John Stuart Mill vs. Michael Ignatieff

I am reading, with much enjoyment, a biography of John Stuart Mill. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on his time in the British Parliament ( 1865 -1868 ).While he was not the Liberal party leader ( Gladstone was ), there is much our current Liberal leader could learn from his trials and tribulations as a new MP. His erudition and fame as an intellectual, while helping to elect him, was no advantage, as he was criticized for his “superior tone”, “too clever for this house” and lamented by newspapers as the “lost philosopher”.

He soon found his stride, however, and left us with some memorable quotes, viz. after being taken to task for a derogatory statement in his Representative Government, he rose in the house and said:

What I stated was that the Conservative party was, by their own constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conserative.

Where is Mill now that we need him.

DEFENDING THE ROYALS –Andrew Coyne, Maclean`s Nov 23rd

The current Royal visit has been a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.

We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.

Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.

A textbook for Canada –Maclean`s editorial Nov. 23rd issue

You are right that `Ottawa should give every Canadian a copy of its new citizenship booklet`.

What the Ottawa and all the provinces should also do (since education is a provincial responsibility) is make Canadian History a compulsory subject right through high school. I have often been astonished to hear what little the Canadian-born citizens know about their own history. I recommend reading `Who killed Canadian history` by J.L. Granatstein for a start.

The battle of the Plains of Abraham

A battle to remember –Star editorial Sept 10th.




There is a difference in re-enacting the battle of the Plains of Abraham and a historical documentary about the same battle. It did happened, and it is history.
Re-enactment is akin to the Orange parade held annually to commemorate William, Prince of Orange’s humiliation of the Irish. It’s like waving a red flag before the bull, and serves no good purpose.

A factual rendition of the Plains of Abraham battle in a documentary is another matter. You don’t have to watch it if you don't like it. While it is true that the Americans are planning to “celebrate” the battle of Gettysburg, there is a difference: Theirs was a civil war, not a foreign nation against another. It ultimately led to uniting the states; and it did not perpetuate their difference by giving the South their own language and religion. Even so, there is still a social/emotional difference between the North and the South; even after all these years.

We should be mindful of Quebecker’s sensitivities and not unnecessarily "kick sand in their eyes”. Desmond Morris has put a positive spin on the conflict. The willingness of the British to grant the defeated their own language, religion and civil law is a positive that should be stressed; but not by enacting the defeat of Quebeckers –now our countrymen, in their own home.

Genuinely loved for his many faults –Andrew Coyne, Sept.14th.

In Maclean's extensive coverage of Ted Kennedy (commemorative issue), they describe him as “American icon”. I hate to be an iconoclast, but I really do not think of him as such.
This is the man who rode the cottontails of his brothers and the Kennedy name; had all the advantages of fame and fortune without having to do much. Andrew Coyne says of why Ted Kennedy ran for president: “because it was his turn”. For someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth, nothing less would suffice.

Yet, he worked hard to destroy himself and those with him. Mary Jo Kopechne did not deserve to die in the muddy Chappaquiddick River. Kennedy was likely drunk, and craven enough to run home to mamma and wait until dawn to call the police, while Mary Jo was drowning in the river.
He got off lightly. Someone else would likely be serving hard time for homicide; or at last criminal negligence causing death. Ted Kennedy got off easy, because who he was. Ditto his clear culpability in the William Kennedy Smith case, not to mention his drinking and whoring on a spectacular scale. Falstaff does well in comparison.

Andrew Coyne writes “...the true measure of life is how many show up at your funeral.” I beg to differ. People show up at funerals for a variety of reason, not the least the “fame (or infamy) and fortune” of the deceased; whether deserved or not. People show up at all kinds of things, to be part of the crowd, to see and be seen; perhaps catch a ray of the proverbial sunshine.
Yes, Ted Kennedy no doubt did some good work in the senate. But, that work did not qualify him for redemption, and most of his personal adversity was self-induced.

From those who much has been given, much is expected. Ted Kennedy just did the minimum.

The Obama inauguration - Jan 20th,2009

In watching the Obama inauguration,and listening to his speech,I was a little surprised how low key it was. I had half expected some superlatives or Kennedyesque quotations, but he stayed close to message.

Possibly he avoided such hyperbole just because he knew people expected it from someone that eloquent; had he engaged in highfaluting phrases and statements, he might be accused of being a copy-cat or worse. He soon will face the sombre task of leading his country out of the abyss created by his predecessor; for as the priest said to the farmer who was imploring him to pray for his withering crops: here you need more than prayers, you need manure.

One thing struck me as rather profound and telling: he talked about coming together as a people and as citizens of this world, and to get away from the petty provincialism and tribalism that so often divide us –into them and us. There was another phrase that belongs with the word tribalism, and that is religious fundamentalism of all hues –be it the fanatics of the Christian or Islamist variety.

When used in such exclusory, tribal ways, I think one must question if religion, on the balance, has been a benefit and a blessing to humanity, or a “millstone around our neck”.