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments, that they lose sight of the reality they have before them. 

Economic wealth does not trickle down. Smith’s belief in the sympathy or empathy of ‘the person concerned’ assumes that it is part of our DNA. I am sorry to say it is not. The sentiment may certainly be more profound in the female of the species, but that is not the case with the male, let alone the dominant male. 

So, when dealing with the concepts of Statism and Socialism, it is, in my view a great fallacy to equate one with the other, and claim that ‘libertarianism’ and individualism leads to an open society of freedom.

Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.  Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state; emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.

 

All very laudable sentiments and one would think derivative of left wing politics; however, the emphasis on individualism and minimalism of the ‘State’ is what causes the confusion, in my view.

 

As societies have developed into nation states, certain concepts have emerged for the protection of individuals and for the maintenance of freedoms for the individual. That is to say that individuals are entitled to certain rights. In some nations, those rights have been listed and codified into law. They include freedom of association, freedom to choose, freedom of thought, religion, education. In short, individuals have a the right to be free, to work, study and to health and safety. They have a right to be whatever they choose to be; however, society also imposes a duty on individuals to allow for the same privileges for others. With freedom goes the obligation to allow others to be just as free. Free from want, free from discrimination, free from attack, free from imprisonment without just cause, and many other aspects of society that allows the individual to live in a society of freedom. It is not so much a question of tolerance, but a question of duty of care to protect the other individual’s rights. The idea that we do not shit on each other. Hence the establishment of the state.

 

Just what is expected of the state? Because the world is not made up of concerned citizens as described by Adam Smith, and because international companies are not the altruistic enterprises he pretends them to be, the state requires a defence force, which comprises all manner of equipment and personnel, with ever increasing need for modernisation and financial support. The state also, because of the nature of society and the persistent propensity to offend and create anti-social incidents, requires a police force to enforce the laws created to protect the individual from harm. This organisation also needs financing and training as well as control in order to prevent so called ‘bad apples’ from assuming legal authority to arrest and detain individuals. These organisations account for the safety and security not only of the state, but to protect the freedoms of the individuals within the state. The individual needs the state to maintain the freedoms and rights he or she is entitled to.

 

Moving on, the right to health is likewise an important freedom, and access to health is of paramount importance. In order to achieve this it is imperative to have the organisation and facilities to provide for the medical needs of all individuals within the state, no matter what their personal economic situation. This is by far the most costly right, not only in human terms but in financial terms as well. Many European countries have created national health institutions. There have been different ideas in North America, which tends to rely on the private sector insurance companies to provide medical care. The only thing insurance companies do is enter into a contract to pay for the medical care an individual might need. The establishment of medical facilities, and medical personnel is a completely different enterprise. The type of contract and the type of cover the individual receives, is dependent on what he or she can afford to pay. The smaller the amount, the more likely the individual will have to find additional funds to cover anything outside the contract of cover. This piece meal service is just the sort of thing capital enterprise is about. It is company profit, not health care. The health professional will insist it is about health care first, when in fact the first question one is asked in America is how much cover or money have you got. The limitations of Medicare and the Affordable Care Act provisions, whilst helpful, are, in reality woefully inadequate, and do not compare in the slightest with the NHS in the UK.

 

The objection to ‘socialised medicine’ or national health in the United States is most vociferously made from the right. Is that the tolerance and generosity of the right in action? `I think not.  Many libertarians in the US would also claim that reliance on insurance is favourable; but given the state of physical and mental health care in the United States, the imperative of the state to step in is tangible. How long must this abrogation of the right to health continue?

 

A lot of health care insurance is included in contracts of employment in America, assuming you have a job; however, let us look at the matter of employment. Even although there is a minimum wage in place, minimum wage does not necessarily include a health care package, and if it did, the deductions for contributions towards the insurance element, will impair any benefit from minimum wage.

 

At some point, in order to protect the individual’s right to work, the state has to step in and make such regulations as may be required to protect that freedom to work. Regulation imposed on enterprise is about protection from others’ freedom to exploit.  Exploitation is not a right; it is a symptom of what was once called the unacceptable face of capitalism.  Is saying that a show of left wing intolerance?

 

Again, so far as health and safety is concerned and the individual’s right to freedom of movement in a free society, roads, sewage, utilities, public transport are all matters in which the state may have a part to play. The regulations for the provision of and maintenance of services to our homes, the construction of our dwellings, all are within the purview of the state; but, providing the services is costly.

 

Of course there are problems. As an example, the collection of local refuse is usually organised by whatever local area authority is established. It was funded by the inhabitants of the area concerned, by paying a tax or levy towards the expenses the local authority incurred in organising refuse collection. That meant employing people to do the work and operating purpose built vehicles to collect the rubbish. It meant the local authority or ‘state’ ran the refuse collection service and all that entailed, being an employer, paying wages, maintaining equipment etc. As the population and density of homes grew in the area, there came a point when the local authority, given everything else he had to do, found it difficult to run such a growing organisation. In the event it invited private enterprise to tender for the contract to collect the area’s refuse. It would then be up to the private company to run the refuse organisation, employ the staff, pay the wages, maintain the equipment, all within the budget provided by the local authority for the contract based on the company’s bid for the contract. The private company’s bid therefore would be based on what they thought they could get away with, whilst making a decent profit. How the company directed its internal affairs and wages would no longer be a concern for the authority or the state.    

 

The reliability and decency of the company towards its employees and customers however, remains the concern of the state. They still have the responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the individual, whether they like it or not, and that means looking after the workers, local authorities and tax payers within the community. It cannot get out of that social contract.

 

So when one considers the functions of the state, even at its most limited, in a democratic society, it provides a framework for the protection of the individual’s freedom, for his/her health and safety. The armed services, foreign service (relationships with other states) domestic services (protection of environment and habitat) interstate commerce, employment, utilities, communications, justice, education, health, etc… There are a number of aspects of our lives that every individual is entitled to benefit from, protected and promoted by the state at the request of the people of the state. The more varied and larger the population, the more it has to look after.  It is the nature of nations. Squabbles between the left and the right can to some degree affect the administration of the state, but on the whole the civil service of the state manages with varying degrees of efficiency. I am not being statist, it is what is.

 

These are but examples of the state’s obligations in protecting an individual’s right to a free society. That has nothing to do with left or right. In fact tolerance and generosity have only to do with education. This is another freedom, a right to be educated. That too is provided mainly by the state, although some private educational establishments do exist.

 

Educational institutions vary, but on the whole it is hoped that they will impart some degree of understanding and tolerance and generosity in the minds of the individuals who attend them.

 

How they relate to the state or to society will depend on the individual, and no amount of ridiculous questions, whilst polling people of different political persuasions, has anything whatsoever to do with tolerance or generosity. Most people who answer polls and questionnaires know full well what answers will put them in a more favourable light. I would suggest that those on the left are probably more honest and state freely that they are strongly intolerant of intolerance, racism, sexism, anti-feminism or any prejudice whatsoever.

 

In any event the research conducted as covered by Mr Vintray’s article, is in my view unlikely to be useful in any way that would create more tolerance and generosity. It would certainly not change anyone’s political thinking. One is bound to question, OK, what’s your point?

 

I would love to see what answers to such a poll might be given by Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I’m sure they would come across as very tolerant and generous, but we all know what they are. How intolerant and ungenerous am I for saying that?

 

For Film Buffs: D W Griffith's version of Intolerance (1916) can be seen at:  

https://ok.ru/video/2405789796940

 

Here is an English Google translation of the French article:

Being on the left makes you intolerant and ungenerous? This is the conclusion of these researchers

 

Alexis Vintray

 

Far from popular belief, it is rather the socialists who show intolerance according to various university studies. Why?

Donate now Make a donation

Posted on March 21, 2022 -A+

People on the left and, more generally, interventionists of all stripes, are the first to claim the values ​​of tolerance and generosity. In particular for this last value, the fact of wanting to use the State for social ends is presented as a pledge of generosity. Social policies are good by nature, others selfish.

Yet, as academic studies show, it is people on the left – or, it should be said, statists – who are the least tolerant and the least generous.

Intolerance, a leftist value?

“Intolerance is a contagious disease because it always infects those who fight it” said Raymond Aron. The phrase could apply to the French left, which has made the fight against intolerance one of its main priorities. This is particularly sensitive in 2021 with the woke and identity turn taken by this same left.

However, according to Anne Muxel, sociologist and director of research at Cevipof, this left is much less tolerant than the right.

Anne Muxel conducted a sociological study to see how people on the right and on the left reacted to close people who did not share their ideas. The observation was clear: people claiming to be on the right are much more tolerant than those declaring themselves on the left. What explains this greater tolerance of the right is its culture of freedom, and therefore the liberal influence, according to Anne Muxel in her book You, me and politics, love and conviction.

The sociologist summarized the conclusions of her work on France Inter as follows:

It was a surprise for me insofar as the values ​​of tolerance, respect for difference, respect for others are part of a culture in any case claimed by the left. Yet there is a greater difficulty for people who classify themselves on the left to accept political divergence in the private sphere… […] The culture of the right presupposes freedom, the freedom of the other to think, to live and be as he wants. This presupposes greater openness.

The strong correlation between statism and racism

These French works find a complement with the American study of James Lindgren, a famous jurist at Northwestern University. In this paper, the author examines the motivations of proponents of redistribution and anti-capitalists ("What Drives Views on Government Redistribution and Anti-Capitalism: Envy or a Desire for Social Dominance?", March 2011, Northwestern Law & Economics Research Paper No. 06-10 & 29). The conclusions are edifying: the more racist, embittered, solitary or ungenerous one is, the more one is in favor of the redistribution of wealth and anti-capitalism.

Specifically, James Lindgren analyzed 25 years of data from the National Opinion Research Center, one of the most respected social science research centers in the United States. From these data, he attempted to correlate economic and political ideas with racism or intolerance. Each time, the same clear correlation: the more racist and intolerant one is, the more one favors redistribution and the more one hates liberal capitalism. The correlation is obviously not perfect (who would assert such a basic relationship?) but there is a strong and recurring link. Even when education, income, age or gender are taken into account, the link persists between socialism and racism/intolerance.

Socialism makes you embittered?

Another interesting finding of the study, socialists seem to be more embittered: the most ardent supporters of a redistribution policy are up to three times more likely than average to have been angry in the week preceding the poll.

The same goes for sadness, loneliness or melancholy. Conversely, opponents of redistribution are four times more likely to say they are happy or satisfied! Socialists (in the sense of redistributors again) further claim that their tantrums, in addition to being more numerous, are also longer. They admit twice as much as the average that they responded to this anger by planning revenge.

To complete the picture, socialists and anti-capitalists claim to be less happy, to have fewer happy marriages, to be less satisfied with their financial situation or their job, even when correcting for differences in income, sex, etc. Finally, socialists and anti-capitalists declare much less than the opponents of social redistribution policies to have an altruistic behavior or give regularly to the homeless. In summary, stingy, racist and intolerant socialists and anti-capitalists, according to this academic study!

These results of a sociological study are unsurprisingly confirmed by the study of the respective generosity of people on the right and on the left.

Generosity, a liberal value, not statist or “leftist”

Arthur Brooks is a doctor of economics, specialist in social sciences and behavioral economics. In Who really cares (Basic Books, 2006), he studies the respective behaviors of American conservatives and liberals (leftists in English) in terms of generosity1.

These two positions have a concrete translation in the behavior of the individuals who claim to follow them2: those who "think that the government should carry out a stronger policy of redistribution" give... clearly less to associations or to the less fortunate than those who want to reduce the role of the state. This while the former have an income 6% higher than the latter.

Here again, it is the individualistic culture that largely explains this difference in generosity depending on political opinions. Those who trust the individual and not the state to help others give more. Those who call for state action give significantly less and rely on others to help the less fortunate. They have no right to claim the notion of generosity that they talk about but do not put into practice.

We find exactly the same pattern for blood donation: people on the right donate blood much more often than people on the left. If people on the left and center gave as much as those on the right, there would be 45% more blood donations in the United States according to Brooks! (“If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”)

Another interesting comparison that supports Arthur Brooks' conclusions is that between the United States and Canada. As Martin Masse (from Canada) writes:

One might think that a society like Quebec, where the words solidarity, equity and compassion are on everyone's lips, a society that "resists the cold wind from the right blowing over the rest of the continent" as our politicians defenders of the "Quebec model", is a place where individuals show greater generosity than elsewhere. Compared to those materialistic, individualistic Anglos from the rest of the continent, aren't we one big, generous, tight-knit family?

Well no. As polls and studies show year after year, Canadians are less generous than Americans, and Quebeckers are the least generous of Canadians. They are therefore the North Americans who contribute the least to charities. A December 2000 Fraser Forum study (Canadian & American Monetary Generosity) that compares all US states and Canadian provinces in terms of generosity (number of donors and amounts donated) places the provinces at the bottom of the list. It is Alberta, paradise of conservatism and minimal taxation in the country, which does better. Quebec is dead last.

This reality is not so surprising and the explanation is very simple. The Quebec taxpayer must support the heaviest state on the continent and is forced to contribute to the financing of a host of social programs for the most disadvantaged, including a special fund to fight against poverty. Logically, he tells himself that he is already doing his part. Why give a second time to private works, when we are already obliged to give for public programs?

Quebecers are no more selfish than other North Americans, they act rationally in their socialist context. Albertans too, who are the least taxed in the country. They logically feel more responsible and therefore contribute more to private works.

The result, however, is far from the same in terms of morality. Private donors can claim to be truly generous: it is their own money that they give, freely and voluntarily. On the contrary, public charity is nothing but a vast socialist deception. Those who contribute to it are forced to do so. And those who take credit for it, our rulers, are really just highwaymen and hypocrites.

Conclusion: being on the left makes you intolerant and stingy?

The reader will have understood it, it is not so much the fact of being on the right or on the left that would make intolerant, stingy, etc. in my opinion. The readers of this article who would be the most on the right would therefore be wrong to rejoice in believing that they can attack the opposing camp in this way.

It would indeed be much more appropriate to speak of statism versus liberalism, of closed society versus open society. Of those who expect everything from Leviathan or of those who take their destiny into their own hands. From these choices stem our daily attitude, including generosity. Either we ask others to be generous for ourselves, or we are generous for ourselves.

By dint of asking the State to do everything, we end up doing nothing for the other by ourselves. Going towards ever more socialism and statism is going towards a closed society. Socialism and statism, whether right-wing or left-wing, only lead to a society of intolerant, inward-looking people.

Moving towards an open society implies empowering the individual, ceasing to entrust everything to the State in order to return power to whoever is the source of it: the individual. As some say, "I did not betray my socialist ideal by becoming a liberal". Any individual in good faith who really wants the development of the individual in an open and tolerant society can only want a society of freedom.

Article originally published on December 5, 2021

Read also:

• Tolerance on Wikiberal

• Capitalist charity vs statist charity

• The charitable ideas of Bill Gates, Robert Barro

• I did not betray my socialist ideal by becoming a liberal

• Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

• Who really cares, Thomas Sowell

1. It should be noted that most American conservatives find themselves in the defense of liberal capitalism, which is not the case for the French right. ↩

2. More specifically, political convictions are one of the three factors that influence the generosity of individuals, along with religion and family structure. ↩

By :

Alexis Vintray

 

CHRONIC MENDACITY

Boris Johnson’s state of being: making stupid remarks, being out of touch with reality in believing that he is an influential leader and confident in the support of his party. How the conservative party can continue to let him occupy his position is beyond belief.

 

Quote:

"I know that it's the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom, every time. I can give you a couple of famous recent examples…When the British people voted for Brexit in such large, large numbers, I don't believe it was because they were remotely hostile to foreigners…It's because they wanted to be free to do things differently and for this country to be able to run itself."

That he can possibly make comparison between that ridiculous referendum and Putin’s rather brutal invasion of the Ukraine, is testament to his continuing ability to make asinine and senseless comments, as well as demonstrating his skewered view of the reasons certain citizens voted to leave the European Union. It is a lie and he knows it. It is his continuing habit of misrepresentation, and if he is unaware of that, then his asininity is ingrained and dangerous in a prime minister.

His remarks have been called offensive and his comparisons ‘insane’ and "insulting', by various European political figures as well as attracting disapproval from a number of his own party, although not in sufficient numbers required to see the back of him.

His stooges rush to his defence. Mr Sunak stated "I don't think the prime minister was making a direct comparison between these two things - clearly they're not directly analogous." ‘He was making some general observations about people's desire for freedom," he added. Mr Sunak said the prime minister had been galvanising global opinion to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin, and "that's the thing we should be focused on".

Note: “not directly analogous” “general observations about people's desire for freedom” “galvanising global opinion”. How Mr Sunak can bring himself to utter these words is something he will have cause to regret. What he says is obviously sycophantic and will, in the end, serve him no purpose. Boris Johnson couldn’t galvanize a bucket, and could care less about people’s freedom. Why else his crime bill to arrest and imprison civil protest? Why else his blocks on immigration, or so called checks? Why else his continuing misrepresentation of the facts?

There is an excellent opinion piece in the Guardian of Saturday the 12^th February 2022 bv Nic Cohen entitled:

Lies come in all shapes and sizes. This government is familiar with them all

You will find it at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/12/lies-lies-and-more-lies-a-government-built-on-lies-is-incapable-of-anything-else

It is well worth a read.

A MISTAKE WATCHING QUESTION TIME

I do not often watch BBC's Question time. It is difficult to hear people proffering opinions which I find difficult to entertain as worth considering. That is my prejudice. I find it upsetting and stressful to hear some individuals promoting or supporting causes and points of view which are, in my view, anti-democratic, illiberal, reactionary and bigoted. It is also deeply distressing to see shamelessness and arrogance paraded on our television screens, without the slightest reproofs, despite the obvious negative reaction exhibited by some spectators faces and shakings of heads. 

Suella Braverman

Last night’s brief visit to the program had Ms Suella Braverman, Conservative MP for Fareham, and current Attorney General for England and Wales, Advocate General for Northern Ireland, for the last two years, appointed by Boris Johnson, defending and promoting Ms Priti Patel’s handling of the Ukrainian Refugee situation. There appeared to be a lot of disbelief amongst the audience and shaking of heads in negation of her words. Ms Braverman made a lot of ridiculous statements, in my, and some members of the audience’s view. It was nearing the end of the program and Ms Braverman threw out some comment about another panellist Mr Wes Streeting, Labour MP for Ilford North and currently Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, appointed by Sir Keir Starmer, stating that he exhibited the height of hypocrisy having previously supported Jeremy Corbyn. 

Wes Streeting

What having previously supported Jeremy Corbyn had to do with anything I do not know, but this accusation, coming from a person who supports one of the most incompetent Home Secretaries there has ever been in this country (currently her handling of Ukrainian refugees) and a Prime Minister who has consistently lied to Parliament, struck me as the height of arrogance, mendacity and, yes, hypocrisy.

 

If we are looking at past behaviour, Ms Patel was found by the Governments own adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Alex Allan to have breached the ministerial code for bullying which was “intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down”. Not only was she responsible for senior civil servant Sir Philip Rudman’s resignation (leading to a subsequent pay-out of £340,000 plus legal costs to settle his claim for unfair dismissal) but, previously, another civil servant, when she was at the Department of Works and Pensions, also sought to take her before a tribunal, and a further £25,000 pay-out was made to settle the case, and protect Ms Patel from examination.  The taxpayer has funded probably some £500,000 in legal fees and settlements on her behalf. Her failure to resign or be dismissed by Mr Johnson, caused Sir Alex Allan to resign.  As to the Prime Minister he has yet to have his comeuppance over the ‘party gate’ scandal, if he ever will.

 

That a law officer, an Attorney General, can support lies and breaches of parliamentary rules is yet another example of the depths to which this government will go to maintain power. Mr Putin may be more of an outright dictator, but the electoral system that allows for this, in reality, minority government to rule the country, gives them equal authority. We can hardly call what we have a democracy, given the current situation. 

Members of the audience and people round the country were rallying to offer support to Ukrainian refugees, and the Government puts up roadblocks under the guise of Security of the Nation, to circumvent the will of the people. What crap, and we have to listen to it. This is a prejudiced and incompetent government, employing people whose own families benefited from a previously more enlightened administration, to be allowed to enter the United Kingdom as immigrants. I refer to Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid and other Conservative Party Members who seem to have forgotten, and moved far away from, their heritage of diversity, charity and humanity. When it comes to the height of hypocrisy, the current cabinet of the government of the United Kingdom is at the zenith. 

 

No amount of alleged priministerial skills being exhibited in the current crisis should save Boris Johnson's skin. There is no skill in mimickry, in doing what every other country in the western world is doing, particuarly being led by France, Germany, Poland, the Scandinavian coutries and the United States. As far as I am aware, none of the leaders of those countries has quite the relationship the conservative party has with Russian money. Going along with sanctions, looking tough, whilst trying to do a seperate emergency deal with Saudi Arabia is a risky business, and as far as one can tell, he has not succeeded in that quarter. So for some obscure reason, the party still feels the need to support him. It is a mistake they will live to regret. Again, I may be wrong, probably am, but not about regreting Boris and Co.

 

AND ANOTHER THING (AS SOMEONE ONCE SAID)

Discombobulated, disconcerted and discomposed is all one can feel about what is going on in the world at present. The concepts of integrity, honesty, reputability and care have been replaced by flimsiness, puniness, duplicity and deceit. It would seem that any tribulation or adversity gives rise, not to resolving problems, but how to circumvent the difficulties by fraud and dissimulation. To gain ascendancy and pecuniary advantage is the name of the game. How it is obtained is of no consequence whatever. The trickster and the bully are on the up.

Yes, it is depressing. I do not mean to harp on about scams, but at every turn of events a fresh scam pops up. Today I received and email from a company called E-ON with a customer number informing me that their records show I was over charged by £85 and I could claim a refund by click here.  How do people fall for this? If I was a customer, would I not see the customer number was invention or just wrong. If I was overcharged £85 wouldn’t the company just refund my direct debit or standing order or just send a cheque in the post with a letter of apology. In any event why would I, never having been a customer of E-ON, let alone heard of them, believe I was overcharged as I have never paid them anything to begin with. The crassness of the scam is extraordinary. Why would anyone fall for it and part with information revealing bank details by clicking here?

Higher electricity charges are in the news, and so any chance to get back money from an electricity supplier must be attractive; hence the scam. Does a blanket sending out of emails actually produce results? Apparently E.ON is the largest supplier of energy in the UK and I suppose a mass send is bound to hit some E.ON customers who would be delighted to receive a refund on their bill. Excited by the prospect they blindly click here and probably lose a lot of money or compromise their bank account. Will their bank or E.ON compensate them for the loss? That is doubtful.

I have since searched for eon scam and was directed to this page:

It is a relatively new scam prompted by the increase in energy prices and inflation generally. Why is it so prevalent? Why do the levels of dishonesty seem to be on such an astronomical rise? Does the fact of the internet make it easier? Do the complexities of life create more dishonest endeavour rather than honest engagement with living decently? It would seem that the energy put in to creating the scam and the associated computer skills could just as easily, and probably more effectively, be applied to some form of honest enterprise. Are the rewards derived from crime greater, and achieved more quickly, than through honest labour? I wonder.

Is the cost of living so hard to achieve, and so dispiriting, that in order to survive a person loses all notions of respect and rectitude, and stoops to anything to obtain a crust?  Is sweeping every decent human emotion aside and resorting to meanness and harmful viciousness the only way to a brighter future?

I am not looking back to suggest that the times gone by were much simpler and better. Not at all. I believe it starts at the top and by example. The hypocrisy, incompetence and outright mendacity of the present government, with its members who defile every ministerial code of conduct, is a blueprint for anyone seeking to rise in this country at the moment. Rules clearly do not seem to matter and any teacher, preacher, parent or guardian who says otherwise is a fool. Just look a Boris Johnson and his cabinet, they’re an example to us all.

Bewitched, bothered and bewildered ? Here’s a little ditty to cheer you up, A very classy rendition by a very classy lady who had more integrity in one strand of her hair that the whole of the current cabinet.

GENERAL ELECTION NOW

From a human and historical perspective, some 14 million Ukrainians died during the 2^nd World War. How many more must be added to its fight for democracy and freedom? The Ukrainian people know a lot about dying; however, sadly, there are other matters to consider. The Russian peace keeping force as special military operation or outrageous brutal invasion, depending on your point of view (Putin.org or rest-of-the-world.com) has succeeded only in completely screwing us all. The spectre of a fresh world war looms discouragingly large.

 

The world was already sliding into an inflationary phase, causing much economic concern and increasing levels of poverty around the globe. This war has added to the existing complications, I hesitate to say how many-fold.  To make matters even worse, various governments and administrations are under some scrutiny, and the various nations’ foreign policy - in response to the war, which of necessity, must display some kind of cohesive approach - is obscuring the local issues that must be addressed by the people, come what may.  

 

That is to say: 1- The continuing problems of the pandemic, though improving in different ways in different countries, must be dealt with; 2- The current domestic affairs and economic recovery in the United States are a serious  simmering problem for Mr Biden and his recovery package legislation; 3- The coming national presidential election in France, and possible turn to the hard right,  is of concern;  4-  The future of the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom whose mendacity and misleading statements to the UK Parliament should force him to resign; and 5- Any number of other issues in the EU, in Myanmar, Yemen, China etc. In short there are enough conflicting matters to be going on with, which can do without a violent global eruption. 

 

My main concern, at present, is the United Kingdom, where choosing new leadership in the mists of a crisis may be an unwelcome prospect, but essential from every conceivable point of view. If the French can support a general election on the 10^th and 24^th of April this year, then this UK imperative should not be put off because of the fog of war.  I’m afraid, however, that it will be, despite the number of voices in the wilderness crying for it to happen.  

 

The incompetence of this government has been demonstrated to the world by its lack of focus or ability to deal with the humanitarian crisis of Ukrainian refugees who have to queue and travel to specific centres to apply for visas to join families already in the UK. The lack of forethought and ability to set up personnel at Calais, Dunkirk, Boulogne, the Gard du Nord in Paris or anywhere for that matter, is shameful, making refugees travel even greater distances to fill in forms. The bureaucrat shambles and hoops created by the Home Office and the Government is reprehensible.

 

This ham-fisted spectacle is on television screens throughout the world. The world now knows the United Kingdom cannot organise a pot to piss in. The lone voice of the UK is fading into the background and it has become a bystander on the world stage, without any purpose or credibility, like an observer clamouring for attention and being patted tolerantly on the head.

 

This is not a good look. There are attempts being made to clarify and simplify the process of entry by Ukrainian refugees to the UK, but frankly a bit late in the day, given the numbers that have already been accommodated by EU Member states.  Ms Priti Patel has stated that people can apply on line for visas and complete a biometric process once on the UK.  How many i-pads and laptops have you noticed being carried by Ukrainian refugees, let alone printers.  First thing you reach for when being bombed? What world does she live in?

 

What is now needed is for citizens to not let up on the demands for change at the top. To let the current government administration continue is inviting inevitable disaster for the future of this country. Incompetence and surreal notions are about all this lot can provide. It should be noted that since the relaxation and removal of enforced precautionary measures, infections are on the rise again.

 

I may be wildly wrong about all this but the grand guignol being played out by the UK government has surely gone on long enough. Never has an immediate change of leadership been more present than now.