NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
August 7, 2005
The new G-G
Among a flurry of appointments, some not all that bad, the prime minister this week named the new Governess-General for our nanny state. She is to be another CBC television hostess, and indeed the third journalist in a row to be elevated to the Canadian vice-regency. (His Excellency Romeo Leblanc was another ex-CBC hack.) The search committee obviously worked overtime, for in addition to the central requirement for this job -- the ability to convey new-age gliberal platitudes with media charm and plausibility -- they were able to deliver the multicultural trifecta. They found someone who is simultaneously a foreign-born black, female, and francophone.I make no apology for this allusion to race, “gender”, and multiculture, since the government made no apology for it. They, and Canada’s lapdog media, eagerly pointed to the eugenic accomplishment. It has perhaps never occurred to them that by making such qualifications for high office an issue, they make them an issue. (Her CBC bio makes much of the fact that she was teased in Montreal schoolyards for the colour of her skin, and I am sorry for that.) Do I have anything against Michaëlle Jean personally? I don’t know her well enough to dislike her; and only of her well enough to observe that she emerges from a milieu in which gay marriage, abortions, casual sex, anti-Americanism, vegetarianism, and bicycle-riding are considered perfectly natural, and the idea that someone might be otherwise-oriented is beyond imagining. She has a track record for "courageously investigating" such "controversial subjects" as paedophilia in the Catholic Church. But these are all redundant details, all you really have to know is that she is a successful on-air practitioner from the CBC. Working among such people for my living, and occasionally even drinking with them, I have long observed that they form a class. I do not think it matters who owns the papers or the broadcasting networks, for the people they hire come mostly from the journalism schools, and similar post-secondary pedagogical environments, unfriendly to analytical thought. (“Comparative literature” being even worse than J-school.) Many turn out fine folk regardless; and some manifest real courage when it comes to defending their legitimate turf -- but I think of the colleagues who have genuinely impressed me with their discernment and capacity to resist peer pressure, and note that all came from unusual backgrounds. In the main, their eyeballs all roll in harmony when certain topics are raised. I have performed actual experiments. The most recent was in a booze-hall near Ryerson in Toronto. The experiment consisted of saying aloud the words “George Bush”, and nothing else. The groans were also harmonic. Good luck to Ms Jean, and her gentleman friend -- that long-haired fellow who cannot wear a tie to a ceremony of state, and promises that what we see will be what we get. (Does anyone know if they are married?) Ms Clarkson turned out much better than I expected; could act the role outwardly with something approaching to aplomb, and was, behind the scenes, a real friend to one of Canada’s most beleaguered and insulted minorities -- the men and women of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line in places like Afghanistan, using the kind of equipment our defence department can afford from the chump change at its disposal. Incidentally, the office of G-G is supposed to be showy, and I resented on behalf of Ms Clarkson the miserable attacks on her own spending. On the subject of drinking, yet another long-term, in-depth study, this one of 7,000 persons by Australian National University’s Centre for Mental Health Research, has shown that people who drink (specifically, alcohol) are smarter and healthier than people who don't. Also, I should think: wiser, kinder, prettier, happier, and better. But the study was restricted to drivelling tests of verbal reasoning, short-term memory, and the like. Unsurprisingly, teetotallers appeared to be more likely than certified alcoholics to achieve the lowest scores. In a concession to the idiot lobby, the study specifies that the correct, “moderate” amounts are 14 to 28 "standard drinks" per week for men, 7 to 14 for women. (My standard drink would be a triple whisky.) But if you can get the results shown, from just a moderate infusion of alcohol, think what you could get from serious imbibing. A similarly large study, flagged in Nature magazine about 1995, showed that cigarette smokers scored 5 points higher than non-smokers on I.Q. tests. This suggests another route to self-improvement. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top