Topmost (in use)

Archive | Ontario

The People’s (very funny) Voice: and Olivia Chow

We were amused at the Toronto Star – inarguably a liberal-left newspaper – endorsing not the socialist Olivia Chow for mayor of Toronto in the October 27 election, but rather the not-socialist John Tory. They risibly describe Tory as a “Olivia_Chow-NDPcaring conservative.” You know, “caring”, because most aren’t “caring.”

This is a goodie on at least a couple of levels: (1) that they’d endorse anybody who is even remotely conservative which John Tory is (emphasis on the “remotely”); and (2) that they could muster the rare courage to type the words “caring” and “conservative” together, in one article, much less one sentence. Of course overriding all of this humor is that they didn’t endorse Olivia Chow.

One can only take from this that they are holding their noses and swallowing; endorsing John Tory over what we could presume they must think is an absolutely awful Olivia Chow. Awful even to them. And we could extend this presumption to mean that they simply don’t trust the abilities of Olivia Chow, since we’re certain that they endorse her politics of the far-left.

The National Post also endorsed John Tory. No shocker there. They are merely liberal, rather than liberal-left. Same with the liberal Globe and Mail.

But Olivia Chow can find some comfort in one publication, which by our reading of it (although it’s complicated), seems to endorse Peoples_Voice-FrontOlivia Chow. Or at least they don’t hate her or think she’s awful. It’s the Communist Party of Canada’s newspaper called “The People’s Voice.”  Their bio:

The Communist Party of Canada, formed in 1921,
has a proud history of fighting for jobs, equality, peace,
Canadian independence, and socialism.”

They never come out and say they endorse her per se, but do come out in favor of “progressives” taking over Toronto and, of course, the world.

Communists are progressives too! Yup! They call themselves progressives, just like socialists like the NDP do, and all liberals do. They’re all progressives. By our reading, that membership could include Tory and not a few “Tories” too, but we digress.

Here a quote leading up to what we think is their almost-endorsement (our bolding) that had us laughing up our Jack Daniel’s:

The Fords have also made racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-communism acceptable!

Wow! All those bad things – and “anti-communism” too?!  And wut? Being anti-communism used to be acceptable in this country?  When was that?  Whenever I run into one, I wholly reject him immediately. My father fought to kill them in a war. So.

Then they make more funny:

In all the important things, John Tory and the Ford brothers are on the same page. They both support privatization, contracting out, and disciplining public sector unions.

The “progressives” all speak of privatizing things and keeping public-sector unions in check as if this is a bad thing. Which is funny. But don’t forget these ones, the commies, have exactly, precisely, the same sentiment about these things as all NDP and nearly all Liberals. It loses its funny real fast when you remember that. So, sorry.

But anyway, we’ve ruled out their endorsement of Ford or Tory… so here’s as close as they come to sort-of endorsing Chow:

The election of progressive majorities at City Councils across the province is also very important. Toronto has had a right‑wing majority since 2010. Can it be replaced by a progressive majority on October 27? We certainly hope so.

Well not exactly a ringing endorsement. But then Olivia Chow doesn’t deserve a ringing endorsement from anybody.  She doesn’t get one from many. But as we’ve said throughout this campaign, the real news about this Toronto Mayor’s race is that there are any people voting for Olivia Chow at all.

Continue Reading

Ontario Libs tout giving more cash to auto giants; Progressive Conservatives tout sanity

Ontario election (and corporate welfare) watch:
The auto industry (also known as the corporate welfare industry)

  • Progressive Conservatives tout tax cuts instead of throwing taxpayer cash at them.
  • Liberals tout throwing taxpayer cash at them, so, more government spending and thus higher taxes for all (or as their Globe & Mail division kindly puts it… “injecting money…to stimulate the sector…”)

As the Globe‘s own headline admits just for a second, for the Liberals it’s just spending, Kathleen_Wynnebut then the Globe’s reporters revert right back into their left-wing happy-face code-speak:

Liberals tout spending, PCs push lower taxes for Ontario auto industry
Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne says injecting money into the auto industry is the only way to stimulate the sector, while the Progressive Conservatives are arguing lower taxes would be more effective.

The Globe should get a political donation receipt from the Libs for that wordcraft.

Liberal welfare monger Kathleen Wynne also said Tim Hudak would “destroy the auto industry,” by ending government funding to the sector.

“Destroy” it?  By “ending government funding”? What is this  —  the CBC? Even the liberals’ Toronto Star division put that word in scare quotes in their headline:

“Kathleen Wynne warns Tim Hudak would ‘destroy’ auto industry”

Tim_HudakAlternate reality: Wynne has utterly no clue about economics and business. Or worse, she does, and she’s a socialist.

Wynne believes unless government gives businesses money, the whole industry will be “destroyed.” Or she doesn’t believe that, but wants to control business. What form of government does that sound like to you? It’s not capitalist. It’s not free enterprise or free market. And that’s all we really need to know to not vote for her and her party.

The you’ve got to be kidding party’s Andrea Horwath spoke in the same socialist dialect as fellow leftist Wynne, not surprisingly, warning that Ontario must be willing to (get this socialist code-speak) “offer financial incentives to auto companies…” but didn’t stop at just auto companies: “…and other manufacturers.”

The expanse of “financial incentives” is limitless, to socialists. Until everybody in “incentivized” equally, thus rendering the whole exercise moot. No, they will not get a clue and figure this out (or worse, they already know).

Just to help clarify, “financial incentives” are also known by liberals, socialists, and other progressives by the phony left-wing code-speak term “investments” Andrea_Horwathand “stimulus” and “sponsorship,” oh yeah and also “socialism,” but they don’t use that latter word, because they aim to fake you out. And the media advance the left-wing advocacy by not even once raising the specter of what will happen if the Liberals and the NDP  “provide” “financial incentives” to “stimulate” the auto sector; that taxes will by necessity have to rise. Again. And/or the enormous debt of Ontario will increase, even more.

Here’s more such nonsense from the NDP’s Horvack with my emphasis:

“We…have to make sure we’re providing the partnerships necessary…”

“Partnership.”  Dear God. Only to a socialist intent on controlling business, and the marketplace in which it operates, would government cash being given to a business mean a “partnership.”

Maybe they should try not giving the auto giants more cash. I don’t want to bore you with the old bromide about the definition of insanity, but really.


Continue Reading

It happened while I was eating a sandwich. I’ll remember what I was doing at the time.

So what happened? Where to begin….

It’s a tradition. The only one leftists love. I think it’s also in the constitution. Plus the geniuses at that UN “man-made global warming” department have written a big report signed by 8 cajillion teachers and lawyers, thus ending the debate as the science on this thing is settled. Also, the smart-set, led by the scientist David Suzuki at the state-owned CBC, all embrace it:  Spending promises, and more spending promises, and promises of new government programs, and more government programs, and then also more government “services,” requiring even more public servants.

It hurts my brain.

As a normal, alert and informed Canadian and a conservative who isn’t high on crack, I’ve always mused at the possibility of a politician actually having the balls run on a platform of spending less. And then of course I cry myself to sleep.

220px-Tim_Hudak_(cropped)And then whatdoyaknow, Tim Hudak of the province of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party (ugh  —  the “Progressive” part hurts my very soul) surprised me as he laid this one on us today:

“I’m not going to be the leader that promises you more and more spending,” Hudak said Friday. “There’s no compassion in borrowing money on your credit card and handing it over to you. I’m actually promising less spending.”
— Read more:

Needless to say I put down my sandwich.

While he was at it, he promised to cut 100,000 public service jobs. And freeze public service wages for two years.

What a nut. Spending less taxpayer cash. Reducing the size of the pathologically bloated government. Freezing their own often exuberant wages.  Working toward eliminating a $12.5 BILLION deficit ASAP. It’s like he’s high on sound economics or common sense or just met Ted Cruz or something.

I also read this:

The Tory leader has already said that teachers will be targeted. He also vowed to eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks and the College of Trades.

Flo_now_thats_progressiveHe had me at teachers.

Of course the even more progressive parties are against this platform. The socialists of both the Ontario Liberals and the NDP castigated it. Mocked it. The news media helped them mock it by providing them copious face time on TV to renounce this blasphemy against the progressive state.

The progressives all think government is not too big  —  in fact they promise more government, so they think government is too small right now. They think you can never reduce the size of government, no, you can’t cut even one government job. I think that’s also in the constitution, etc  —  at least it’s obviously in their respective political manifestos. If you’re a left-winger, you can only grow government bigger. Now that’s progressive, as Flo might say if she were a socialist running to be premier of Ontario.

For the fanatical public-sector union loving Liberal Party and the NDP, a funny thing happened on the way to their hypocrisy: This:


Funny how that works, isn’t it? The left’s hypocrisy, I mean.

I don’t have much faith in a party which calls itself “Progressive” anything, even if the other word is Conservative. But this promise is the most refreshing and intelligent thing I’ve heard in this country, in too long.

I’m going to finish my sandwich now, and remember this promise  —  and the caterwauling from the far-left and further-left about it.



Continue Reading

*UPDATE: “NEVER MIND!”* – Corporate Welfare Demanded for “Successful” Chrysler.

Originally posted January 13, 2014, 2:04 PM PST 
UPDATED BELOW – March 4, 2014

Chrysler or GM should come out with a new model called the “Abomination.” The Chevy Abomination, or the new Dodge Abomination coupe. How about a zippy new sports car (a hybrid, natch!) called the Dodge Rip-Off ? Better yet, a new wind-powered government_carminivan called the “Welfare”. The 2014 Chrysler Welfare — and a model with an extra large rear end, called the Corporate Welfare.

Chrysler is in the news today teasing a new billion-dollar minivan plant upgrade in Ontario, but what is the very first thing they are demanding? Corporate welfare from the government. Again. Subsidies, tax favors, and so on. Or what the Chrysler CEO risibly calls “a partnership.”

…But the size of the investment means governments need to step up to the plate with what he called “a partnership” or financial assistance.

A “partnership” my round white trunk. This story doesn’t belong in the “Report On Business” pages of the Globe and Mail, which is where you’ll find it, it belongs in the “Government Intrusions into the Free Market” section. Or the “Corporate Cronyism” or the “Corp/Gov Corruption” pages. Or the “Progressivism-R-Us” section.

This is not business as business should be. Or government as it should be. This is just an horrible political/economic ideology called progressivism. And it’s a lemon.

Will the progressives in Ottawa (they incorrectly call themselves the “Conservatives”) “step up to the plate” (as the reporter suggests in his actual words), and dole out hundreds of millions more of our hard-earned income to a U.S. auto company? And will the even more progressive Liberals of Ontario?  My guess is yes. Both governments recently did this exact same thing for Ford, again (see my “Ford: taxpayers being played is job one? from September 20, 2013).

But I’m the only one concerned about this perfidy. The Globe and Mail covered the story, but has absolutely no Globe_and_Mail_Report_On_Business2questions about the ginormous SUV in the room — the corporate welfare. Nothing. Yet the “Report on Business” section of the Globe and Mail touts itself as being “Canada’s source” for “in-depth analysis.”

Instead, the Globe and Mail “business” (yup, scare quotes) section is so obsequious  —  or perhaps now so jaded or oblivious  —  to government handouts, they follow up the buried facts with this factoid, which even then, they summarily ignore:

The Windsor plant has been one of the most successful and profitable plants in the Chrysler empire for more than three decades under several different ownership groups.

So, “most successful and profitable,” yet that statement didn’t make a small explosion go off in their collective noggins?

Apparently if you’re doing OK, that means you get government welfare. Guess I should be getting mine soon. Since I don’t need it.

I’d love to see the state-owned CBC questioning Chrysler’s demands for corporate welfare, but of course that would be ludicrous, since they’re also taxpayer-funded. Oh wait  —  how embarrassing for the Globe and Mail  —  the CBC actually did do a more laudable job than the Globe and Mail in this story (which wouldn’t be hard to do). Ironically, the CBC did question the coporate welfare, by asking for feedback from Ontario’s Progressive Conservative critic for economic development, MPP Jane McKenna. I’m sure the CBC is utterly clueless as to the obvious irony, but their reporting went like this:

CBC_News_Windsor… McKenna said she doesn’t believe in “corporate welfare.”

“We need to create the right conditions for all businesses to succeed,” she said. “You should have a broad-based tax relief. If you just do constant Band-Aids, every time you jump in the water the Band-Aid falls off.

“We are not put in a position to pick winners and losers.”

Then again, the CBC never questions their own corporate welfare  —  their annual bailouts  —  or their state-ownership, or the laws which have unfairly protected them from competition  —  from citizen-owned media. So the irony, and hypocrisy, abound.

What PC MPP Jane McKenna said sounds right, by which I mean correct and conservative. But then again federal “Conservative” MPs and ministers all said good-sounding stuff like that too, before they were elected and started being progressive. And the Ontario wing is literally called the Progressive Conservative Party to start with.

So I’m not enjoying the ride, today.

My guess is that like all progressives, liberals, and socialists alike, government “investment” in the means of production, as we see or will see here, is viewed by the Globe and Mail, and all the other liberal media that said nothing about this in their reporting, as just another welcome opportunity to expand state ownership and its control over industry and the free market generally. It seems it’s not even worth their mentioning it anymore. You know, because this model has worked out ever so well, so far, in places like Greece. And in the quality programing at and popularity of the state-owned, taxpayer-funded CBC.

So this will proceed. Unquestioned by almost everybody. “Scare quotes” aside, here’s a scary quote from the Chrysler CEO, in the Globe and Mail:

“The dialogue has started,” he said.

For shame. Only the most myopic, the weakest possible politicians who have no spine and no leadership abilities, will continually fall for these corporate welfare/taxpayer rip-off schemes. And/or they’re simply corrupt.

Have you driven a government lately? You really should.

 UPDATE – March 4, 2014

Seems I shamed them into now withdrawing their demand for taxpayer cash.  Yup.
Globe & Mail today:

Chrysler withdraws request for government funding

Published Last updated

Chrysler Group LLC is withdrawing its request for funding from the federal and Ontario governments.

The auto giant had asked for some $700-million in public funds to expand its operations in the province, most crucially at a minivan plant in Windsor. Chrysler had been willing to sink $3.6-billion into Windsor and Brampton, Ont.

But the company has now walked away from that request, The Globe and Mail has learned.

“It is clear to us that our projects were being used as a political football, a process that, in our view apart from being unnecessary and ill-advised, will ultimately not benefit Chrysler,” the company said in a statement.

In other words, they found out that their anti-free-market corporate welfare demands totally ticked Canadians off, so they’re going to call it a “political football” now, betraying the fact that their corporate model is based more on politics and government than on quality products being sold like a normal business in the free market on a level playing field with other Canadians.


Continue Reading

Hey is the CBC “thinly-veiled socialism”? Asking for a friend.


That was my perfectly reasonable response, tweeted on my own dime, to this craptweet from the state-owned, taxpayer-funded, socialism-reliant, and generally dreadful CBC this morning:

Yes that is an example of how the god-awful CBC spreads the love and unites the country. In my world, you’d have to be high on crack to tweet that out on one of the state-owned news media’s official Twitter accounts.

The CBC actually seems to have taken to labeling people on what I imagine to be their enemies list, with horrible idiot-culture-derived names, now.

Oh they’re shifty, though. They do it by inserting quotes and form it as a question, in order to appear as though they’re simply the honest brokers asking a question. But since I’m not high on crack, I don’t believe for a second that they weren’t brazenly trying to get people to cotton onto the idea that Rob Ford is a so-called “homophobe.”

Toronto councillor Shelley Carroll is the one quoted by the ever fair and balanced and objective CBC in the first draft of their ridiculous “news story,” and extending it to their tweet. Thus the furtive CBC was able to put quote-marks around her smear, giving the CBC cover.

Carroll’s been rumored to be mounting a run in the next mayoral election (whadoyaknow!).

Their “news story” isn’t a news story at all, but rather an excuse to call Rob Ford a “homophobe,” by quoting his political opponents instead of doing it themselves.  And apparently no supportive point of view was available to the CBC and their intrepid journalists at press time (which on the internet is anytime, but hey look! There’s a squirrel!).

Insinuating that someone may be a “homophobe,” and building that “argument” simply on the basis that the guy isn’t going to appear to embrace a horrible gay pride parade, is as intellectually weak as it comes. And according to the story, Carroll did construct that “argument” based on the singular fact that Ford wasn’t going to the gay parade. See the snippet of the CBC “news story” below.

(Ironically, and hilariously, Carroll can be found in an earlier story at the National Post, complaining about Rob Ford spending too much time outside of city hall, and not enough time indoors at his office doing the people’s business.)

Gratuitously calling someone a “homophobe” in the way most people do these days is one of the laziest, most intellectually dishonest, vitriolic, vacuous, hateful, intolerant, and actually vicious “arguments” of our time.  That term belongs in the same heap as “Israel apartheid,” which coincidentally is one of the main causes that many Toronto gay pride paraders have infamously embraced in the past.

But let’s look at the evolution of the CBC’s perfidy: In the’s first draft of the story (“Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 11:33 AM ET”), there was no balance whatsoever. They didn’t appear to want any more than Shelley Carroll’s yummy “thinly-veiled homophobia” quote, because that was how they left it. That was how they ended their “news story.” Here’s the headline and a graphic of how the article concluded, including the handy links to share the smear the world over:

Rob Ford will not attend World Pride

Mayor skipping out on queer parade again

CBC News Posted: Feb 06, 2014 11:28 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 11:33 AM ET story-2014-02-06_1

And yeah go ahead and note that “queer” sub-head of theirs!  “Mayor skipping out on queer parade again”.  I’d have gone another way, myself.

Next, in an update to their shoddy reporting (“Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 12:52 PM ET”)  —  possibly after complaints from first-year journalism students or any number of sane and sober people, they finally managed to get a supportive quote to tack onto their new improved “news story” ending, from none other than… his notoriously loving and loyal brother, Councillor Doug Ford, whom you would totally expect to stand up for him.  Doug ever so shockingly stuck up for his brother, and said Rob Ford is not, in fact, a “homophobe.” Naturally, though, nobody else on Earth who was credible was available for a comment as to the veracity of the CBC’s alleged “homophobia” caper.

Rob Ford will not attend World Pride

Mayor skipping out on queer parade again

CBC News Posted: Feb 06, 2014 11:28 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 12:52 PM ET

Here’s that new conclusion: story-2014-02-06_2

Notice that snarky last sentence? Yeah you did.

In yet another update (“Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 4:00 PM ET”), possibly after feeling more heat from normal people about the taxpayer-paid CBC’s abject bias and shoddy journalism, they changed it right up, and actually began their story with Doug Ford’s quote, although in the same sneering snark as their previous effort. (Note they also changed their headline to one making it appear as though Rob Ford was now forced to defend himself against random smears of “homophobia”  —  which of course he was in fact forced to do, thanks to the CBC which fomented it. Also note they changed that “queer” subhead, finally.)

Rob Ford not homophobic, says brother Doug Ford

Mayor will not attend any Pride Week events, according to sibling

CBC News Posted: Feb 06, 2014 11:28 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 06, 2014 4:00 PM ET

And here’s the new beginning: story-2014-02-06_3

By the way, since we’re counting, how many times has the CBC repeated their myriad snarks against anything not progressive-left? More than six times? I think so. But let’s count, right?

The fact that a news media  —  any news media but particularly the state-owned CBC  —  is the culprit here, instead of some left-wing troll twerp, well that’s just crazy stupid, in cbc-square logoany democracy. A Canadian state-owned media practically labeling a Canadian citizen with one of the most derogatory terms imaginable today? That’s just not OK.

The state-owned news media shouldn’t even have an opinion, much less foment one against an individual or any group of individuals. The state-owned media shouldn’t even be, for that matter.

The CBC is already an abomination. They seem to be going for broke now, which they would already be if they weren’t sucking taxpayers’ money out of their pockets, and getting special privileges.

Even if the CBC weren’t an abomination, as a matter of principle, state-owned media should be banned in this country, and that notion should be enshrined in our constitution. And if you don’t believe that, are you worse than Hitler? I don’t know. I’m just asking a question. I heard someone ask that once.

At least I’m asking on my own dime.

Continue Reading

Sun News’ Ray Heard engages in one of those pathological liberal Sarah Palin hate-ons

UPDATED at bottom: A meltdown in action.

I’m starting to think that compared to Sun News Network’s Ray Heard, the Ford brothers with their new weekly show Ray_Heard-2013-11-15_114746on SNN on Mondays are going to sound reasonable. And this concerns me. Even more than the stupidity of Sun giving them that platform.

For some reason, Ray Heard (who is usually at least nominally sensible even if he is a liberal) started in on one of those weird, almost pathological hate-ons for Sarah Palin, circa 2008, on Twitter yesterday (circa 2013). This is just as all the dumber liberals did back in the day, and as some of the dumbest ones still do, with careless, intolerant and idiotic abandon.

I don’t know exactly when Heard started oozing brain poo over this, but I picked it up here:

Oh yes. So dismal. This Liberal Party “War on Women” is dismal indeed.  Sadly, this army of one Heard is inadequately armed against Sarah Palin.

It’s “cosdwallop?” For one thing I think he meant codswallop. But don’t worry, he’s not a moron, he’s just an intolerant lout. What’s British for “guttersnipe?” Is it scurvy scallywag? I don’t know. I’m still learning to speak moron.

“She’s bimbo!”  Heard illiterate!  And also sexist. @Brenda_inBC noticed, along with many others.

Absolute codswallop” this time. Paging Sun News Network: We may have an obsessive-compulsive Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome and intolerance problem here, with one of your liberal talking heads; to say nothing of his liberal-sexist and insulting “bimbo” remark.

The true nature of liberals, revealed yet again.

There’s no explaining this liberal’s obsession with getting the socialist NDP candidate, Linda McQuaig, to slam the Liberal candidate, Chrystia Freeland, over this, especially when Ray Heard is himself a Liberal.

Then again he’s a Liberal. He’s left-wing, and Sarah Palin is normal and conservative, and she has a normal world view, so yeah, I guess that does explains that.

It goes on.

Oh dear. Get him some help. Perhaps Rob Ford could counsel him on Monday.

Along with dozens of others tweeps, @Katewerk shot back with several volleys including this fact-backed goodie:

Undeterred, Heard was on Sun News this morning, still yammering on with the smear Sarah Palin blather.

Well that was fun. But in fact, this now fully discredited, well-past-its-best-before-date hate Sarah Palin herd mentality (fun pun) is boring, boorish, unimpressive, churlish, and lazy intellectually. Palin has more than proven her bona fides, is still a huge draw and important political figure five years after the likes of Ray Heard started calling her a “bimbo” and other such dismissive, condescending crap.

More facts: I’m a fan of Sarah Palin. I admire her and trust her instincts on almost every issue because the fact is, she’s proven to be right, 99% of the time. If I were a woman, whether or not I was a so-called “feminist” (I wouldn’t be  — I’d just be a “woman”) I’d view her as a role model. And I’d be thrilled to see my daughters look up to her as an icon. Palin is in fact a good role model for everyone.

On the other hand, I’d cringe if my daughters saw Ray Heard’s sexist, exclusive, obsessive, irrational, smear-tweets about her, and viewed his dubious and vacuous comments on Sun News today. He’s no role model.

And by the way, my daughters wouldn’t be watching the Ford Bros show either.



Oh for goodness’ sake. He’s still on it. We may be witnessing a meltdown.

Ah the liberal love. The moderation. The civility. The intelligence.

That last one wasn’t Ray Heard, but Ray Heard retweeted it. It was implied by a liberal-leftist ass, Martin Bashir, at America’s liberal-leftist-central, MSNBC.  I’m ever so sure Heard doesn’t endorse the sentiment. Even though he retweeted it without comment.

Another day, the attack continues. Saturday, November 16, 2013:

And it’s still going on: Monday, November 18, 2013

This obsession is officially whacky.  This often happens with those suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome. They start out claiming she’s a nutbar, but end-up getting hit in the ass with their own boomerang. Hoist by their own petard, as they say.



Continue Reading

Toronto Mayor is Not a Victim

I voted for Rob Ford. Normally, I embrace the sanctity of the secret ballot and disdain columnists who announce their personal choices as if they were somehow important. But in this case, an exception is in order.

Having recently described to a largely American readership how the mayor of Toronto brought Canada’s largest city to its current condition of international punch-line, I heard about it from the hometown crowd. While there were some who have never much liked Ford and were happy to agree with my criticism, many Ford supporters were animated that I had joined the media chase-group that has hounded him for years.

Ford’s defenders aver that people do not appreciate all the mayor’s good works. Some repeat the Clinton-era trope that a politician’s personal life – in Ford’s case, this includes a growing video library of bizarre antics, aided by various substances, controlled and otherwise – has no bearing on his ability to do his job. This is bollocks on stilts, always has been, and willfully disregards the fact that a public leader’s personal conduct is, by definition, part of the job (more on which below).

It bears repeating that Ford won an overwhelming victory in 2010, claiming almost half the vote in a crowded field. Oftentimes when a conservative candidate triumphs in a left-leaning locale, which includes almost all urban centres like Toronto, it is a reaction to spendthrift, nanny-state liberalism evinced by his predecessor.

This was the case with Ford, who replaced an unreconstructed socialist who had caved to unions one too many times to mount a credible bid for re-election. Many voters were aware of Ford’s outlandish behavior in the past but, as a sitting member of city council with a clear message of fiscal responsibility, he was given a mandate.

All that is tickety-boo, right up until the point when your mayor starts smoking crack. After denying a report by the Toronto Star in May of 2013 that he had been videotaped doing just that, Ford has since been contradicted by the chief of police, and other unflattering footage of the mayor has recently surfaced. Nevertheless, his supporters insist this is yet more unfair media targeting of an otherwise effective limited-government advocate.

Having been a right-of-centre participant in public discourse since the dawn of this century, I get it. We are routinely subjected to greater scrutiny, harsher criticism, and reflexively portrayed as stupid, evil and always, somehow, racist. All that said – this isn’t that.

I am acutely familiar with the phenomenon of journalistic swarming (I eschew the word “bullying” as it seems a modern day catch-all for every politically correct fetish), particularly of conservative figures. I pointed this out in my earlier column, with passing reference to George W. Bush. But Ford’s conduct bursts the dam of mere liberal media bias.

Some have suggested that the latest video embarrassment to emerge, showing Ford raging around a private residence, issuing profanity-laced death threats against some unidentified unfortunate, is in fact an impression of Hulk Hogan, pertinent to their public arm-wrestling match.

Now, having wasted more weekends than most watching the WWF in the 1980’s, such that I could recite the history of the Intercontinental Title from its inception with Pat Patterson (note, also, that I would rather die roaring than call it the “WWE”), I testify that Ford’s rendition of Hogan is so terrible as to call the entire subterfuge into doubt. But, to be charitable, let us assume it is true.

While poor impersonations of professional wrestlers are no basis on which to judge politicians – although, I am reliably informed that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s impression of Randy “Macho Man” Savage is impeccable – Ford’s raving strengthens the consensus that he is deeply troubled.

Many who are urging Ford to “get help” have not the slightest concern for his well-being and are merely using modern-therapeutic shorthand to call him a drunk and a reprobate. This is cousin to how a Southern conservative might patronize, “I’ll pray for you.”

Personally, I am no more than somewhat concerned about Ford. Yes, I should cherish him as a child of God, whose fate makes all Heaven weep, but readers can pore over my oeuvre until their eyes fall out and find no passage in which I claim to be a good person.

As an estimate, my worry over whether Rob Ford gets help is considerably less than my concern for the Leafs to make the playoffs and slightly above my angst over whether the Jonas Brothers patch things up.

Others have suggested Ford should be commended for finally admitting what he has done (sort of), confronting the fact that he has a problem, and floating the idea of entering rehab.

Candour is good; self-examination is also good. But doing the job you were elected and are paid to do, on behalf of a whole city of folks whose jobs require them to maintain a higher standard of conduct than you have shown is also good; indeed, crucial.

And it is not as though Ford’s record is so stellar that it cancels out any shortcomings. Perhaps, in theory, there is a level of public stewardship so outstanding that it entitles one to smoke drugs, maunder about and embarrass one’s constituents on a global scale. If such a status exists, Ford has not attained it.

As mayor, Ford has done a fairly good job – but no more than that. While he has kept taxes from the preferred and demented trajectory of others on council, they remain high, streetcar lanes still snarl major streets, environmentalist commissars demand costly compliance of property owners to combat “climate change,” the increasingly militarized police treat the public as the enemy, and driving in the city remains a dog’s breakfast.

But of particular relevance to this imbroglio is the portion of the job that includes representing the city. There is a reason we have mayors cut ribbons at openings and greet dignitaries. Mayors stand for us. It does not suffice to say he has behaved poorly, but since he saved tax money he is, ipso facto, a good mayor. Representing the city to others is part of the portfolio and, while arguably not the most crucial element, its significance is not eliminated by the pecuniary aspects of the job.

Herewith, a policy for Toronto: You can smoke crack, or be mayor, but not both.

Continue Reading

Rob Ford: Resigning is Job 1.

Do I even need to say it?

I’m saying this moments before Rob Ford has a news conference Ford-capture_20131022_150613officially admitting he smoked crack while in office.

When politicians do something illegal, they should quit. As if I had to say it. And they should probably be arrested and charged by the police, promptly.

I apply the same penalty to politicians who tell substantial lies.

In this case, as is not infrequent, Ford did both.

Rob Ford is not alone.


* I changed the headline of this replacing the word “Quitting” with “Resigning”, because I want to make it clear that resigning is job 1. Quitting his addictions is job 2.

Continue Reading

Blogger whacked in head by big huge rule

I’d actually read an article about the freshly parachuted-in from New York federal Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland and thought  —  wow  —  she’s gonna be tough to beat, since she’s oh-so impressive.  Of course I’d forgotten my own rule about the mainstream liberal media being chock full of sh*t (I said the full word in my own head just now).

What reminded me of my li’l rule was when I saw Ezra Levant’s report on her and Justin Trudeau yesterday on Sun News Network, channel 506 on my dial. Ezra yanked my own rule out of, um, someplace and whacked me over the head with it (in a good way, if there’s such a thing as a good way to whack me over the head. With my own rule.)

Here’s the report from Sun News Network:

But of course that report on Sun News Network by Ezra Levant only sets the liberals and their media’s hair on fire. Which means Ezra’s doing it right.

Ezra tweeted out this remark this morning:

That good-natured tweet was in response to this lousy sideswipe from one of the liberal media bigmouths, Paul Wells of Maclean’s. Question: can a person possibly tweet this without a sneer on their face?

Nice gratuitous and useless sneer. (By the way, why the subtweet?)

No, it’s not like Wells’ stupid tweet is “epic” like the rabid anti-conservative garbage tweets from that Hollywood “star” Alec Baldwin. But I can’t help point out that it was a particularly ironic tweet, since, at 39,000 tweets so far, the non-stop yip-yapping Paul Wells has apparently never avoided writing out his thoughts for public consumption.

Additionally, notwithstanding his own criticism of Ezra’s supposed loquaciousness, Wells couldn’t even see fit to get right to the point without that useless, time-wasting, no-information, sneering preamble. Wells actually used more of his 140-character limit sneering at Ezra Levant, than in begrudgingly pointing to Ezra’s video clip.

I’m glad Wells brought attention to the clip in the way he did, because it gave me another good reason to bring the churlish attitude of liberal media to the fore, and bring that Sun News clip to more people’s attention. I’m surprised Wells did, though, given what I think are his political proclivities. But in my next post, I explain why I think he did, and how Wells’ sneer is indicative of what is the bigger liberal media problem, which is the light of the Sun.

Read about that in my next post.


(And Please follow me on Twitter @JoelJohannesen)


Continue Reading

Guess who links to Canada’s official opposition – the NDP – now.

Just to update you and save you the trouble, I visited the NDP web site this morning as I do a few times per month. Still nothing new. At. All.

They call themselves progressives. But really, their ideas and policies change very little from the original make Canada socialist! lunacy and bromides about economic and social and environmental and a thousand other flavors of “justice”; and basically just harken back, not forward, to the days of Marx and Lenin.

NDP_online_toolsIt still has lots of that sickening orange and the ever-so folksy smilin’ Frenchman Tom Mulcair who promises “leadership” and more income and wealth redistribution, as if trying to emulate the web site.

And I also read the mainstream newspapers this morning, so don’t bother. In case you didn’t already know, Pamela Wallin, a Conservative senator, is the only government entity, ever, to spend too much taxpayer money, and suddenly, that’s bad, not good. Yes I know, it’s confusing. I think  —  yes I know I might be crazy  —  but I think the key word here is Conservative.

And I watched the leftists at the socialism-reliant, state-owned CBC News Network for a while. That was endumbening, but it was also funny.

As we know, patronizing these liberal-leftist or socialist or progressive mainstream media sources makes you dumber by the minute. So just before getting dumb, I switch to Fox News Channel and Sun News Network for a good ensmartening. A quick Rush Limbaugh chaser (available in Canada 9Am-noon PT!), and I’m good to go.

After I was ensmartened again, I reviewed some of my Twitter feed and caught this photo taken at the “Justice for Sammy Yatim”/anti-police (“Disarm the police!” … “Disband the police! … “FCUK you Toronto Police you killers!” … “Kill all pigs!” … “Kill that cop!”) rally, which was taken by a brave Faith Goldy of Sun News Network (as if I had to tell you. I mean duh. Can you just imagine the left-wing, state-owned CBC or pretty much any other “news” network besides Sun News Network letting an image like this leak out, thus breaking their narrative?). sign at protest mob-fest

Seeing that dark, angry-looking, Che-Guevara-like, clenched-fist of the ever-so progressive sign piqued my curiosity about what the other socialists/commies/progressives are up to these days. Karl MarxThomas MulcairSo naturally I clicked over to the web site to get up-to-date on their idiocy. I visit them about as much as I visit the web site. I find little difference between the two.

Well there are some differences. For example, the web site now has a permanent link to the web site. It’s not just in a “favorite links” list  —  in fact it’s a tab right up there in their header, alongside their “Home” tab and “About Us” tab and their other most important tabs. Alas, the site has no such reciprocal link. (That ain’t equal! Or “empowering!” Nor is it “link justice!”) ties

The web site has a special tab just for news about their NDP division (or is a division of the NDP?)

Oh and also, with regard to the aforementioned Sammy Yatim rally, according to one of the pro-socialist articles, the recent Toronto Police shooting of Sammy Yatim on that Toronto streetcar is because… capitalism. Yes that’s right: “Toronto police murder Sammy Yatim: The brutal face of the capitalist state“. Keep reminding yourself you’re not at the CBC website, or the NDP site. I mean just to keep things straight in your mind.

Of course the NDP Youth brigade was at NDP_Youth_at_Sammy_Yatim.jpg_rallythe justice for Sammy Yatim/anti-police rally this morning. Had a big banner. They were rallying for… not crossing picket lines. Because… I don’t know.

But I digress. Back to (see I get confused too!). I love these bullet points in the “About Us” page. They demand no alliances with the Liberals or Conservatives, but seem to ally themselves with the NDP, in their effort to nationalize everything and fundamentally transform (hi Barack!) Canada:

NDP to power on a socialist program

No alliances with Liberals or Conservatives.  NDP MPs must be the parliamentary voice of a mass movement against the conservative agenda.  Mobilize support by adopting socialist policies that answer the needs and aspirations of workers and youth.

Nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy; the top 150 banks and corporations

Break with the anarchy of the capitalist free market. No compensation to the millionaires, only those in genuine need. All nationalized enterprises to be run by workers control and management and integrated through a democratic socialist plan of production.

Socialist Internationalism

Pull out of NAFTA, WTO and other bankers’ deals that are the tools of imperialist exploitation. Strike back against U.S. imperialism and militarism. Nationalize the U.S. owned industrial giants and unite with American workers. For a socialist federation of the Americas as part of a world socialist federation.

As I said, there’s nothing new with the NDP.


Continue Reading


As I fight to stay awake not-eagerly awaiting the results of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership race, which I don’t really care that much about, and which I’m only really watching because I’m waiting for Jo-Anne to come back from walking our dog Sammy, I’ve come across some of the usual things that bug me. Here’s some:

Many Ontarians say “aboat” instead of “about.” They speak of a “hoase” instead of a “house.” I do not know what is the matter with these people. They really should learn how to speak.


I read another one of those articles in the paper this morning in which they pass off a state-owned, state-run government operation as a private corporation, thus continuing their long tradition of blindly, blithely blurring the lines between actual private enterprise, and big, politically progressive government mendaciously posing as private corporations, meddling in private enterprise, wrecking it and capitalism, as they have been doing for decades.

And this all reminds me to re-read Jonah Goldberg’s fabulous book “Liberal Fascism.” But anyway…

Today’s news article didn’t quite rise to the level of the egregious, oft-referred-to-by-me 2008 example from the Vancouver Sun about an aggrieved guy suing what he apparently forget or didn’t know was the fully state-owned, state-run BC Lottery Corporation, for ripping him off, and was quoted in the paper as saying “It’s about keeping corporations honest, that’s really what it’s about.”  It’s hard to top that powerful an example of the success with which the liberal news media and, more generally, the progressives, have succeeded, over decades of teaching people, to fail to understand what’s really going on around them, which is progressivism or Fabian Socialism.

Today’s article in the Sun Van_Sun_Jan_26_13_post_office-250pxis about a rather simple real estate and property development transaction. Canada Post, the state-owned, state-run government “corporation,” which is well-known to be a government operation, just sold its mammoth downtown Vancouver mail sorting plant. That’s fantastic. I always hated that the government owned that fabulous piece of what could otherwise be valuable commercial office space, useful to normal free-enterprising citizens to conduct business.  The problem is (a) that they sold it to yet another state-owned, state-run operation; and (b) the newspaper (again the Vancouver Sun), once again failed to be transparent about the true nature of the “corporation” involved. To wit:

VANCOUVER — The downtown branch of the Vancouver post office has been sold to the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC), one of Canada’s largest institutional investment managers.


BCIMC isn’t a household name, but it quietly invests “more than $95 billion of managed gross assets,” including B.C.’s public-sector pensions.

“Our clients include public-sector pension plans, public trusts and insurance funds,” said Chittenden.

It owns several buildings in Metro Vancouver, including downtown landmarks like Park Place and the Evergreen Building, Willowbrook Shopping Centre in Langley and Broadway Tech, a 1.1-million sq. ft. campus at Broadway and Renfrew. It is currently building 745 Thurlow, a 23-storey office tower on the old Keg site at Thurlow and Alberni.

Nowhere is it explained that the “corporation” buying the property is actually another state-owned, state-run government investment trustee, this one being provincial instead of federal. They do go so far as to describe it a little, starting with “one of Canada’s largest institutional investment managers.” But that’s it. That’s all that matters to them? I don’t really think so, but that’s all they’re telling us.

Is it not important to anyone but me that it’s not really a private corporation, despite their making it sound as though it is?

For their own part the “clients” that BCIMC lists are all government, even though they don’t actually come out and say that.  The “insurance funds” they refer to include, as best I can tell, nothing more than yet another big government operation called “Worksafe BC”  —  which is the more politically-correct name slapped on to what is really the BC Government’s Workmen’s Compensation Board of B.C. (renamed to Workers Compensation Board of BC to appease feminists).

Like at all government operations posing as corporations, nearly half of the board of directors are appointed by the government. The BC Minister of Finance appoints three directors out of seven.

Trust me on this: henceforth, when there are complaints about the design, the style, substance, the quality, or rent increases as time goes on, within the development, they will lay blame at the feet of “the developer” or “the corporation,” and not refer once to the BC government, thus further advancing the negative narrative against actual corporations  —  instead of at big, huge progressive government.

So that bugs me.


On a totally different topic, a good read today by the Globe & Mail’s Margaret Wendt about Obama’s latest rather brainless feel-good, appease-the-base move to allow military women to fight on the battle fields on the front line.

Women in combat: Let’s get real

…But please, people. Let’s get real. Women cannot equal men in ground combat, the kind of dirty, brutal stuff that (fortunately) makes up a very minor part of modern military life, especially post-Afghanistan. It’s not that they can’t be trained to kill – they can. The issue is that the physical differences between men and women are very large, and on the battlefield, they really matter, and can’t be wished away. Men are better fighters because they are bigger and stronger and can endure far more physical punishment before they break down.

The average female soldier is “about five inches shorter than the male soldier, has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity and 37 per cent less muscle mass,” Stephanie Gutmann, author of The Kinder, Gentler Military, wrote in the New Republic. “She cannot pee standing up … She tends, particularly if she is under the age of 30 (as are 60 per cent of military personnel) to get pregnant.”


And my wife (a woman) is back now, so mercifully, I can stop watching the Liberal Party leadership race. As I type, it appears to be aboat over, with an openly gay woman named Kathleen Wynne, who is married to another woman, set to become Ontario’s new premier and leader. I bet the media will make it ab-so-lute-ly clear that Kathleen Wynne is a lesbian.

UPDATE: see?Nat_Po_Wynne_win_Jan_27_2013-500px

Continue Reading

Police politicization: Law breakers ignored while law-abiding protesters treated like criminals

Within the propaganda and tawdry political theatre that is the Idle No More movement and the Chief Spence diet program, something rather magnificent occurred last week. A Canadian judge had the courage and consistency to question the police, and perhaps make himself politically unpopular with the liberal bloc that is the senior Canadian judiciary.

Superior Court Judge David Brown, a man of singular wisdom and integrity, was chosen to hear an injunction request by CN Rail to stop the Native blockade of a railway line in Sarnia. Their action was dangerous, irresponsible and — most pertinent of all — plainly illegal. Brown granted the injunction.

But, as we’re so often told in seemingly interminable episodes of Law and Order on television, there are several branches to the law. Now came the turn of the police to implement the law without fear or prejudice.

Problem is, the Sarnia cops demonstrated both in enormous lumps.

Not only did they refuse to comply with the injunction, they refused to even try to do so, and there is evidence that one officer, a staff-sergeant, actually joined the protesters. Orders from the most senior kind instructed officers not to intervene, and at every level of the Sarnia police word had gone out to in effect ignore the law.

In the end, this small protest was ended quite easily when the hands of the police were forced, and with no violence or even particular problems. But it took far too long. The disregard, even contempt, evinced for the law from high-ranking police officers and police lawyers is staggering, and reminiscent of some foreign state we would previously have mocked.

Thank goodness for Judge Brown, but those of us who have covered demonstrations and reported on the police in Canada have seen this politicization for some time now.

In the past year alone, for example, I have seen the police intimidate and harass, even physically remove and threaten to arrest, pro-Israel demonstrators, yet ignore their anti-Zionist counterparts across the street.

I have seen peaceful Christians physically attacked at a gay pride parade and cops ignore their attackers and instead caution the victims and promise to arrest them if they did not leave the scene.

I have seen teenage pro-lifers handcuffed and arrested, merely for holding signs, and an opponent of abortion have his camera confiscated, the photos inside destroyed. He was then told the destruction was accidental — the photos proved police brutality — and it took three separate actions to “accidentally” erase them.

Right to protest

In all of these cases, it should be not the beliefs of the protesters, but the right to peacefully protest that shapes the police response. Yet Natives breaking the law are ignored or encouraged, while law-abiding supporters of Israel, the family or the unborn are treated like criminals.

They are far from isolated cases.

Any private conversation with rank-and-file cops will reveal how depressed they are about the situation, but a new generation of recruits, drowned in politically correct training classes, has often lost sight of what policing is.

When an enormously respected judge tells the police they are not doing the job, surely even Canadians have to demand action.

Let’s see, let’s just see.

Continue Reading

Ontario Liberal premier quits amid contempt charge(s), doubling of debt, failure to lead

The super-liberal Canadian mainstream media is twisting like fat-free, no-trans-fats pretzels today (in deference to McGuinty’s daddy-state Ontario food consumption laws and regulations), trying to whitewash failed Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty’s resignation as (for example) merely a “personal” decision. This is exactly as he risibly claimed yesterday. After all, the excuse has been poll-tested by the wind-powered Liberal machine, and by gum, these are winning words! Trust them! They’re the (liberal) gov’ment!

This is as per the liberal media guidebook, in which they are instructed to simply regurgitate exactly what any liberal politician commands them to say. Had it been a conservative premier quitting at a time of abject failure amidst charges of corruption and debt-doubling (or for purely altruistic reasons), trust me, they’d be pulling their full Sarah Palin. That’s when they suddenly become ever so earnest news hounds, digging and finding “journalistic” reasons to question everything, and somehow then finding supposed nation-saving, truth-based reasons to assassinate the personal (and family!) character of a politician, and engage in the conservative-career-bashing techniques taught to them at the state universities and colleges under the rubric of “investigative journalism.”

The even more smarmy among the mainstream media are wagging their fingers at us conservatives, admonishing us that today is not the day to be all negative and political (read truthful), but rather it is a day to openly embrace his daddyship’s super-duper career. Laud his supposed benevolence and longtime “public service” and his supposed personal sacrifice. Some Liberal Dalton McGuintyare even attempting to advance McGuinty’s political career today, by seriously suggesting that after failing Ontario, he might possibly be a good contender for an even bigger train wreck  —  that of Liberal Party Of Canada leader. And do even more damage ( — my words, like I had to tell you!).

It’s hideous. And it doesn’t speak well for Canadians that so many apparently continue to buy into the narrative being spewed by nearly all of the liberal news media.

Luckily, I don’t like pretzels and don’t consume them. I mean unless they’re fried in bacon fat and covered in milk chocolate. So I have little more than another disdainful head-shake about McGuinty’s latest news.

In a nutshell, by which I mean McGuinty’s party and his premiership was a nutshell within which he was the nut-in-chief, it’s good news for Ontario. Maybe now Ontarians will take a breath and take another look at the huge mistake they made in the last election, which you’ll remember was only a year ago. And take another look at their media and how they advocate for liberals and liberalism, rather than for the right politicians. Not that I’m holding my breath.

Start by asking why he even ran in the last election since incredibly, only a year after the last election, he said yesterday that by golly, one of the reasons he’s quitting  is because now “it’s time for renewal, it’s time for the next Liberal premier”. Maybe my brain cells are all clogged from all the trans fats, but it seems to me it’s pretty obvious that last year was the “time for renewal.”

As it is, they’re still going to be stuck with a Liberal Party government at least until the next election, which, due to “time for renewal,” might be a few weeks from when the next Liberal Party leader is chosen.

Paper shredders aren’t subsidized by government “investment” wizard Barack Obama or Dalton McGuinty or any other progressive governments, yet, are they? As long as they’re “investing” for purely political or left-wing ideological reasons, and then (allegedly or otherwise) covering-up when they prove to be abject failures or saturated in crony capitalism or politics, that “investment” would have at least paid-off far better for liberals and the citizens, whose money they’re “investing.” Alas they mostly pick losers.

So today, for my part, and as long as they’re not government subsidized, I’m looking at investing in the companies that make paper shredders. Between Obama’s Benghazi-gate and that associated ongoing media-aided cover-up, the Liberal Party of Canada’s sponsorship-gate (which is still paying dividends), the recent Quebec Liberal government’s alleged corruption, and now Ontario’s Liberal mess, and that of other liberal administrations across North America and Europe, I think that’s a winner for the rest of us.



Continue Reading

Bullies or victims? Fairness and proportionality strike out in sport and sexuality

So, a guy who plays pro sport is an idiot. Good Lord, I can’t believe it! I mean, who knew?

Yes, Yunel Escobar was dumb enough to write on his face in Spanish something akin to “You are a faggot,” thus enabling every hypocrite and self-indulgent victim fetishist to moan about the horrors of homophobia.

Big money and big entertainment will do pretty much anything to not offend the gay community these days, and in this case their acts of ostensible contrition were positively nauseating.

Frankly, I don’t think Escobar intended a slur on homosexuals, and was probably not even thinking of homosexuality when for some perverse reason he wrote these nasty words beneath his eyes. It was probably some silly, jock, inside joke.

When it’s used by teenage boys, the word faggot generally means idiot or loser. I’ve heard kids who are trendily pro-gay and pro-same-sex marriage use the term “fag” with no apparent understanding that there is a connection. I’ve also heard gay people use it about other gays. The word will disappear naturally, as is right.

It should never have been written, and no professional sports team should allow an employee to write anything, even innocuous, on his face.

But the story ends there really.

Rogers, the owners of the Toronto Blue Jays, fined the guy $90,000 and suspended him for three games, which is fair enough.

Unlike in 2011 when television sports anchor Damian Goddard was fired from Sportsnet, also owned by Rogers, just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage.” He had been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving death threats and abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

It could have been a coincidence of course, but we’ll leave that to the human-rights commission where it is being considered. Goddard never used an offensive word, and merely expressed his opinion of marriage. Perhaps he should have written it on his face — he may well still be employed!

As for Escobar — bad word, move on. Stop the grovelling, stop the nonsense, get it in proportion. After all, it’s nothing like what happened to Peter Vidmar. You didn’t know? OK, let me explain. Vidmar is one of the most successful athletes in U.S. history. He was chosen to be the chef de mission of the U.S. Olympic team in the last Olympics, as was gay activist Mark Tewksbury for Team Canada. But Vidmar is a Mormon, and it was discovered that he had made a small donation to the Proposition 8 campaign, enshrining marriage as the union of a man and woman. He has never called anyone a nasty name, never treated gay people badly, is an example of a gentleman in sport. But he opposed gay marriage, and after relentless pressure he was forced to resign.

So who are the bullies, who are the victims, in sport and sexuality? Nobody should face or feel discrimination in professional sport, but can we please stop magnifying a dumb gesture into an act of sociological and moral barbarism?

Oh, and as for compulsory sensitivity training, the Jays are in far greater need of baseball training. The genuine victims are the fans.


Continue Reading

Sympathy well runs dry

Ontario teachers are giving us an education in groundless bellyaching

 So there he was, the leader of one of Ontario’s largest high school teachers’ unions. He sat on national television and explained there was going to be a day of action, and his members would, in his words, “take time off from their volunteering at school to prepare lessons and show the government that they are angry” and don’t want a pay freeze.

I’m sorry! Time off volunteering at school? First, that’s nonsense and you know it.

Most teachers wouldn’t attend a day of action during their vacation because they’re still at the cottage, because teachers have the entire summer off and are paid handsomely with our tax dollars through July and August. Also because, quite frankly, most of them are not particularly political in the first place.

How about the idea that they don’t want their wages frozen? In Ontario, and the situation is not radically different in the rest of Canada, teachers have been given increases almost unheard of elsewhere, which is almost unprecedented in a groaning economy and certainly enormously generous. That’s happened because the Liberal government in Ontario bribed teachers to be nice, purchased union passivity, gave our money to teachers to prevent those same teachers from going on strike and thus giving grief and hardship to the very people — parents — who pay their wages in the first place.

Teaching isn’t easy, but nor is it so terribly hard. Very few Canadians would refuse to exchange their jobs for an indoor life with three months paid vacation, $75,000 a year or more, and retirement in their early 50s with around $60,000 a year for the rest of their lives. I don’t begrudge you, but please stop moaning on that you’re more giving than Mother Teresa and more exploited than some poor bugger enslaved on a 19th-century Mississippi plantation!

I’m tired of hearing about burn out, tired of hearing mythology about getting to school at 7 a.m. and not leaving until 6 p.m., tired of sick days, tired of showing videos when you should be teaching, tired of your activists and leaders with their leftism and social engineering, tired of pretending that public education works so well when, in fact, it is highly questionable.

Teachers in this country have frequently put all of their resources into defeating provincial governments and federal politicians of whom they disapprove.

They have campaigned tirelessly for parties they knew would give them almost anything they wanted. It’s not so easy now, because the money is running out, and even the leftist parties can’t help you much anymore.

The problem you really face is the deposit of sympathy in the bank of the body politic has been run dry. People care, but not that much — they’re more concerned, and understandably so, with their own jobs and futures.

We like you, we respect you, we wish you well, but we also wish you’d teach, give up politics and show a bit of gratitude for the way you’re treated, compensated and cuddled by the rest of society. Hey teacher, leave our cash alone!

Now I’m off to double detention, because I’ve been a very naughty boy indeed.

Continue Reading

It's a question.