Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | socialism

Proof that Canada’s news media is far-left

A “think” tank called Public Policy Forum, wherein the word “think” apparently means “socialism,” has pooped-out a large “public policy” turd, which will appeal to all progressives — liberals, socialists, communists, the Canadian news media alike: it is to give taxpayer money to the Canadian media “to deal with the financial crunch in the media industry and the ensuing perils to Canada’s democratic institutions.”

Huh. Sounds lofty. Also stupid.

By the way, they got federal funding to come up with this gem. Seriously.

Canada’s media industry needs major federal cash injection: report

A major report on the crisis in Canada’s media industry is recommending changes to Canada’s tax system and to the CBC’s revenue model to boost funding for private and non-profit news operations, in addition to calling for a $100-million federal investment in the creation of a new Journalism & Democracy Fund.

The Fund would also receive annual funding derived from tax changes to digital advertising, giving the new body annual funding of $300- to $400-million a year to distribute among Canadian media organizations.

But at least they recommend killing the left-wing state-owned and state-funded CBC, right? Ha. No, don’t be so silly. They do not suggest dismantling the state-owned and massively taxpayer-funded CBC, or stopping its taxpayer funding in order to quash the “financial crunch” which that behemoth has obviously caused the media advertising and subscriber market in Canada. It seems the thinkers in the tank (so to speak) didn’t even study that possibility for some reason. Apparently they take as a given that state-owned, taxpayer-funded media is a good thing, and the free market (or what’s left of it in Canada) should just essentially join them in being state-funded, if only to a lesser degree.

The Canadian news media generally seems to be for all this. If they weren’t, they be in high dudgeon and smearing it with at least 86 “news” stories and editorials, just as they do daily to relieve their hate-on for President Trump. They also join the thinkers in supporting the CBC, notwithstanding their own ruination caused in large part by the CBC. I see practically no editorial stand taken by the private Canadian media against the CBC as a general matter. Which is just weird, unless they really do appreciate socialism.

As if suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, none of the news media covering this story includes this bit of the thinky report, which I found on page 25 (after waking myself up several times):

Among traditional news and advertising vehicles, only radio, with its hyper-local orientation (crime news, traffic, weather, hometown sports) and no revenue competition from CBC, has managed to hold its revenue position. And then there’s the CBC itself, the main alternative to daily newspapers as a producer of civic-function news across the country. Despite the budget cuts it experienced (a hole plugged in Budget 2016 by the Liberal government), in relative terms, the CBC has fared well over the past decade. In the first six months of the current fiscal year, CBC’s revenue is up 14.5 percent over last year, including a $45-million (40 percent) leap in ad revenue.

As I was reading the Globe & Mail’s utterly uncritical story, which might well have been published in Soviet-era Pravda, I was listening to liberalvision CTV “News” Channel and the state-owned CBC News fiasco network in the background. Between them they presented me with at least 6 vehemently anti-Trump “news” stories — in a row.  Seriously. It went on for nearly an hour. Perhaps a “think” tank should have studied that phenomenon and its effect on the market, and profitability.

Maybe (and I know I’ve said this at least once before), the liberal-left Canadian media could switch it up a bit, and try a new thing — start an experiment where they try to tolerate conservatives and conservative thoughts and ideas, and don’t just mock conservatives and Republicans all day long, every day. Their taxpayer-funded 100-page “major” “report” doesn’t even suggest trying anything like that, notwithstanding the immense success Fox News Channel found in the U.S. in market share (they are number one by far), and their profits, and thus their sustainability.

Page one of my (free) report is this headline: Sell and Stop Funding the CBC. Enough said right there. So actually it would end at that headline on page one. Nobody would fall asleep, lose any more tax dollars, and Canadians would actually save huge amounts of tax dollars and get better media too.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Today in liberalism: a Canadian Liberal government committee proposes socialism.

Like Facebook only run by the state. Kim Jong Un will be so pissed…

OTTAWA—A House of Commons committee is recommending Canada Post come up with a plan to reinstate door-to-door delivery in parts of the country that lost the service in the last year and maintain a freeze on the installation of community mailboxes.

The report, released today, also muses about expanding Canada Post’s mandate to provide what it calls critical digital infrastructure, including email services or “the basis for a Canadian social network.”

Seriously. Communism. In Canada.

Sunny ways. Vote liberal.

Conservatives on the committee didn’t back the report, saying the recommendations do nothing to address Canada Post’s serious financial shortfalls.

Yet they fully support a state-owned media — the CBC. It’s just a matter of time before they glom onto this one too.

The NDP’s dissenting report criticized both the Liberals and Conservatives for closing the door on exploring postal banking services, an idea recommended by the postal union.

Yeah — state banking too. Why not. Also, state-clothing. Why not just go full Kim Jong Un?

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

The CBC explained, for you wretches and cranks.

So much CBC nuttery.

The Globe & Mail’s guy who sits on the couch all day and watches TV — mostly CBC, if we are to take him at his word about the importance of it to humankind, preaches the same old CBC line. Yes it’s a repeat.

It’s time for another episode of  “Canadians Are Rightly Questioning Having a State-Owned Taxpayer-Funded Media Behemoth Like the CBC, and are Getting Slammed as Wretched Cranks in the National Media for Doing So.”  It’s a sitcom in the North Korean genre.

The ideas about the CBC being put forth by Conservative leadership candidates Kellie Leitch (whose model I agree with) and Maxime Bernier, are summarily deemed by the Globe & Mail’s official expert to be “horse manure” — insulting and yet queerly anodyne language he might have picked up on CBC TV in the late 1950s.

But to Doyle, it’s “horse manure,” in exactly the same way as “the screening-immigrants thing” is. Which pretty much proves he’s a CBC watcher. His whole column mixes his alt-left politics and his loved for the state-owned media. Just like the CBC does! No wonder he loves it.

Alt-left aside for a moment, why such language restraint? On the hipster state-owned CBC they go right ahead and say “shit” anytime they want. Does Doyle not get that their sitcom “Schitt’s Creek” is an ever-so folksy play on the word Shit? And the libertine envelope-pushing goes on and on at the CBC all day long: they don’t shy away from showing full frontal nudity and showing videos about waxing one’s balls (yeah I mean young men’s testicles) and pickles coming out of a girl’s ass. Talk about shit!

All of that CBC fare on the state-owned media is just fine with Doyle — it’s Leitch’s position on the CBC that he finds “shameful and an embarrassment” — missing the irony completely, possibly because he’s clueless.

Leitch and Bernier are clueless. Television is the most important, influential storytelling medium of our time.

Huh? I don’t think Leitch or Bernier want to cancel television. This is like trying to argue the importance of toe jam by stating as your opening premise the ever so controversial argument that the human body is the most important and influential toe jam medium of our existence. We don’t want to eliminate human bodies. It’s the confounded toe jam that concerns us. Nobody likes it.

During his post-U.S. election hangover, Doyle reported on November 9 that nobody was watching the CBC:

Meanwhile, over on CBC, Peter Mansbridge was dozily complimenting Adrienne Arsenault on the trees near the White House that acted as a backdrop to her report. Not that anyone cared about CBC coverage.

It may also be worth mentioning that the CBC isn’t just the toe jam of television — it’s also all over the radio, satellite radio, and all over the internet.

Doyle seems to suddenly remember we’re only talking about cutting the CBC and not all of television, and then becomes unhinged (my bolding):

The idea that CBC television and radio is a frivolity, sucking up vast amounts of money to make bad TV and irrelevant radio, is the position of a small number of well-off cranks in Toronto and Montreal, aided by a number of other cranks who, one imagines, stave off personal wretchedness by ceaselessly pointing out that the CBC gets funding to make TV and radio, while they don’t.

Well that turned ugly quickly. So guess what, we’re all just a goddamn basket of… cranks, who are all trying to “stave off [our] personal wretchedness.” There goes his language restraint. Let me be an “important storytelling medium” for you:

wretchedness

wretch·ed (rĕch′ĭd)

adj. wretch·ed·er, wretch·ed·est
1. In a deplorable state of distress or misfortune; miserable: “the wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages” (George Orwell).
2. Characterized by or attended with misery or woe: a wretched life.
3. Of a poor or mean character; dismal: a wretched building.
4. Contemptible; despicable: wretched treatment of the patients.
5. Of very inferior quality: wretched prose.

[Middle English wrecched, from wrecche, wretch; see wretch.]

wretch′ed·ly adv.
wretch′ed·ness n.

Move over Hillary Clinton, you’ve been trumped — pun intended — by an even bigger, more insulting, more out of touch, elitist, bigoted ass than you. And like you, he’s the opposite of Donald Trump. Hilariously, it’s John Doyle, in his other capacity as a smug, condescending left-wing political guru, who advises — as if in Bizarro World — to all the misguided, unlike him:

If they’d all paid attention to the reality-TV dynamic used by Donald Trump to win an election, they might not have woken up one recent morning in puzzlement about how and why Trump was the president-elect.

Right back atcha. I wasn’t in puzzlement, I was still drunk with happiness. But then I don’t watch the CBC if at all possible, and I do watch Fox News Channel, so that might explain that.

The John Doyles of the world are people in a liberal-left bubble so tight they have no idea that this following bit makes no sense to most Canadians:

Understanding it and why it has impact is rather necessary information to have, prior to denouncing any area of it. In the specific matter of CBC TV, to cite one example, Kim’s Convenience is not forgettable, irrelevant, or badly made; nor is it, in Bernier’s phrase, an example of “bad Canadian copies of popular American shows.”

What’s “Kim’s Convenience?” The basic proposition about being “forgettable” is that you know what the thing is in the first place.

I had to look it up. Kim’s Convenience is a CBC TV show (also on the state’s YouTube Channel). It’s another vital sitcom. (Thank you benevolent government for the vital state laughs!)  It’s the story of the Kims, a Korean-Canadian family, running a convenience store in downtown Toronto.

Episode #1: entitled “Gay Discount.”
Description: “after being accused of homophobia, Appa decides to offer a store discount to gay customers during Toronto Pride Week.”

[Fake shockface]

Of course you deplorables hicks in the small towns outside of the enlightened Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal is who this is really for. And you love it so, so much. To wit:

Outside of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, the CBC is a vital presence, providing local coverage and Canadian content, which, though diminished, is vastly appreciated by residents of cities big and small and in rural areas.

Except that it isn’t. Reason number 146 for nixing the state-owned CBC is: “Nobody watches the CBC.” (146-B: “Root cause: Because it’s horse manure”).

Doyle’s bottom line:

Dismantle it or reduce it to the begging-bowl status of PBS and all of that is gone.

All of what?

But Doyle explains it so well here:

You have to live in the bubble of the well-off establishment to be blind to the CBC’s importance.

So I’m part of the well-off establishment. I did not know that. Actually, it’s struggling taxpayers who fail to see why we should fund something so irrelevant. I’d say nice try, but it wasn’t even.

Doyle’s own bottom line about the CBC came directly out of his bottom. By which I mean it’s full of shit. Human shit. This I learned by watching other channels and having a clue.

 

State-owned media — and all state-owned business in which the state competes against its own citizens — should be banned in this country, and that notion should be enshrined in the constitution. 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Globe & Mail columnist suddenly realizes that CBC is an existential threat to his employer… and him. Then goes back to sleep.

Hey remember that state-owned, socialism-reliant CBC that I’ve been writing negatively about for a decade and a half, here? And remember how I repeatedly write that the CBC is literally the state competing against its own citizens?

Well don’t worry, the Globe & Mail’s on the case today. After 65 years. They should call themselves an oldnewspaper.

Actually it’s not even the Globe & Mail itself that has awoken from its CBC-luvin’ stupor, but at least they allowed a columnist to go off the reservation for five minutes. Today Konrad Yakabuski chimes in on the socialist lunacy that is the state-owned CBC (he calls it neither socialist nor lunacy nor even state-owned, of course, proving he’s got a mile to go yet). Here’s his big breaking news (by which we mean news to him):

… Ottawa is pumping an additional $675-million into the CBC at the very moment the country’s leading private media outlets are struggling to stay afloat amid fragmenting audiences and advertising dollars. Something about this picture just isn’t right. …

You don’t say. And actually, you all didn’t say anything, for 65 years. In fact quite the contrary.  Here’s what Yakabuski wrote exactly a year ago, regarding how the appointment of Mélanie Joly as the new Liberal government’s minister in charge of the CBC felt, to him:

It also felt like glasnost at a public broadcaster that had spent a decade under the thumb of an oppressive Conservative gulag.

The irony (to say nothing of the insult) of referring to glasnost and “gulag” in connection with Conservatives and the state-owned media — seems lost on Yakabuski. The Gulag was the former Soviet Union’s agency that managed forced labour camps during the reign of the socialist/communist mass murderer and dictator Joseph Stalin, until the 1950s. Stalin also ran the state media. He wasn’t really known to be that fiscally conservative actually, and didn’t fancy capitalism and private enterprise much at all. He’d have loved the CBC as much as today’s Liberals do, although he’d likely have hacked their idiotic budget way back.

Spring 2006 CBC - 66 - Harper - Heil

The CBC broadcast this bumper image during its pre-2006 election newscast, causing an uproar, later writing to a concerned citizen that all the uproar was caused merely “by the website ProudToBeCanadian”

But you know, with these people, the “oppressive” conservatives are either running a gulag, or we’re Nazis.

But the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its gulags and state-owned media having been mercifully rendered a shitstain on world history, let’s go back to today’s Yakabuski column:

“We don’t think that we compete,” CBC/Radio-Canada president Hubert Lacroix insisted, incredulously, before the House of Commons Heritage committee last month. “There is nothing in the [Broadcasting Act] or in our mandate that prevents us from delivering these services to Canadians in the most effective way – on the contrary.”

So change the mandate. The latter currently does not explicitly prevent the CBC from competing with private media. It should.

So change the mandate you say? Stop it from competing with private media? That’s hilarious. Why now, suddenly, comrade?

… Canadians do not watch them, forcing an already bloated CBC to seek advertising revenue elsewhere.

Hence, the CBC’s push into digital opinion content. Compared to dramatic programming, this is a low-cost venture that might actually turn a profit – and kill off a few already dying newspapers in the process.

Well now they’ve gone too far! Get me one o’ them “neo-cons” on the horn! 

Yakabuski seems to have suddenly realized that the ever-growing, socialism-reliant CBC is just being progressive — and thus the creeping socialist giant is now threatening him personally, or professionally, more and more. This is as it is supposed to be. Yakabuski is starting to “feel the Bern!” from a state-owned “business” competing against him and his livelihood — much as we’ve warned for nearly 20 years — and he doesn’t like it. Boo hoo.

He’s all about reigning in that CBC now.

Instead of using the cash infusion from taxpayers to improve core services, particularly regional news operations, the CBC is using some of the money to expand its digital footprint into yet more areas where it competes directly with private media for the same advertising dollars.

Oh I’m in tears for him. Tears of laughter.

CBC ad in National Post

The CBC advertises a lot. They really want to get their messaging out.

Forget ad revenue. Yakabuski doesn’t mention the CBC also competing for attention to its left-wing messaging, as the CBC spends money (ours) and advertises itself all over every type of media simply to try to get you to pay attention to them instead of any of the competition. That is another another missed clue.

I’ll give Yakabuski some credit: Today he is all concerned ‘n stuff, because of the public interest, see.

But if a bigger, more predatory CBC only kills off private competitors, how does that serve the public interest?

Yeah. Exactly the point we’ve been making — but you haven’t — for like 20 years. Too bad you didn’t spend more time reading ProudToBeCanadian.ca instead of watching inane CBC “comedy” fare and giving the CBC a pass (or worse) all these years. Forgive us if we don’t think you really give a hoot about “The public interest” vis-a-vis the CBC.

Purolator-state-ownedHey here’s some more breaking public interest news: For the past 24 years, the state-owned Canada Post has owned one of Canada’s largest courier companies, Purolator Couriers, which competes directly against all the private citizen-owned companies. As we’ve been telling you. You could use all of the same arguments about that abomination as you could for the CBC abomination — even invoking your grand “public interest” canard.

So break your own apparent mandate. Write-up a breaking news column decrying the state-owned Canada Post owning Purolator. Include your laments about all the dozens of other market and career and business-wrecking state-owned “businesses”.  Yeah we know they don’t affect your livelihood directly like the CBC does, so do it because that would actually be in the public interest.

Yakabuski’s column, entitled “The CBC has lost its way,” is ironic if nothing else. The CBC is growing exactly as it has been for 65 years. The only people who are lost are those who are just now realizing the damage that has been done and is continuing to be done –when the state competes against its own citizens.

UPDATE:

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberal media: state-owned “corporations” are good!

Perhaps they’re just lamenting (what I call) the delightful passing of socialist dictator Fidel Castro, but I think Postmedia’s Vancouver Sun newspaper has gone full Castro on us. Here’s how their big weekend editorial begins:

There is nothing inherently wrong with a Crown corporation, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, having a monopoly on providing basic auto insurance — as much as that statement might upset private insurers.

If YOU think “there’s nothing inherently wrong” with state-owned, state-run monopolies in a free and democratic country, you just must be socialist or communist. In fact you are, actually.

And observing that “it might upset private insurers” willfully misses yet another point. It doesn’t just upset private insurers. It upsets people, markets, freedom, sanity, pretty much the whole apple cart. But you go ahead an keep on deluding yourselves.

Ensuring all drivers carry at least basic coverage is beneficial from a public policy point of view, and it’s easy to enforce when the insurance provider is also the vehicle licensing body.

Spoken like a true Soviet.

Furthermore, it’s eminently reasonable that the government, as the sole shareholder of ICBC [the state-owned, state-run car insurance monopoly], be entitled to a dividend. After all, dividends paid to government flow into general revenue, which is supposedly spent on public goods and services — roads, education, health care, housing and so on.

Again with the sounding like a true Soviet. “Eminently reasonable that the government…”.  Holy pompous socialist nonsense. It’s exactly not eminently reasonable at all, whatsoever. It’s utterly unreasonable. They speak of “dividends” —  to the government — as if we’re talking about actual free enterprise and capitalism here. Like this is a business just like Walmart or, say, and actual insurance company.

Their ongoing effort to blur the lines between actual business and socialist government “business” is taking shape nicely. That’s part of the progressive agenda.

But the end of what really amounts to pro-socialist propaganda takes (the people’s?) cake:

ICBC should set its rates primarily based on claims costs, not political expediency, and the BCUC [BC Utilities Commission — another government dep’t] should exercise its authority to adjust them as it sees fit. There should be no need for government to interfere.

What? One government department, ICBC, fighting with another government department over how much to bilk the taxpayer in the monopoly state-owned, state-run insurance racket — and  “There should be no need for government to interfere”?

They can’t see that this is all government? Are they pretending? Are they trying to fake you out? What’s going on here? Are they drunk?

They’re now so socialist they don’t even see how socialist they are. They can’t see the socialist for the socialism.

And here’s a gratuitous picture of Karl Marx. I think it’s eminently reasonable that a private citizen include it thusly.

Karl_Marx-color-small


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): BC, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Gov gets in way of gov, which gets in the way of people, progress, and sanity

Here’s a Sunday headline from the the liberals’ left-wing Postmedia (Vancouver) division this morning: Vancouver council urged to provide more electric-vehicle charging stations.

It’s another example of their daily liberal-left affirmation program. The whole paper — The Province — is like this.

Note that the “urging” for charging stations comes not from the folks, or companies, or anything like that — the “urging” comes from… the city government itself.

Hideous.

Its like me writing a headline and article about the Strong Demand for Massive Tax and Regulation Reductions and Much Smaller Government — and as you read the article you find out it was demanded by me and my conservative pals (strongly). Of course that article would only ever, ever happen here. Never, ever in a mainstream newspaper.

From their article:

Staff estimate that about $3 million is needed over the next five years to “broaden the market” for non-polluting vehicles…

Why is a government interfering in yet another segment of the erstwhile free market? Well, apparently, because another level of government has already fouled the market up, and so now it’s apparently impossible for the city government to deal with the other government and so the city government must get more involved in the (erstwhile) free market — and do it at more taxpayer expense. See this statement in the article:

…“very onerous” restrictions associated with the B.C. Utilities Commission Act make it difficult for private companies to build such stations for profit.

So city government has to spend millions in taxpayer money because the provincial government has restricted private enterprise from doing what it does best at no cost to government or taxpayers (and which it does way better than the state, as this shows).

Question: Is the city government utterly powerless to shake up the entrenched bigger government and their stupidity, even if it’s to save millions of taxpayer dollars and make life better and easier for the folks?

No. The answer to that question is a hard no.

You or  I could correct this big-government stupidity in about 20 minutes, for free, and everybody knows it. This ugly and expensive quagmire of government-on-government action — this stupidity — is the result of years of pure left-wing political ideology at work. It’s not pragmatism. It’s not science. It’s not concern for the environment (which private enterprise is more than willing and capable of addressing — thus the need for electric vehicle charging stations in the first place, for example).

Both levels of liberal-left government are ideologically reticent to restrict any government control or any involvement in any facets of our lives. The more they can get their know-it-all fingers into our lives and control them, the better, as they see it. They’re progressives. Liberals. Some are full-out socialists. These are not conservatives doing this.

This is insane.

It reminds me of an earlier liberal, Pierre Trudeau — together with the extreme left NDP — who, in their great wisdom, declared that state-owned gas stations were needed across the nation (and thus Petro Canada became so). That was equally insane — to say nothing of socialist (or am I being redundant?).

Oh, and by the way, as the article points out, these charging stations are really not that necessary anyway. Read this part from the print edition which was removed from the online version of the story:province-20161113_111328

More than 90 percent of trips taken in Vancouver are less than 30 kilometres, significantly less than the shortest range of electric vehicles on the market.

(Also, I spell it kilometers because I speak in English.)

If left-wing governments want to “broaden the market,” they should get the Hell out of the market. Get out of our way. That’s the only way to broaden the market, and it’s literally more than free.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , ,

Posted under the categories(s): BC, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberal: “Well by golly maybe we need conservatives running this show”

OK that headline is a joke. A dream for me, but alas, a joke.

No matter how badly things are going — no matter how many FAILS they are forced (by the likes of me but never the news media) to face up to, they will continue to do the same thing, double-down, even, and make the same mistakes, over and over. Call it what you want, but Einstein called that insanity. I just call it liberalism.

For example, over at their own state-owned CBC division, this headline today will be utterly ignored by all liberals and the even further leftists:

Trudeau doubles Canada Summer Jobs spending, but student employment stays flat

If it isn’t already obvious, the FAIL we’re talking about this time is the summer youth employment program. Another of the 8,000 government programs to help Canadians survive life.

It’s a story of government failure, but they run this pictures atop their story:

liberalism run amok

I think I might have gone with the one below, and maybe they would have if the state-owned CBC weren’t such Trudeau/Liberal suckfaces:liberalism FAILAll leftists —  progressives, liberals, socialists, communists — believe the only way to fix a problem in society (even right inside your house, including buying your house) is for the government to take over responsibility, and for the government to fix it, which always, always, always, involves throwing more government money at it, and more big government policy. If any government program is failing, they throw more government money at it, citing as the only problem the notion that there wasn’t yet enough money being thrown at it. In this case, as I alluded in my opening, they are literally doubling-down on their stupidity.

Last spring, the Liberal government doubled the amount of money available to subsidize student wages under the Canada Summer Jobs program [which was already $107.5 million].

But despite the boost, Statistics Canada found student summer employment rates for 2016 stuck roughly where they were in 2015.

What’s even funnier (I’m not bipolar, but I’m never sure if I should laugh uproariously, or cry like a baby over these things) the sub-headline reads like this, which I paste here without one bit of editing:

‘There’s a real danger in artificially creating jobs,’ youth employment chair says

He went on, “That’s generally not sustainable … We need employers making their own hiring decisions.”

We on the right have been saying that for decades. For example, in the last election campaign! So now we see, in other words, that conservatives were right all along. And the Left was always and still is — in fact ever more so — wrong, and this proves it? Well yes. But this is the eight millionth time we’ve proved it.

Now don’t do as I did and assume the “youth employment chair” is one of those shouty hipster Trudeau “youth” who, along with (most of) the rest of today’s youth, tongue-bathed Trudeau’s face during the entire 2015 election campaign, and “got out the vote” (wink! — it’s to vote only for Leftist candidates! Vote for… more programs! More subsidies! More free stuff! More government!) 

No this is a middle-aged guy who chairs a U of T program which studies the issue of youth employment. (I won’t even get into the fact that the U of T is a federally-subsidized university, and yet the federal government apparently failed to ask this guy anything, which could have saved the taxpayer well over a hundred million dollars in literally five seconds.)

After saying “There’s a real danger in artificially creating jobs,” he added another layer onto the cake: “Are students taking the job of someone else who could do the work?”

So in other words, it’s likely even worse than it looks, since some of those wonderfully taxpayer-bought jobs likely resulted in someone else not getting a job which wasn’t bought with taxpayer dollars.

We’re not done yet:

Recently tabled responses to questions put on the House of Commons order paper by both Conservative and New Democrat MPs reveal how $107.4 million in new money was allocated across Canada. (Employment and Social Development Canada says the difference between this and the $113 million announced is the cost of administration.)

In other words (and yes I do have to highlight this for you since the state-owned CBC fails to do its job and merely puts the tidbit in brackets as if to try to hide it), the government administration cost — just for spending that extra $107.4 MILLION, was $5.6 million. So $5.6
million in extra government cost, to spend that extra $107 million, which achieved exactly NO increased benefit.

So, to complete the work the state-owned CBC failed to, a total waste of taxpayer cash, and an utter annihilation of liberal-left policy and ideology. Worth a story or two? Maybe at least a sub-heading? Yes, but not to the leftists and their media as we can see here.

Do you understand, liberals, why conservatives keep railing on about the inefficiencies of government — and about the left-wing bias of the media? (Yes, they do understand, and this is why leftist ideology — this leftist experiment they’re conducting on you — is so pernicious).

The rest of the article then simply skips over the fact that the Trudeau liberals doubled the taxpayer’s cost — the  budget — and got zero in return; returning instead to their comfort-zone: tongue-bathing liberalism, using more reliably left-wing university economists and their bon mots about how wonderful government-bought jobs are in general for the economy.

University of Ottawa labour economist David Gray says the effectiveness of the program is about more than the unemployment rate.

This spending is a “tiny drop in the bucket” of the total Canadian economy, he said.

Thanks. Great job, teacher at a federally subsidized university.

Still not done:

Public sector, not-for-profit organizations and small businesses with 50 or fewer employees can apply…

Public sector employers are among those “businesses” eligible to hire students under the program. Hello? Taxpayer-funded jobs for taxpayer-funded government departments?

A taxpayer-funded program to subsidize taxpayer-funded government departments: this is the progressive Left’s dream come true.

Would I cut off funding for youth employment programs like this? Would I fire the government employees and cabinet ministers responsible for this disaster including Justin Trudeau? Faster than I’d sell the state-owned CBC.

I’ll leave you with this Tweet from the National Post:

Three guesses as to what the action-plan will be from the Trudeau Liberals.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Liberals’ welfare state: They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

The headline in the Globe and Mail neglects to mention “welfare state,” and is simply: “B.C. government to subsidize rental units in response to housing crisis.”   It might just as well have been “Build Them and They Will Come.”

Progressives or socialists (whichever term you prefer) never give up trying to build their utopian Field of [Socialist] Dreams, with your money mind you. As we on the right side know, this will all end poorly — when they run out of your money (as Margaret Thatcher warned us decades ago). Having learned utterly nothing from history, this should happen any time now. Maybe when all the productive people paying all the taxes join Dagny, move to Galt’s Gulch, and quit working for the government instead of themselves as they’d prefer.

BC’s liberal Liberal progressive-left premier, Christy Clark, as if once again feeling the need to prove her progressive-left bona fides, now promises still more hundreds of millions of dollars of other people’s money, redistributed from taxpayers to the “poor people” who can’t afford rental housing in Vancouver. This follows previous governments’ spending of billions upon billions of other people’s money, subsidizing housing for people who couldn’t afford it.

The great lasting benefit after a decades-long history of this liberal-left social engineering and interference in every aspect of the free market is that now, Karl_Marx-color-smallthe housing and homelessness problem is worse than ever, and getting steadily worse as more and more people demand “their share” of even more government “help.” This history of abject failure is a quintessentially progressive, liberal, and socialist history. Or as even Karl Marx might say today, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

If we’ve seen the first of it, this is the farce:

…the province will approve half a billion dollars in projects to create 2,900 rental units for what Premier Christy Clark described as a broad cross-section of society that includes social-assistance recipients as well as some middle-income renters.

This is more than mere farce. This is preposterous. That paragraph is literally the epitome of the word “progressive” as used in left-wing politics. It should really be inserted in bold typeface in one of the state-funded universities’ political science textbooks in the chapter on socialism (or is everyone just taking “Womens’ Studies” these days?). Flo_now_thats_progressiveAs we can see, students, it is no longer just welfare for what we used to call “poor people” who used to have some sort of mental or physical disability, but now it is expanded to include a whole “broad cross-section of society” including even “middle income” earners who are perfectly able and capable of looking after themselves, or should be. As the Progressive Insurance lady would say, “now that’s progressive.”

What’s the limit to this?

A spokeswoman for Rich Coleman, the Minister Responsible for Housing, said the new units will target the province’s most vulnerable groups, but also provide some affordable rentals for those households earning less than $96,000 a year.

So social welfare is now required for households earning less than $96,000 per year? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that just about everybody? (Well yes, Joel, that is the point! ~a progressive minion)

Naturally, in five years’ time, the threshold will be all those households earning less than $120,000. Then it’s $200,000. Then of course it’s just everybody. The state will own most or all of the housing, and they will house everyone, not unlike the old Soviet Union or any other failed socialist state. That is the logical conclusion, unless someone stops the farce.

Or are you telling me that there is some magic limit — some Obamic “red line” — at which this will in fact all stop, and all the socialists will finally concede that now, whooboy, the limit’s been reached!

At $96,000 there is still utterly no signs of stopping. The Globe and Mail article doesn’t even remotely address the issue of where this will end. Liberals and of course the even more socialist you’ve got to be kidding party are demanding the exact opposite –that the “broad cross-section” expand even more than this. So tell me honestly this is not Back in the U.S.S.R. 

There are now just approximately 14 families left in BC who don’t qualify and aren’t on some form of welfare (I’m one, having taken the bizarre step of moving out of Vancouver where it was too expensive (duh!), but I’m Google-Mapping directions to Galt’s Gulch so the number will be just 13 soon).

Those people I leave behind will still have to drive their car, insured as it is mandated to be by BC’s state-owned, state-run insurance monopoly, to BC’s state-owned and state-run liquor outlet to drown their sorrows in a limited selection of booze which was selected especially for them by the BC’s state liquor politburo. If they get sick of this farce, mentally or physically, they will have to join the weeks or months-long line up for state-run, North Korean-style healthcare at the state hospital, and while waiting they will still be required to file and pay income taxes to support all the “poor” people. This is “freedom” and “justice” and “makes sense” to a socialist.

Me and my gang of “irredeemable deplorables” (TM Hillary Clinton, Progressive) have been warning of (and in my case, yelling and screaming about) this sort of socialist slippery slope all of our adult lives. And it’s been slipping every, single, day.

The headline of my article today is a another quote by Margaret Thatcher, speaking about socialists, right after her warning about socialists running out of other people’s money. But it really should have been the Globe and Mail‘s headline. Until it is — until we all see what’s going on and do a complete one-eighty — then spoiler alert: this farce is happening.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Socialist NDP HATES those state-owned monopolies – which they created

British Columbia has a state-owned and state-run car insurance monopoly, which is of course completely unnecessary, purely ideological, and universally hated  – by all sensible people except its creators, the socialist NDP (circa 1973). Or… maybe by them too?

The reason it is hated starts largely with the fact that it utterly sucks, to use the proper economics terminology.

Sun_re_ICBC-2015-11-10_0758Today it was announced that “the corporation” (yeah, “the corporation”) was going to stop allowing monthly payments for insurance premiums to be paid by credit card (because you know, what business accepts credit cards these days?!). And yes, “corporation” is what a sycophantic liberal media like the Vancouver Sun calls a state-owned, state-run politbureau when they want to whitewash the socialism; and yes they also call Apple a corporation as if it is exactly the same kind of thing.

Anyway that announcement prompted Adrian Dix, the leader of the opposition socialist NDP, to say this, and we kid you not, this is an exact quote:

The change will be a major inconvenience to some customers, and is the kind of thing ICBC can get away with only because the Crown agency has a monopoly on basic insurance and drivers can’t take their business elsewhere, said NDP critic Adrian Dix.

“What they are doing is making things harder for their customers and clearly, given what they say the fees are, a lot of their customers were using this method of payment,” Dix said.

Of course the “they” that Dix refers to is his own party’s state-owned, state-run monopoly behemoth, which he calls a “Crown agency”perhaps because “state-owned and state-run” sounds too North Korean; and it is one which, according to himself, “makes things harder for customers.”

But if you’re waiting for the part where the Vancouver Sun reporter, Rob Shaw, laughed out loud and demanded in Karl_Marx_thought-bubble-no-competition!disbelief that the socialist leader revisit what the frick he just said about it being a government operation and there being no competition in the marketplace, you’ll be waiting a long time. No such questions were asked by the reporter. No remark about it whatsoever. Apparently it was all good. Perfectly acceptable.

Unbelievable. It should have been the feature part of the article. There should be a 2-page investigative analysis about the BS that is the NDP (and their own shoddy reporting, but yeah…).  This kind of reporting, this kind of intellectual dishonesty, and lying, and lying by omission, is why low-information Sun_re_ICBC-2015-11-10_075713voters vote for the NDP or Liberals, so why would the Left ever start to do things any differently?

While we’re on this left-wing politician/media cabal-fest, note how the liberal-left’s media division, like the socialist NDP itself, absolutely forbid the use of the proper terminology, which is “state-owned” and/or “state-run,” to describe the left-wing monstrosity in question. Aside from “corporation” and “Crown agency,” they also whitewash it with crap like “the public auto insurer.”


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): BC, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

CCPA – a socialist advocacy group, offers socialist classroom propaganda – with the aid of teachers union

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (where the “Alternative” they speak of is actually socialism, but they purposely don’t say it out loud because they’re Fabian socialists) is touting socialist “climate justice” propaganda for teachers to use in CCPA-logotheir classrooms.

Seriously.

This indoctrination scheme was created in concert with the far-left BC Teachers Federation, which, as anybody who has been paying attention knows, is nothing short of a militant left-wing public-sector union division of the socialist NDP in Canada. (I don’t think even they would deny that description – in fact they might wear it proudly.)

Let’s be completely clear: The CCPA is an overtly socialist political advocacy group, as we see it in our sane, eyes-wide-open minds. 512px-Red_stylized_fist.svgThey hilariously claim not to be a political group, but all they do is advocate for transformation of our nation – its economy and its entire social policy, and its politics generally, to that of a socialist nation. They use all the code-words of the extreme left: aside from the aforementioned “alternative” there is “progressive,” “social justice” and “climate justice,” and “redistribution” (of wealth), and they constantly stress “equality” in all things including incomes and wealth. In case you haven’t been paying attention for the last 20 years, these concepts are literally the language of the extreme-left – the socialist.

Here’s an excerpt from their email sent out this morning in which they glibly prattle on about a new socialist indoctrination of our kids in our public schools, under the glorious heading of “Lessons for Transformation” – by which they mean the socialist revolution they are pursuing and want your children to pursue:

Climate Justice in BC: Lessons for Transformation

Since 2007, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Climate Justice Project has been researching the two great inconvenient truths of our time: climate change and rising inequality.

In order to address these problems, however, we need to ensure that they’re well understood by all British Columbians. That’s why we’ve designed a curriculum for students in grades 8–12, which explores climate justice within the context of BC’s communities, history, economy and ecology.

Today, together with the BC Teachers’ Federation, we’re proud to launch teachclimatejustice.ca, which offers free classroom-ready materials, developed by teacher Ryan Cho. The lessons—which are divided into eight modules—tie into subject matter and prescribed learning outcomes (PLOs) already in BC’s curriculum, while providing a framework to unpack modern social and environmental issues, such as our industrial food system, consumerism and waste, transportation, and the development of a green economy.

So if you’re a teacher looking to include climate justice concepts into your classes, a student hoping to learn more about sustainability and equality, a parent who wants to equip your children with the skills to meaningfully address the important issues of our time, or a community member interested in a healthier and better-informed democracy – this is for you.

Visit teachclimatejustice.ca to check out the curriculum.

When you check out the “lesson plans,” or what sane people would call their socialist propaganda and indoctrination, you find passages like this, which the teachers are instructed to read aloud to the children:

In short, to achieve sustainability with justice we will have to deliberately scale back the global economy (or at least reduce the throughput of energy and material) and consider means to redistribute ecological and economic wealth at national and local levels. … We do not face a technological challenge so much as a challenge of finding the political will to make change.

So yeah, this isn’t about socialist politics advocacy at all. For our children. In our public schools.

The various pages of the “lesson plan” are replete with links to other left-wing and far-left resource web sites, including those that warn the kids about the nefarious “deniers” – their word. You know who they are – they’re the “conservatives” – again, their word. “Deniers” is, as we all know, a politically-charged – and frankly fascist – term for people who aren’t buying into the “man-made global warming” theory’s hype. The message that these “deniers” put forth are variously described at this linked web site as “counterfactual denialist/hoax message[s].”  I’m not hoaxing you, folks! They teach the kids how to disarm “right-wingers” – yup, “right-wingers”  – and commentators “on Fox News,” when they dare to speak up about their skepticism regarding the man-made global warming hoax. Oh sorry I meant theory.

Who exactly is in charge of the curriculum in the classroom? Socialists at the CCPA and the extreme, militant-left BC Teachers Federation? Is this propaganda and left-wing indoctrination seriously allowed to occur? Is there no law against this? Is this the only remaining area upon which big, huge progressive governments haven’t yet slapped a massive regulatory and policy requirement regime and bureaucratic oversight?

Alas, as with so much of what we see in our daily lives in this country, which isn’t socialist enough for the CCPA and teachers and other extreme-leftists, we see this logo among others at the bottom of their indoctrination plans’ “funders” page:

Canada-gov-science-logo

It’s not enough that the CCPA and the unions are tax-exempt “charities”, but taxpayers further encourage socialism by directly funding this sort of crap.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Militant left-wing BC teachers union advocates against Canada’s military recruiting

Math, science, and actively advocating against joining the Canadian military? Well yes, and “man-made global warming,” and business is bad, government is good, and socialism is the way to go, and unions are the best, and its for the kids, etc. Also LGBQT of course — that other stuff is only if there’s time.

512px-Red_stylized_fist.svgFeatured as one of their “Lesson Ideas” on their union web site (in their “Social Justice” section, like good leftists), they suggest the teachers in the classroom teach our sons and daughters a load of left-wing propaganda points, including advocating against Canada’s national military defense and opposing any recruitment efforts; urging that kids act as spies and “inform” on the Canadian military to the appropriate authorities (teachers and their militant left-wing union) should they witness any recruitment efforts by our evil Canadian military defense.

Ask your local to pass a motion opposing recruiting in the schools.
Ask your board to pass a motion opposing recruiting in the schools.
Encourage industry and workers in your community to resist military contracts, and ask local politicians to work with you on this. Take this issue to your labour council as well.
• Let teachers know to inform the union and/or your social justice committee when they see recruiters in the schools.
Let students know to inform teachers when they are approached by recruiters.
• Ensure that students are being informed of every side of the story about current events, Afghanistan, and the statistics about military casualties, liabilities, and suicides.
• Support counter-recruitment messages and programs in schools.
• Make materials available to teachers in your local to help counter-recruiting messages.
Go to the Operation Objection website for kits: www.operationobjection.org
• Call in to television and radio, and write to your local papers to counter military propaganda.

Whose side on they on? Obviously not our national defense.

Their ironically militant left-wing anti-Canadian propaganda materials includes this helpful poster, designed to raise all manner of questions and cast a negative shadow with regard to joining our national military defense effort.

BCTF-anti-recuitment-poster-2014-06-17-(575px)

But as you saw with their own printed words, they’re not merely be altruistic here. They’re casting aspersions, planting the seeds of doubt, and hoping to discourage our young people from joining the Canadian Forces. They want to arm our youth not with guns, but with left-wing propaganda. Al-Qaeda loves it when we do that.

BCTF union boss. It's for the kids

BCTF union boss. It’s for the kids. Wink.

That makes the BCTF anti-military and against the defense of our country. How else can you describe “Encourage industry and workers in your community to resist military contracts“? They want to actively ensure that our military fails  —  starved of supply and equipment. Food. Medical supplies. Gas masks.

How can you describe them asking that union locals and school boards oppose military recruitment efforts? They don’t want people to join the military. So it fails. And we have no effective defense.

Let students know to inform teachers when they are approached by recruiters.” They want your kids to act as militant leftists on the union’s behalf. Little soldiers for their far-left extremist cause.

Support counter-recruitment messages and programs in schools“? Huh? Why? They want our military to be as ineffective as possible in defending Canada and its interests.

Who are these people?

What country is this?

Who thinks like that?

Why are they even remotely allowed to do this?

I suppose it’s no real surprise that a far-left militant union, deeply ensconced in socialist politics, would act in this way. It’s a free country and they can be as extremist as they want to be (thanks to our military and sane people who support a national defense). They can be as loony as they want, and be as ostracized as they will be. That’s their problem  —  or at least it should be. But these people are public servants. Being paid by your tax dollars and mine. These people are working against you. They’re aiding the enemy more than Canada with this anti-Canadian propaganda.

I could not find any teaching “resources” like the one above, advocating teaching the students about the radical Islamist jihadist threat. Nor about the failings of socialism/communism. Nor about the benefits of free enterprise and free markets and freedom generally. No, they only advocate for far-left nonsense like destroying our Canadian Forces.

Are these teachers? Or left-wing propagandists?

Whatever they are, I’m the exact opposite. I strongly support the military  —  all military. I’m a normal conservative Canadian.

CANADIAN FORCES RECRUITMENT
Call 1-800-856-8488 to reach a recruitment center in your community.
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/applynow-100


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): BC, Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

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:

Toronto_Star_logo
“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.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen, Ontario Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

GREAT DAY: CBC cuts more staff; ends sports bidding. Alas, I call BS.

For years I’ve said it was egregious that a state-owned, taxpayer-funded media existed at all, in a modern, free country. A government is essentially competing against its own citizens. What a disgrace. How embarrassing. 

But using taxpayer cash to bid for the rights to NHL hockey and Olympics broadcasts, in competition against citizen-owned Sell the CBCbroadcasters was, to me, off side. It reeks of socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, and lots of other nasty isms.

Today the CBC announced that because of their loss of the NHL broadcast rights to Rogers this year, and the resulting decrease in ad revenues from that loss, they’re quitting the business of bidding for sports rights altogether. Finally.

“As of today, CBC and Radio Canada out of the business of competing with the private (broadcasters) for professional sports,” said Hubert Lacroix, in a corporate-wide town hall with employees.

But it’s not as if it’s a shocking newly found point of free-market or capitalist principle for them. Like they suddenly “got” freedom and free markets and democracy. Far from it. 

 

For example, if they think “competing with the private (broadcasters) for professional sports” is so bad, why not quit the news business for the same reasons? Why compete against CTV, Global, Sun News, local stations, and news web sites?  On what basis can they justify continuing to compete against citizens and private broadcasters in that realm, if it’s so wrong to “compete with the private (broadcasters) for professional sports?”

And what about the giant web site business the state-owned CBC operates? That’s a huge behemoth which competes against privately-owned web sites, not just for visitors, but for discussion, for their own advocacy (the CBC’s is left-wing), and for ad revenue. Competing with the private web site owners  —  many of which are individual Canadians, not corporations  —  is even more egregious than competing against privately-owned broadcast companies. Using my own tax dollars to compete again me? Yeah in what kind of country do they do that?

And manifestly, why doesn’t the CBC quit altogether?  The whole enterprise competes against the private sector, in every single media sector it barfs on. I mean if it’s based on the same principle as its competition for sports broadcasts, by logical extension it means they must quit altogether.

So clearly, it’s not a decision based on principle.  It’s based on getting their butt whacked and trying to get as much sympathetic attention as possible. Their new policy of not bidding on sports is more a troll move, than anything. And it’s not really forever, either. Don’t let them trick you into believing them. This policy, let me assure you, will last only until they get another liberal-left government elected  —  which is something they strive to do, every day, all day long.

For years I’ve said that state-owned media should be banned in this country, and stop competing against private citizens. My go-to lines are “What kind of government competes against its own citizens?” And “state-owned media should be banned in this country, and that notion enshrined in our constitution.”

 I still say it today. Nothing has really changed. 

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Far-left CCPA’s swank-fest: featuring CBC employee & former Parl Budget Officer Kevin Page

The far-left “think tank” called Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (wherein, as I’ve documented over the years, the so-called “alternative” is actually full-on socialism, but they’re too unctuous and opaque to just admit it), is having their annual “gala” shindig next month.  I’m invited!

It costs $90 each. You know, so the middle-class  —  sorry I think they call them “working families”  —  and single moms and the working poor can easily afford it, if I understand their notion of the “middle class” and “working families” and working poor correctly. The socialist advocacy group is not holding it in some swanky downtown hotel, but rather in an industrial area of Vancouver. Here’s a picture  —  it’s to the right of the collision repair place. Looks good and “working class,” right?

Fraserview_Hall-2014-02-27(550px)

But just as with the CCPA’s name, there is an “alternative” reality here. Have a look at the inside. It’s no Trump Plaza, but see how the new “middle class” or “working class” and single moms and working poor attendees all suffer together as a community under crystal chandeliers and silken table cloths and fine china and silverware settings and crystal wine glasses with hardwood dance floors and a deluxe video and sound systems? “Raise the wage!”

Fraserview_Hall-IMG_5098(550)

Featured speaker? Kevin Page, the former taxpayer-paid Parliamentary Budget Officer. I’m not saying this says anything about his political leanings, but personally, I would not speak at a far-left rally. No matter what job I have or had. Ever.

Kevin Page

Kevin Page

Charles Demers

Charles Demers

The emcee? A patron of… guess who! The state-owned, taxpayer-paid CBC. Charles Demers, whose Twitter account profile reads like this: “Comedian; Author; Shrill Leftist; Creative Writing teacher; CBC’s The Debaters.

Strangely not at all strangely, the CCPA is sneaky here too. Here’s their description of Demers in their email to me, in which they leave out “Shrill Leftist,” together with “Creative Writing Teacher”:

“…Charles Demers—comedian, writer, and regular on CBC Radio’s The Debaters…”

A teacher and left-wing CBC’er coming to the aid of a another far-left-wing organization? That’s not new. Funniest line in Demers’ Twitter timeline?

So the CCPA does another head-fake, this time presenting the alternative reality that having this CBCer as an emcee is a new thing this year.

Wikipedia entry for state-owned CBC’s The Debaters?

CBC_The_Debaters-2014-02-27_104428

I watched some video episodes of The Debaters, and found them to be exactly like the rest of the state-owned CBC. Asinine.  Here’s a line from the host of one episode of The Debaters, or Masturbators, or whatever they call themselves over there at the state-owned CBC, Steve Patterson:

CBC_Orb“It’s our celebration of CBC’s 75th anniversary! Yeah! That’s right! But CBC looks pretty good for 75, dontchathink? [tepid applause]  I think it looks like a ‘MILF’.”

Let me pause at this point in the taxpayer-paid CBC excitement, to explain to you what a “MILF” is, especially for those of you who aren’t regularly engaged in pig-like smut-talk and aren’t engaged in CBC’s apparent war against women.   According to pigs, assholes, and as described in Wikipedia, “MILF” stands for this:

MILF-2014-02-27_110001

The CBC anchor then went on to say:

CBC_Orb“Or as the Conservatives call her, ‘Mother I’m Loathe To Fund’.” [tepid audience laughter]

 

So will I attend? Yeah I might because $90 each is totally affordable for a conservative like me and my wife even after the mass-transit fares for the 2-hour bus trip to get there (a few miles away), and of course the sitter for our family of unicorns.

If you’re thinking of going, don’t forget this:

Thank you for your support. Tax receipts will be issued in early 2015 for a portion of the ticket price and the full amount of any donation.

Your tax dollars at work.

Vote liberal.

 


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, CBC, CBC Lewdity Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

Trudeau Liberals: the National Central Planning Politburo

It’s Liberal Party convention time! Yay! Time to point and laugh as we try to find out what they’re made of, since nobody in Canada knows what in tarnation they stand for or what their agenda is. (But don’t Liberal_L-buttonworry, there’s no “hidden agenda”).

Sadly, their real agenda once again proves allusive, even as they formally embrace what even liberals and other leftists reveal as ardently socialist policy.

As if confirming the warning I’ve been making for years, the Liberals have practically announced to the world that they are the same; full of nothing but poll-driven, specious platitudes. Moreover, betraying themselves as nothing but another left-wing party, perfectly suited to the name Socialist Party, or for more practical purposes, NDP. But they won’t actually come out and admit it. So we just have to guess.

Andrew Coyne of the National Post says this about that, more or less (bear in mind the Liberals are Coyne’s baby. He voted for the Liberals last go-round):

This is not a “new” or “reinvented” Liberal party; it is not even the centrist party of recent memory. From the evidence of the convention, it is an almost parodically left-wing party…

… A small sample of the resolutions before the convention (almost all of those proposed to date have passed) would include: a National Transportation Strategy, a National Energy Strategy, a National Grid Strategy, a National Manufacturing Strategy, several National Andrew CoyneStrategies for Childhood Development, a National Framework for Mental Health, a National Action Plan on Disability, a National Water Policy, a National Pharmacare Program, a National Youth Jobs Strategy, a Science-based Innovation Strategy and a Transformative Canadian Infrastructure Investment Plan. This last was undersigned by the Liberal caucus, which means Mr. Trudeau, and leaves no doubt that it would entail a great deal of additional public borrowing: 1% of GDP, or $20-billion a year.

There’s more where that came from. The Liberals would reverse the Tories’ modest cuts to Employment Insurance and Old Age Security. They’d expand the Canada Pension Plan. They’d build a high-speed rail line from Quebec City to Windsor. They’d add a Department of Climate Change, a Secretary of State for Water, a “government institution for peace.” There’s a call for a “thorium policy,” a “moratorium on neonicotonoids,” a cap on credit card interest rates, and gender quotas on corporate boards — although in fairness I should report that a proposal that campaigning politicians should receive EI payments was defeated, as was a quite insane plan to tax companies more heavily the fewer people they employed. …

Even Coyne shouldn’t be as surprised as he seems. Just exactly a year ago he wrote this in the aftermath of their electing Justin Trudeau as their fearful leader:

Even those candidates offering more traditional Liberal policy fare — increasingly indistinguishable from the NDP’s…

Duncan Cameron, of the far-left Rabble.ca website  —  the most left-wing web site even more left than the state-owned and taxpayer-funded CBC.ca website (talk about parodical)  —  said this as his opening line this week:

The policy resolutions for the Liberal Party of Canada convention later this week in Montreal read like material the New Democratic Party would debate.

Suggested Liberal Party logo. Perhaps the NDP could discuss it.

Suggested Liberal Party logo. Perhaps the NDP could discuss it with them (in private).

Actually, I think they read like just about any page from Soviet-era Pravda. And I really don’t think the NDP would go as far left as the liberals seems to now be going, since the NDP incessantly, nefariously, sheepishly cowers, in public anyway, from their inherent socialism. (Have you ever heard an NDP-er speak in favor of socialism? Yet that is their constitution.) You have to wonder if the Liberals have uncovered some bizarre and maladjusted focus group testing that the NDP hasn’t, indicating that air-headed socialism and Soviet-style central planning tests well in some voter-rich constituencies.

As I’ve said all along, it’s not the Conservatives who have a so-called “hidden agenda,” it’s the other parties  —  including their media division  —  who all do. Again with Coyne from a year ago, after electing Trudeau as leader:

…the Liberal Party of Canada prepares to transform itself into a personality cult. Anything but define itself. Anything but choose.

They’re still not admitting what their agenda is today, at least in plain English. But thankfully I speak socialist. Allow me to translate: it is an agenda for a centrally-planned progressive, socialist Canada.

They can keep hiding it all they want. I’d just like it of their media divisions were forced, finally, to come clean and admit that the agenda they’re covering, is in fact being covered-up. Hidden.


Contact the Editor: Joel Johannesen
**Link to this article alone **

Tags: , , , ,

Posted under the categories(s): Canada, Joel Johannesen Joel Johannesen on TwitterFollow Joel Johannesen on Twitter

"ProudToBeCanadian."
It's a question.