More Unproductive Racial Nonsense From The Mainstream Media

It's a marvel how this got past an editor. Either they're cynical and have an axe to grind or it's a reflection of the sorry state of modern media.

Consider:

"100 times a white actor played someone who wasn’t white

Hollywood has moved on from blackface, but it remains terrible at casting people of color."

Author:

Meredith Simons is a law student and freelance writer in Durham, North Carolina.

 Ah.

Rubbish.

I bet you she didn't do a basic research into the story of Al Jolson. Instead, it's much easier to fall back on the 'blackface was racist' meme to match a contemporary narrative. In fact, if she had done a substantial recount of each of those films I'm betting her premise would fall about pretty quickly because choices are made for a reason.  

Other than that, I doubt she has much of a problem with Jews and Italians playing each other; as was the case with Arthur Fonzarelli the hopelessly cool Sicilian greaser from Happy Days played by Henry Winkler - who has since traded in his leather jacket for cardigans. Or that a black actress is playing the part of Marty Maraschino in Grease Live.

See, I do kinda have a problem with that. 

Grease is based on Italians. Mess with that you mess with the essence of the story. It's not a 'rework to fit the times' crap. It's let's mess with established character to fit a narrative.

Should we recast the ethnicity of movies that reflected the times? For example, the Puerto Ricans in West Side Story? Maybe Italian mobsters can be Romanian? Why not make Bruce Wayne a trans-gender who didn't benefit from white privilege? Oh, I got an idea, let's make the awesome Shaft a spunky Korean! 

Hey, let's fuck up and rewrite ALL OF WESTERN LITERATURE - POP OR CLASSICAL because fairness and diversity! 

Look, I'm just pointing out that two can play this obsessive and ridiculous game progressives engage in. It's right out of the class/race warfare Marxism playbook and all that critical theory bull shit.

I bet Ms. Simons thought she had come up with something unique but in fact is pedantic in its usual search for finding racism in all places.

Other than that, The Washington Post commenters exhibit more free thinking than what I see at The New York Times as they're having none of this nonsense.

APB On Skeptical Eye

The thing about blogging is fine blogs come and go sometimes closing down with fair warning (Man of Roma, Zeus is Watching never to be heard from again) and others (to many to name or recall) just simply vanish without a trace. Such seems to be the case with Nik from Skeptical Eye. If anyone knows anything what happened please let me know.

Yet, here I am. Still standing.

Like a cockroach.

 

Why Do Academics Lean Useful Idiots?

Why do academics and artists always seem to side with the wrong side? Recall how many sucked communist or socialist cock in the 20th century.

The latest childish trend among academics across the West is to call for the boycott of Israel products and universities.

Let me see if I get this straight. Israel, despite all odds, has carved itself out a stable democracy in a sea of absolute Arab chaos. They provide rights and freedom to ALL its citizens including gay Arabs.

It has a successful and vibrant business class and has produced a functional government.

Yet it is the pariah of the UN and left-wing academics and politicians because of the 'occupation'.

It's become a comical thing to watch really.

By contrast, Europe has taken more than it can chew by taking millions of 'refugees' and already we're seeing the problems this is creating. Just google and watch how the elites in Germany, Sweden and Norway are handling it while standing pretty much at odds with their own citizens on the issue.

I think Europe has bigger problems to attend than fricken Israel.

Count me in as one who has little regard for all academics and institutions that sign their shitty little petitions. 

Fucking anti-semites.

More Saturday Winter Music

Holly and the Italians. Yeh, baby.

Saturday Afternoon Winter Music

Ooh baby, Van Morrison and Ray Charles team up singing this Morrison gem:




Here's the original:

Wine Consumption Statistics

World per capita consumption of wine.

The Vatican leads all nations with 54.26 liters. 

42.50 for France and Italy clocks in at 33.30.

In North America consumption unsurprisingly drops considerably. Canadians drink 14.75 while the USA (despite California vineyards) drinks less at 10.25. Canada's consumption, largely driven by Alberta (though Quebec spends more in total dollars), has been on the rise for a few years now.

As for grape varieties, Americans like Chardonnay and White Zindfandel (they really need to work on that).

Personally, since I couldn't find stats for Canadians (surprise) so I'll act as a barometer, I like cabernet sauvignon, pinot grigio, nebbiolo and syrah. Sangiovese (which makes up 70% of Chianti).

Canada Is Pipelines, Pipelines Is Canada

"Hockey is Canada, Canada is hockey." Canadiana folk motto. 

The fight to prevent oil pipeline projects in Canada overlooks one major reality about the economy in this country. As pointed out in other posts, the main focus has always been the extraction and export or natural resources and little else. It's a problematic approach that has been a feature of many debates for decades. Indeed,  littered throughout our history are warnings from economists, politicians, diplomats and general observant Canadians whether they be academics, journalists or amateurs that if we don't diversify our economy we will be condemned to our mercantilist mentality.

When seen from abroad, the image of Canada is that of a frontier town and our neo-mercantlism doesn't help to improve on this.

We made our bed and don't seem to want to lie in it. We just want to be accepted because 'we're Canada'.

Economist and politician Eric Kierans pointed out in the 1980s, "...Canada's interests are being poorly served by maintaining the pretense that we are a leading industrial power. We are not. We will never develop the set if strong domestic policies needed to give us control over the directions of our economy until we accept that fact. Neither Japan nor Europe nor the United States has any intention of helping Canada to become an industrial power. These three industrial giants are each fully capable of supplying a whole range of manufactured products, cars, television, steel, radios, capital equipment, tools and so on, to world markets. Canada's manufacturing potential is neither needed nor will it be welcomed in a world that is moving, despite all protestations, toward increasing protectionism. As these three powers divide the world into industrial spheres of influence, Canada's role will be the supplier of raw materials and energy resources."

And that's that. Blunt but still accurate. Natural resources nationalists here who rail that the Americans - with the usual, pedantic anti-American blathering rants - will come after our water still haven't realized we don't have much choice in the matter. Never have. We chose this path. Such is the impossibility having been born out of the bosom of one great power (Great Britain) and attempting to carve a nation while living next to the greatest power in all of history the United States. It's like we never had a chance.

When it comes to pipelines, whenever activists manage to convince politicians to kill them, they in effect hurt the essence of our economy. It's not like we can fall back on other industries to pick up the slack until a more politically expedient time to build them. We don't have an economy remotely closed to the gargantuan American economy. They can afford to play games given the stature and wealth they possess.

It's an unfortunate thing to have happen (to be fair we did try at different intervals in the past but competing with the United States and its immense economies of scale and general talent for business was always an obstacle sometimes too difficult to overcome) to this nation that despite accesss to the greatest nation in human history we haven't really done much with the comparative advantages at our disposal. We prefer to engage in reactionary anti-Americanism rather than use it to our benefit. We take American capital, buy American machines but still act as though we're doing them a favor.

Kierans notes, "Canada's tariff policy of 1879 was a national policy, although it turned out to be counterproductive. Infant industry protectionism can be made to work if it is accompanied by strong industry creation, as the policies of both the United States and Germany have shown. But Canada failed to create the industries that the tariff was designed to protect, and so the foreign investment and the branch plants took over."

And the rest is history. It's also worth noting Otto von Bismarck's quip, "free trade is the policy of the strong'.

It's a mindset I've always felt we need to change but stubbornly refuse to.

A similar thing happened to our culture. We're a country still in the process of 'searching' for itself. It's a unique phenomena we don't see in the United States. This is so largely because we never really were able to establish values that bind us as a nation-state. Sure, we had some political symbols but nothing that distinguished us. Perhaps this is why we appropriated and incorporated in our value bank things like 'universal health care'. It always struck me as a bit of stretch to do so given we didn't exactly invent the concept and nor is it something all Canadians necessarily agree with. Other symbols that have come to characterize Canada like "multiculturalism" are also fleeting and strike me as superficial. The United States is the most diverse nation in human history having absorbed and assimilated more people than any country without such policies. Quite frankly, if given the choice I would choose the latter. It's more real.

Canada is a member of the G8 by virtue of its partnership with the United States. On our own, however,  I don't think we can claim to truly be a refined and mature economy like our G8 partners.

This is why, practically, realistically and pragmatically it's paramount we don't hinder and hamper our chances at prosperity which runs through our pipelines.

Obama Moves To Double Down On Stupidity

"The Obama administration will move on Friday to require companies to report to the federal government what they pay employees by race, gender and ethnicity, part of a push by President Obama to crack down on firms that pay women less for doing the same work as men."

This. This is horrific.

This guy can't leave office fast enough. With each passing bad idea it gives ideas to other places, like Canada - where we tend to import bad ideas from the United States.

 

Quebec's Fabricated Risk: Ignore At Your Own Risk

This thing with L'Office de Langue Francaise may seem like a good idea to a few Quebecers but in this day and age of social media, it only gets exposed for what it is: Attack on a language.

It's mind-boggling how Quebec condones an entity that has the power to inflict punitive measures (in the form of a fine and perhaps more) on businesses who dare put up stickers in one language.

It's obscene really.

Excuses and justifications, of course, abound but none satisfy this liberty minded individual. A buddy of mine keeps telling me many countries have all sorts of language laws. Yes they do.

But NONE take it a step further like Quebec given they hand out fines. How is this remotely fair?

It's not.

I keep asking him to produce me one jurisdiction in the West; never mind North America where one language group is made to be suppressed like it is here. Name me one.

More importantly and esoterically, the irony here is Quebec linguistic nationalists point to being mistreated by Anglos in the past ergo this somehow makes good on the present situation. Kind of a tit-for-tat if you will. It remains a mystery to me how two wrongs can make a right for when you reverse back the argument and ask if they'd like to be visited by a language police in this manner knowing they can be fined you immediately know in their eyes the answer.

Civility of any kind is a two-way street. That the OLF's letters are polite is bull shit; it's a veiled threat. It's a form of 'don't forget where you are and keep your place maudit anglais.

Hey, I'm just writing what people feel and observe on this side of the coin. 

In any event, I don't give a shit about the rest of the West. Europe at this point is a gigantic mess I wouldn't take any advice from and this sort of nonsense would not pass in the United States or even in the rest of Canada. Apparently feeling insecure is good enough reason to harass free, taxpaying citizens.

This is one way to create ill-feeling between people. Quebec, unfortunately, is just not being wise on this matter.

All I see is the aggression of the state empowering one portion of the population to make second-class another.

***

About the brain drain.

We hear about Quebec being a place where outflow of talent is more than the intake.

Studies have been made but none really dismiss or debunk the perception we lose more than we take in. Simply observation and assessment of the city landscape, the news and grass roots dialog seem to point that way.

One method I use is measuring how many people I know are still here. Between my wife and me, half (that's 50%) of friends are gone. The number is anywhere between 25% and 50% with other people we meet. And it's growing. I've lost count at how many I talk to who want to leave. Some would already be gone if not for hard assets here. We fall in this category but there is a family discussion about this. Do we sell and start new elsewhere? The impulse is there that's for sure.

There is a diaspora and it's real. French media doesn't report it but we do. Ignore at your own risk Quebec.

While fester and obsess over stupidities like the word pasta and Trip Advisor stickers, smart people are leaving - including French-Canadians. There are consequences to all actions that impact people however small.

Why fabricate more problems? 

Attracting talent is a peculiar thing. Among jurisdictions, it's highly competitive and various businesses and whole industries carefully weight and choose their options of where they want to do business. Individual talent with skills also have the luxury of selecting where they want to work. Added to this invisible process not easily quantified is the ease people can pack, pick up and go in a heartbeat. All it takes is one irritant and off they go. Stuff like this doesn't help the cause.

People talk. Shoot, just in my circle of American friends who are employed in mobile industries do not reckon Quebec as a place to go. They all say the same thing and to the effect, 'nice to visit but I could not accept if I was put in that position. It's already tough as it is to run businesses undo added costs are not welcomed.'

With that, there's no doubt in my mind Quebec has a double-whammy against it - and we know this to be fact in hockey when it comes to attracting top free-agents (when was the last true super star to come here again?) - one are the taxes and two is the language issue. Not to mention the threat of separation.

On both counts, Quebec loses. It's not choosing a creative path to attracting talent; though I this point unless there's a massive mentality shift away from nationalist tendencies, I don't think it's going to get better. Which is why my wife and I have taken the concerted decision to slowly prepare for our daughter's move. I simply don't see a future here.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty good at gauging things.  Quebec doesn't do business well in my view. In fairness, I do see positive changes here and there (particularly what I read from the CFIB who represent small-business in Canada) but it's not enough.

But T.C. plenty of places experiences brain-drains! This is true but most of those places don't have the immense advantages we have. There's no excuse for Montreal to have become second-fiddle here in Canada to the point it will and can never challenge Toronto again.

Look, I know nationalists claim this sort of argument is 'Quebec-bashing' but to me, it's anything but. In fact, I choose to view it as pro-Quebec. As a taxpaying member outside 'Quebec Inc.' I see things the flock doesn't necessarily want to see. And what I see is Quebec approaching things like language all wrong.

We want to continue on this track, fine. Alas, it doesn't take a mass exodus to negatively impact an economy; it just takes a small bit (minorities have more power than one may think) of a skilled class to leave a mark.

Welcome to Quebec.

True Enlightenment Is Giving The Middle Finger To Busy Bodies

I read the other day the richest busy body nanny this side of Suckit Ave., Michael Bloomberg is considering throwing his intrusive butt into the Presidential race as an Independent.

He can do whatever he wants but I hope he fails. What society doesn't need is another control freak telling people what to do.

I have, as you can tell, a problem with people who think they can deal with our vices and virtues through the punitive measures enforced and coerced by the state.

There's nothing caring or compassionate in that shitty way of thinking. In fact, banning, fining and arresting people for things run afoul of the state and subsequently outlawed is barbaric. It's stupid. It's ignorant. Nor do I accept it's forward or progressive thinking. Indeed, this silliness should be rejected outright.

It not only creates a class of victims and felons of otherwise usually productive and law-abiding people but it creates black markets because people will search out what they want.

Simple as that.

So why does the government consistently and constantly look to punish people instead of considering far more enlightened and wise approaches?

Personally, whenever I see someone utter the contemptible words 'the government oughta ban' I ignore them outright - along with a sense to want to punch them in the nose.

So nice of you to worry about the next guy. It's never about your interest but always about serving another persons interest.

All these laws strip people of their moral agency and hand added, unnecessary powers and stress on the bureaucracy.

Banning sugar or salt, taxing sodas (who wants to bet none of these measures will have an impact on obesity; itself a misunderstood health issue) and cigarettes, keeping marijuana illegal etc. - all things people have always consumed and will always consume whether illegal or not - usually has the opposite effect of what bureaucrats aim for - this is a reality we've come to observe it almost because an axiom of life; a natural law if you will.

Have the decency and strength to accept you can't change things and no matter how over-zealous that little Angelic voice is in your brain, it's best to recall the only power you will have is to make a mess.

The best and only way to deal with vices is to educate, legalize and manage where voluntary action is permitted to over take coercive measures. That's true compassion; enlightenment. It's the best way to show you care.

I don't expect Bloomberg and his ilk to come around to this point of view but the best way is for us who have to deal with the results and unintended consequences unleashed is to keep bringing the point up. 

It's not like we have guns or the power to levy fines to enforce, right?

Big Boom Baffles Astronomers

"Records are made to be broken, as the expression goes, but rarely are records left so thoroughly in the dust. Stunned astronomers have witnessed a cosmic explosion about 200 times more powerful than a typical supernova—events which already rank amongst the mightiest outbursts in the universe—and more than twice as luminous as the previous record-holding supernova. 

At its peak intensity, the explosion—called ASASSN-15lh—shone with 570 billion times the luminosity of the Sun. If that statistic does not impress, consider that this luminosity level is approximately 20 times the entire output of the 100 billion stars comprising our Milky Way galaxy."

"...The record-breaking blast is thought to be an outstanding example of a "superluminous supernova," a recently discovered, supremely rare variety of explosion unleashed by certain stars when they die. Scientists are frankly at a loss, though, regarding what sorts of stars and stellar scenarios might be responsible for these extreme supernovae."

Montreal Canadiens Reap What They Sow

I'm thoroughly enjoying the schadenfreude moment being experience by the Montreal Canadiens.

In my view, they deserve everything they get. 

From the discriminatory hiring policy to how the organization disgustingly treated former head coach Randy Cunneyworth.

The Habs have decided in their remarkable judgment that in order to coach their hallowed hockey team one must possess prior to working for them a proficient command of the French language. As if this isn't insulting enough, owner Geoff Molson claimed after announcing the hiring Michel Therrien 'no rock was left unturned' in finding the best possible candidate.

Huh. Given the language requirement, this makes mockery of the process. We all know rocks were left unturned. We all know the best coaches in the NHL don't speak French which immediately froze out people like Barry Trotz, Joel Quenneville, Mike Babcock and a few others. Did they Habs actually try to make us believe Therrien was the best option? I didn't believe it then and certainly don't believe it then.

It's unfortunate to see people struggle but if Therrien (a decent NHL coach) was anything but French-Canadian, and I really hate to say it, he'd be gone by now. Coaches have been fired for much less. Shit, the Cleveland Cavaliers fired David Blatt who hired something like a .760 winning percentage! Some organizations are incorrigible and Cleveland seems to attract its fair share.

I digress.

The language nonsense is toxic enough, again from where I sit, it permitted the media and management to mistreat Cunneyworth like I've rarely seen in sports and for an organization that considers itself and is perceived around the hockey world to be classy, that was a low point. It was anything but classy.

The Montreal Canadiens are fricken hockey team. Not a political and cultural symbol attached to a people as proclaimed. This is nationalist nonsense. As a sports business its sole objective is to make money and win. And you win by having the best resources at your disposal. 

All the Canadiens need to do is drop the pre-condition and simply ask a candidate 'are you willing to take French classes?' Simple and more importantly FAIR.

Those who choose not to, so be it. Those who do, well, you just expanded your talent pool to choose from. It's a simple tactic used in the most global of pro-sports: Soccer. No professional soccer team on the planet worth its salt hampers itself like the Habs do. But some do ask their coaches and players adapt to their surroundings to make their experience easier. Some clubs like AC Milan, provide all the resources necessary including language classes on their grounds for coaches and players to learn Italian as advised. Keep in mind, Milan does not make it a matter of policy since they don't have to as many of their candidates are willing to learn or already possess language skills. It's not uncommon - with the exception of English players - for most players of African origin or South Americans, as well as those of Belgian, Swiss, Serbian, Croatian, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, German, Italian or French descent to speak two or more languages. 

In some cases, clubs don't even bother and just hire the best as clubs in Austria, Germany and the Irish national side did when they hired the unilingual Giovanni Trappatoni.  

Of course, coaching is but one aspect of their problems (General Manager Marc Bergevin has much to answer for. A candidate, by the way, who was 4th - not 1st or 2nd - 4th on the Chicago Blackhawks depth chart. Hard to imagine the Habs getting Dean Lombardi or Stan Bowman here) but this particular issues doesn't help matters. Moreover, when they did have really good bilingual coaches as was the case with Alain Vigneault and Claude Julien (a winner everywhere he's gone including a Stanley Cup with the Boston Bruins), they fired them. 

As long as the Canadiens continue this superficial barrier to entry a myopic, parochial, discriminatory, unprofessional, stupid, inappropriate value system at its core, it will be condemned to a life of mediocrity more often than not.

The Habs are best to recall two words reminding of their sole goal and objective: WIN BABY.

Canada's Poor Military Record A Function Of An Overall Mind Set Above Partisan Politics

Much is being made about Canada's military decline and the overall general treatment of veterans during the Harper years. The topic serves as an interesting symbol for how Canadians deal with the military - as well as the economy - as it points to our national sovereignty.

Observing our sudden interest in the military strikes me as bizarre given Canadians never really were into its military to begin with. Who are we kidding? It's less to do with the military per se and more to do with piling on Harper; who to be fair does deserve criticism for his military legacy.

Soon after WWII Canada had one of the largest fleets in the world (remarkable given its population at the time) - albeit briefly - but it has since witnessed a slow, sad descent into nothingness. Military personnel, depending on the source, on average has gone from about 100 000 to around 62 000 today.

Liberal or Conservative this is not acceptable particularly when it comes to Canada wanting to exert its independence. Ironically, Harper made Arctic sovereignty - historically oft an overlooked part of Canadian policy - a key focus despite the dwindling number of military personnel. Apparently, a handful of Arctic Rangers made up mostly of Inuit/Dene staff is enough to fight off the Russians, Americans, Danes, Norwegians and Chinese all circling to claim various parts of the Arctic we consider ours. Only in Canada does this sort of immature and idealistic approach finds life. A serious government, people, and country would have constant military presence in the region.

The once proud Canadian military has but its heritage to look fondly on given there's not much to say about its present day state. Note, this is not to argue our military personnel are incompetent or incapable. On the contrary, by all accounts, we continue to produce well respected soldiers in spite of the system they operate in with all the budgetary constraints. It's not all that different with our medical practitioners. Few have any criticisms with our doctors and nurses. Rather, what we spiritedly discuss is the efficiency - or lack thereof - of the public health system.

But was the record under Harper as bad as claimed? In terms of keeping our armies equipped, the answer is no. In fact, it never was better according to Esprit de Corps - Canada's military magazine:

"Canada’s military that both the left and right can agree on, it would be that our military is bigger, better equipped and more operationally active under Harper. Whether it’s to dote on or denigrate our current prime minister, we all seem to accept Harper’s exuberant public affairs love-in with everything military as proof that our military has indeed grown stronger under our current Conservative government..."

"...It may come as a total surprise to many, but while the alleged peace-loving Trudeau was in power a total of 328 Canadian military personnel were killed in the line of duty. That is 135 more than the total number of casualties under Harper’s Conservatives."

Still, Harper has little to brag about given how poorly our veterans were treated. In any event, misguided perceptions abound when it comes to who treats our military better. In my view, it's less about a political party who happens to be in power and more to do with our over-arching prevailing view of the military as Canadians. It's not as bad or as good as each side claims is my point and the Esprit article above explains this well in detail.

The article - comparing Harper and Pierre Trudeau's military records - closes:

"So why is it important that we continue to make comparisons like this today? The reason is that politics is about perception — and the perception that Harper’s Conservatives have so successfully managed to create is that they are the only true and understanding “friend” of the military. This mistaken perception has been tacitly enabled by this country’s centre and left, who often refuse to realize that a viable defence posture can and should be part of their political platform.

If we blindly accept the mistaken belief that, under the Conservatives, we have supported and developed a stronger military, Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum will be far more accepting of any proposed defence cuts, believing that there actually is fat to cut.

There isn’t.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who never felt he needed to pander to the military to make himself look strong, may not be turning in his grave. But surely his legacy might well start screaming for a reality check."

Back in the 1990s, the over arching attitude from Canadians - be it in letters to the editors across the country, call-in talk shows, in private discussions etc. - was we didn't need to spend on the military. The reasons were usually a mix from the idealistic - ie not needing to because we're peaceful - to outright hostility - ie we can put that money into other areas like education and health. Note, to such people, apparently, all Canada comprised of was education and health. Add some 'we're not violent like Americans' nationalism and you get - presto! - an instant recipe for how to ignore (and demean: See Airborne Regiment) the military.

The fact is Canadians took its military responsibilities seriously under most administrations. Under Chretien Canada, for example, was perceived as a country not pulling its weight under NATO and not without its embarrassing controversies. The fight over who spends what and how is a bit of a trap as we never cracked 2% of GDP regardless of who was in power.

I suspect part of the reason is our complacency coupled with the notion we fall under the American satellite security apparatus. 

Notice, the two things that ensure mature sovereignty - military and economic (including natural resources. See blog post below) - have usually been the most maligned and debated over the years.

We're good at pointing the finger at the United States and internal partisan bickering but in the end, we all share this mediocre record.

Mini-Daily Derp

I actually have a long DD on the docket begun in December. But lemme get to this now:

I'm sure they'll return the favor if given the chance.

"A spokesman for Renzi did not immediately return a request for comment. A spokesman for the city of Rome, which manages the museum, said any decision regarding the ceremony with Rouhani and display of artwork had been made by the prime minister’s office.
The decision to cover the artwork was seen as a sign of respect for the Iranian president, according to the Italian news agency Ansa.
In another placatory gesture by Italian officials, alcohol was not served at an official dinner held in Rouhani’s honour, abiding by a standard diplomatic gesture for visiting Muslim dignitaries."

So much for "when in Rome..,"

What is it with people coming to Italy and their requests?

Remember when the Queen (Monarchs...pft) didn't want to eat spaghetti? Stay home then if you're going to show disrespect that way.

***

Government the ultimate competitor.

"...Governments that seek to restrict the supply of goods or services for which there is a market only serve to raise the price, and indirectly invite very daring and bold entrepreneurs to enter the market to source, transport and distribute the restricted and banned goods and services.”

"...The ultimate competitor seeks to infiltrate and disrupt all areas of their business activities, including telecommunications, computers, sales and transportation networks. Such action presents a challenge to the entrepreneurs of the unofficial economy, leaving only the most competent, most ruthless, and most humble to remain in business, as their earnings climb higher. The lessons of the challenge present the official economy with a valuable business model on the role of innovation to assure economic survival in the face of ruthless and uncompromising competition. Some of this innovation has recently become public knowledge."

***

"A 17-year-old girl who was physically and sexually attacked in Sønderborg will herself face charges for using pepper spray to fend off her assailant." 

It's immoral and anti-human to put all the onus on the victim if you ask me.

I wish I could say it was thankfully restricted to Europe but Canada has similar bull shit laws as do some U.S. states including - surprise - Massachusetts.

Here:

Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
- tear gas, mace or other gas, or
- any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.

Got that? Take your beating or else.

It's immoral and anti-human to put all the onus on the victim if you ask me - again.

***
 


"A Nepalese woman has defied science by living to the ripe old age of 112 — despite her 30-cigarette-a-day habit."

But has she "defied" science? Has it been established smoking causes cancer in 100% of the people 100% of the time?

Genetics is a bitch.

***

Rough year so far. RIP Frey, Bowie and Vigoda.

Canada Lacks Creativity

I shall admit to rethinking Trudeau's 'resources to resourcefulness' proclamation made at the World Economic Smuttit; yes, the word is a mix of 'smut' and 'summit'. I amuse myself.

The remark was effective enough for me to consider a feature - perhaps a bug - of the Canadian economic mindset.

There's a little more to this quote rooted in history than we think. Whether Trudeau knew this I can't say but it's irrelevant since he did say it because it points to our mechanical approach to economic policy as opposed to putting trust in our creativity. This languished position has left us rather anemic in such endeavors particularly when compared to our partners in the G8.

What do we mean by 'resourcefulness' exactly? Does it, as I unwittingly just posited, mean our inventive and creative side? Does it mean looking at a sand pit and envisioning a way to scoop up sand with machines of our inventions?

More to the point, Canada has oil but does it invent the machines and engineering techniques to extract and refine it? We have a military but do we exclusively build our own equipment (ships, planes, weapons, tech gadgets, communications devices etc.)to make us a strong standing partner among allies? Or do we merely enter the used market and purchase them off other nations?

When you look at our economic capabilities in this way, you come to the realization that perhaps we're not doing all we can do. Indeed, the age old question is why hasn't Canada ever created its own indigenous car industry? I know it tried but the effort seemed to have been disjointed and lackluster. It was more of 'hey, let's build a car, eh?' rather than anything seen, say, in the USA with Henry Ford.

Canada doesn't seem to value of focusing on the inventions and creativity forging our own mighty unique brands easily recognized to drive its economy so it doesn't nurture it. We have the oil but we'll buy the machines from the Norwegians or Americans. A French restaurateur once explained it this way to me when discussing Italy. 'The Italians make espresso beans. But they're not satisfied with just the bean. They build the machine to create the perfect espresso. That's why Italy has such an interesting economy.'

This is the difference, I think, between a world-class economic power (of which six of the G7 members are) and ours. We're essentially who we think we are - a semi-diversified middle economic power.

We're not renowned inventors or businessmen. We don't produce businesses of extraordinary heights backed by venture capitalism. Indeed, I wonder if we'd know what to do with all the cash.

And this is and was all by choice. It's almost as if we lack the confidence or perhaps we just unwittingly and subconsciously accept our branch-plant status within the American empire.

Maybe this is what Trudeau meant. If he did, then I think he's right. But I think we're late to the game. Entering new markets against countries who have taken this angle seriously for much longer is a really hard game. Those countries have matured and have a running start.

I'm On To You The X-Files

I'm sure I wasn't the only out there (looks around nervously) who detected an irritating but in your face tone (alas, at this point, not surprising) during the premier of The X-Files last night.

The childish, obvious pot shots and incoherent screeds directed at conservatives was lazy and retarded.

Consider these gems of dialogue:

Mulder: I think you're The O'Reilly Factor with a shopworn little gimmick.


O'Malley: What Bill O'Reilly knows about the truth could fill an eyedropper. 

 
Mulder: “Because you never know when a gun-toting liberal might go Hinckley.” -
 
O'Malley: It comes down to this. It's a mainstream liberal media lying to you about life, liberty and your God-given right to bear firearms. 

Mulder: Why would I watch this jackass, Scully?

Really?

Not to mention showing images of Bush in sinister and mocking fashion while presenting Obama much more favorably on an interview with Jimmy Kimmel. Never mind Obama is Bush 2.0 building on his policies as if it's Lego land. This is not paranoia to point out. This is the message they clearly wanted to put out. 

Not interested in watching the rest of what the show offers is the tone they've decided to take.

I couldn't find time to pull out the script and break it down but Newsbusters did a great job explaining exactly what I saw.

The truth is out there indeed.


And it's right in your face.

If I wasn't so lazy I'd write a spoof The Y-Files.

Trudeau Stand Your Ground Against Di Caprio

This is what it's come to. A left-wing PM dedicated to all things climate change coming to blows with a celebrity.

However, I will give credit where it's due for Trudeau pushing back against Di Caprio's idiotic and hyper rhetoric. While the best advice would have been to ignore him - he's not an elected official - if you're, as leader, going to say something say it in defense of your country.
Meanwhile, Canadians would do well to pay little heed to Baldwin's predictably pedantic tweets supporting his celeb-pal. He's not exactly a model citizen we should look up to.

Hard to do. I know. They're so dreamy and all that.

For some reason, institutions are not immune and seem to believe celebrities have something interesting to say in matters of public policy.

Di Caprio (by posting pics of Canada) and Baldwin in defense of LdiCap, use their fame as bullying tactics. No wonder I outright ignore stupid summits and organizations that pander to this nonsense. All fluff and noise where people can just talk out of their asses.

To me, after years of listening, reading and observing all sides, I've come to the skeptical side of climate change.

Believe me, when Mother Nature has the final say (and I'm guessing it will prove skeptics correct in their assessments), Leonard will recede back into his mansion and fly around in his jet for his birthday bashes all the while leaving a nice carbon footprint. He won't have to face accountability for his actions.

Note to the PM, I wouldn't give celebrities more attention than that.

That aside, I stand oppose to the PM installing expensive policies to "fight" climate change that can damage our economy. I don't believe ONE Canadians should be negatively impacted for measures that will have little or no affect on the environment.  

Leonardo (and his supporters) won't have to face those people. But your legacy will.

***

That's why I'd cut it out with the selfies and talk show circuit. There's nothing more that screams 'I'm all show' than crap like that. I'd avoid all that shit if I wanted to be taken seriously by truly serious people. I watched Obama play that game and each time he left me with an unfavorable impression.

But hey.

That's just me.

Insider Trading For Me Not Thee

I've observed the media and TV tend to treat corporate 'insider trading' as one step removed from murder.

BUT.

The insider trading that takes place within government where politicians sometimes magically come out millionaires.

Canada Is Back And Open For Business

It is?

Yay!

When did the 'Closed' sign come down from Parliament?

This is incredibly great news!

What?

Canada is back you say?

Well, now you're just playing with my emotions. Are you playing with my emotions? Because if you are playing with my emotions all I can say is KEEP PLAYING WITH MY EMOTIONS because this gives me such a great feeling inside!

Canada is back AND open.

Thanks Justin! You guys rock.

Target Saga In Canada One For The Ages

In-depth look by Canadian Business at what happened with Target and its disastrous expansion into Canada.

Call me crazy but I'd give it another shot down the road.

Snow Storm Brings Out New York's Inner Totalitarianism; New Jersey Graciously Permits Kids To Shovel Snow.

"Martial law has been decalred in New York City. This comes in response to this year's biggest snow storm.
The New York Police Department is threatening to arrest anyone on the road. They are calling it a "travel ban."
"After 2:30 p.m and you're on the road, we will arrest you @NYPDChiefofDept says," NYPD says.
"Stay off the road, @NYPDChiefofDept says. We don't want to have to arrest you."

"...Legislation sponsored by Senator Mike Doherty (R-23) ensuring that kids have the right to offer snow shoveling services before storms without municipal approval was signed into law by Governor Chris Christie."

The sad thing is they're probably proud of themselves.

Quote Of The Day

“Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” 

Marshall McLuhan

***

Speaking of imagery...

Aside from Justin's amateurish and typical vapid performance at the World Economic Summit (Canada is 'open for business' and the 'resourcefulness' quote), did he break a record for most selfies?

Obama is not a model Justin.

Quote (s) Of The Day

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

The Real Gap: The Celebrity Gap

They (who are they?!) say there's income gap.

But as I watch the World Economic Forum in Davos, the more I realize it's just a place for political elites and celebrities (pushing personal agendas and special interest issues) to rub elbows and take selfies.

The gap between us and them is pretty wide I reckon.

I don't expect much - like with all these summits - to come out of this for Canada.

We All Have A Part To Play In Fostering Entrepreneurship

I don't think people stop and think on the little things they can do to help foster entrepreneurship. Personally, the only true process of entrepreneurship begins at the bottom; that is, the personal level with a dream; an idea.

It doesn't begin with an innovation minister of some kind nor is a department of entrepreneurs is necessary. People always have find ways to get things done with or without the government.

It's this part of the free-market that's often misunderstood. The reactionary impulse of needing to regulate only suffocates the blossoming of potential entrepreneurs. Don't forget, people are rational when it comes to taking risk. They will calculate to the very detail if it's worth investing capital in an adventure. If the regulatory demands are ominous, the less likely they will invest and will end up doing something else.

The cycle goes something like this. Private enterprise driven by people innovate, government steps in to regulate. Then, as is usually the case, over-regulation threatens the process and growth starts to recede and less taxes are collected. In our current modern construct of 'cradle-to-grave welfare' this is problematic. So government tries to solve a problem they largely created by coming up with ministerial portfolios - often taken by people who aren't experts in their files - to come up with ways to 'jolt' citizens into entrepreneurial action. Hence, we've come to believe innovation comes from the government.

It's nonsense. The opposite is the reality. People alone drive free-enterprise. If the government gets involved it usually comes with strings attached and cronyism.

Individuals seeking profit aren't interested in power politics and trends the government wants to push.

But if the government is giving out 'free money' to further its agenda, it will attract people willing to take the bait. No risk-reward calculation needed. It's other people's money, right? Think green-energy companies.

This is why companies like Lyft and Uber are essential to keep free-enterprise alive and kicking. From where I sit, the criticism against them have little to do with 'fair market principles' and everything to do with people having been conditioned to believe that a cab company out of nowhere can't possibly be legit. It must go through a draconian process of smoke and mirrors and illusions of 'public safety' that all end up in monopolies. Monopolies that offer shitty services.

Uber's success is simple. There's a demand. People want it. All the side issues with it are just distractions. First and foremost is the concept of pricing and how it relates to supply and demand.

It blows the mind of programmed robotic mind that if an Uber drives further out to pick someone up in a remote area will reflect a true cost often more expensive than a superficial monopolistic price of a yellow cab.

Let the market sort these things out. It knows better than me, you and most certainly the government.

All this to say.

And I finally get to my point. Before winter came in I got a letter in the mailbox from a 12 year-old offering his services from shoveling snow to cutting grass.

My wife was ready to discard it because I do that stuff. But I wasn't. I explained to her the bigger picture at work here. That a kid is showing such initiative is important and needs to be encouraged.

That I do it myself is besides the point. I don't like it anyway. Seriously though, I cook very well but it doesn't stop me from going out to dinner, right?

Why shouldn't this logic be applied here?

Who knows, as he gains clients he may see a viable business and by the time he's 18 may be in business for himself. One less guy in the welfare ranks or putzing around the post-secondary education system taking to the streets demanding free tuition or entering the realm of self-entitlement.

I took him up and he's come three times to shovel. Turns out he's proactive, polite and a good worker.
Money well spent from where I sit. 

We need more people like this and they will only come out at the pace we're willing to support them.

That's how we can foster true entrepreneurship.

That's the community at work.

Free, voluntary and non-coerced.

Self-Absorbed, Useless Idiots Who Care Not For Justice

I hope the Greg Alan Elliott exposes once and for all the pathetic nature of SJW culture and the sort of people who inhabit its ranks. It's a pity and outrageous the company he represented for17 years fired him. A real shame they didn't stand by him. 'Greg, you're a great guy and have done great work for us over the years, but you know..."

Over what exactly?

A pair of twats.

Reilly and Guthrie, the two morons, are nothing but a pair of trouble-makers and deserve all the scorn they deserve.

Ah, to call names. Freedom of speech is lovely.

I highly doubt they and the SJW tribe they represent have any clue of what constitutes justice in any meaningful or intellectual manner that could contribute to Western civilization. I'm guessing Beccaria and Dostoyevsky aren't in their libraries.

Too see such creatures in action just head over to places like Salon or Jezabel; ignorant hacks who simply play a victim card for a living.

Hopefully, soon, they all just...whither.

Pyrrhic Victory For Gregory Alan Elliott

Here are two names Canadians should be wary of. They're a couple of SJW professional victims of little worth: Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly.

They accused Gregory Alan Elliott of harassment in a laughable and disturbing law suit that quite frankly is an abomination to anyone with a sense of decency and understanding of what constitutes freedom of speech.

Elliott, thankfully, won but not before he lost his job. The suit pretty much ruined his ability to earn a living.

All for a couple of pieces of shits who, it sounds like, had the backing of some asshole politicians. This should not have ever seen a damn day in court. May the SJW and its evil twits recede into an abyss of nothingness.

It's stories like this one I hope there's karma. In the meantime, I'll just turn my woodchipper on.

Read his story here.

If you cherish liberty and want to help Elliott you can give on his generosity page.

Where Planned Diversity And Quotas Can Lead

I'm seeing the word 'diversity' being thrown around a lot these days. Justin Trudeau is using it a lot to try and distinguish himself from Harper; as if diversity has a strict line of political demarcation. Earlier this evening I saw Will Smith make some noise about 'diversity being America's strength' and that somehow 20 white actors getting nominated for an award weakens this American value.

What peeves me is the cynical use of a word without much thought. Sure, it sounds nice to want to achieve diversity I guess but let me offer a different spin on diversity for its own sake.

What is more important and beneficial to a society? A place where merit is paramount regardless of race, color or creed or one where merit is abandoned to fill up a room where merit wasn't consulted because a quota was imposed based on race, color or creed?

 Doesn't sound as cozy when put that way, huh.

Yet, this is exactly what progressives and others are asking or demanding for. They seem to think that forcing diversity merit will automatically follow or they simply assume merit is already there and feel opportunity is being denied.

Which is irrational because humans are naturals at spotting people who merit opportunities. Sure, we make mistakes but we're a species driven to be successful.

Diversity is a meaningless buzz word. No one owns it. Not me, you or a political party. But it takes on a more complicated if not problematic dimension when we propose superficial diversity because the second you do this, you will inevitably engage in discrimination of some kind.

Who knows? YOU may be the victim of it.

Being the selfish, wretched creatures we are, we're too busy at looking at the intention rather than the potential results of such counter-productive if not dangerous schemes. Schemes that will produce nothing but a hall of mirrors and mirages.

***

In Soviet Russia under communism, diversity was known as multiculturalism. An ism Canada embraced and enshrined as a cornerstone of its value-system in its Charter.

"...This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union. Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the Gulag. Today's "political correctness" is the direct descendent of Communist terror and brainwashing."

Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.


As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's "Little Red Book" is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought, and by the late 1960s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the latest "isms:" anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious. Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.

"....Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity." Indeed, the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as Communist revolutions did: judicial activism undermines the rule of law; "tolerance" weakens the conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality:

the Bible, Shakespeare, and rap "music" are just texts with "equally valid perspectives;" deviant and criminal behavior is an "alternative life-style."

Today, Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" would have to be repackaged as Crime and Counseling."

"...The charge of "institutional racism" is no different from declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism" are multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same.

If a crime can be collectivized all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today's version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone they "belong to the race that is guilty of everything."

"...One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is the idea that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation). Truth is not something to be established by rational inquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's perspective is "valued" (a favorite word) according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are "oppressed." 

In the misery of "oppression" they see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who "oppress" them. This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat's moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie. Today, "oppression" confers a "privileged perspective" that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," black and feminist activists are "case-hardened against logical argument" – just as Communist true believers were. 

"...A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West.

How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship – the Communists even censored street maps – and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of "peoples democracies" soon learned.

The situation in the West is not so straightforward. There is nothing remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified for their racial views. The case of Prof. Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by the police. The attempt to silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws. This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the old Soviet Union. To find it in a country that prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of multiculturalism."

My intrusion: Yay Canada is BACK!

Moving on.

"..Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolutist in the pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions: First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.

Such a society would be well on its way to becoming totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white-male hegemonic discourse." Rather than the hard totalitarianism of the Soviet state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be wards of the state. We would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness."

"Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet empire as a threat. It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat in the same way. For this reason, many of its assumptions and objectives remain unchallenged. Still, there are some grounds for optimism, for example, the speed with which the term "political correctness" caught on. It took the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain."

Well, I think this blog has made its stance clear on the subject over the years.


"In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against multiculturalism is the United States. The struggle is likely to be a slow, frustrating war of attrition. If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism is something white Americans will have to live with. 

They already are unfortunately and what passes as public intellectual discourse is particularly troubling. At the moment, such thoughts espoused get a lot of air time and is met with a collective shrug. At one point, once people start to become victims of this nonsense, I reckon there will be a backlash.

Of course, at some point whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure. As Prof. Michael Hart argues in "The Real American Dilemma" (published by New Century Foundation and available from American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com) for $11.95, postage paid), there could be racial partition of the United States. We may find that what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world. Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their policies are pushing us in that direction."

"...Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial or cultural conflict. Quite the contrary. Multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in this gruesome 20th century, a hell that man, having abandoned reason and in revolt against."

Diversity. Welcome to 1984. Enjoy your mental gulag. 

Assholes.

The CBC Is Embarrassing Itself

I think it's time the Canadian Taxpayers Federation begin the process of giving Canadians an 'opt-out' on their taxes where the CBC is concerned.

Consider these headlines: 

Bono, Spacey and DiCaprio: Trudeau chats with trio of celebrities at Davos reception
Trudeau distances himself from Harper in Davos
Trudeau's political honeymoon the envy of Davos
Interactive comparison of Trudeau and Harper

Fawn away CBC. Fawn away.

And then comes Davos. I don't know what they're seeing but I'm seeing a selfie-happy PM painfully out of his depth. But it's okay, there's our public broadcaster allegedly speaking for all Canadians getting his back:

Trudeau touts Canada's diversity and resourcefulness in Davos

Contrast this to its aggressive behavior against Harper. Apparently, only a certain segment of Canadians the CBC seems to want to respect.

If the CBC wants to play the teeny-bopper infatuated with its pop star, fine. Then have the guts to go private and go straight to the portion of its audience for donations.

It's outrageous that I have to pay for this sort of journalism through taxes with no say.

They say the CBC speaks for all Canadians.

Not this one they do.

What Canada Needs

Say, we have an Innovation Minister so why not a Creative Minister? Heck, while we're at it, we sure could use a Resourcefulness Minister.

The Liberal Party Of Canada: So Vapid It's Brilliant

I must be missing something about what others see in Trudeau and the Liberals.

Of Racism And Hollywood

Check all these white crackers who weren't nominated for an American Academy!

Question is, and we're all biting our nails, does Spike Lee care?

Stay tuned!

*I notice, at cursory glance, eight Italians were overlooked. That's one more than African-Americans overlooked!

Regardless, WE NEED MORE QUOTAS.

The Koch Brothers Are Knocking At Your Door And Want To Nestle Under Your Bed And Closet

Soooo, someone sent me this article from NPR on the Koch brothers; the fraternal billionaires the left are obsessed with.

 

George Soros, though, is a-okay!

 

Bah.

 

In any event, I'm not terribly interested in Koch. There's plenty of literature on them and where they donate money. You can decide if they alone are taking over your life. Sounds like a nefarious list too! Burp.

 

I'm more interested in one paragraph in the article. 

"Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. According to Mayer, the Kochs and other conservatives have created philanthropic entities that enable them to aggressively pursue a libertarian agenda of lower taxes, deregulation of business and the denial of climate change."

 

'Hidden history'? There's no such thing as 'hidden history'. It's all there for all to see. Whether we look is another matter. 

 

In any event, what's the point here? They make it sound like it's a bad thing to have lower taxes or 'deregulating' parts of the economy that should never have been necessarily (overly) regulated in the first place. No kidding when you deregulate things get messy; we learned bad habits and had to reprogram how to, you know, run a business properly within the proper laws of economics and finance. Deregulation to me is the point of whereby an industry became too regulated and had to be deregulated for sanity's sake.

 

Perhaps the author and readers of NPR are fans of a controlled, economic and political suprastructure run by techno/bureaucrats?

Where have we seen this again? It's never been tried; or at least by the right top men. What we need is the perfect formula to run things!



Totalitarian movements (and modern progressivism is exactly that) throughout history have displayed an effective way to get a significant majority is to convince such people that they're victims of the group being targeted.
For example, under Mao, the intellectuals were the enemies of the peasants. Under Hitler and the Socialist Nazis commies, gays, retards, trade unionists and of course...da joos. The commies of course claimed that the bourgeois and the land owners were the enemy.

The Koch brothers make a wonderfully convenient target of hate for the totalitarians on the left. The 'rich' are the new pink at the moment.

 

Whatever: It's been done.

 

And it's irrational.

***

 

My question, as it pertains to that opening paragraph, is why should I be forced to pay for NPR or CBC?

 

In this day and age of access to information the idea they act as 'connectors from coast to coast' is increasingly precarious, if not irrelevant. The problem I have with this notion is it connects a certain type of person predisposed to believe certain belief systems I don't share.

 

For example, I happen to agree with the classical liberal position. I freely give to Reason magazine and Le Quebecois Libre. I don't agree with NPR/CBC and would not give to them if they were free-standing publications. This doesn't mean I wish for the demise. On the contrary, I'm asking that I not fund them on the basis of intellectual differences. 

 

If you are as important to society as you claim then you should be able to raise the funds through your base. Mother Jones and Vermont Public Television, for instance, has pledge drives so why shouldn't NPR or the CBC? Who are they to assume they're entitled to my money? 

 

If they want to create a 'Trudeau dynasty' narrative, fine, but put the cards on the table and raise your own funds. Instead, I'm basically told to shut and put up and do as I'm told because Canadian unity or some other nonsense.

Why is it okay to coerce taxes from me into something I disagree with? Explain me the 'fairness' in this. 

 

Show your work. 

 

***

 

From Inside Philanthropy I came across this comment:

"I recall a Marketplace report on effects of healthcare law, when people were having their policies cancelled for not meeting the Dems ideas on what they should contain. Ty Risdoll hemmed and hawed about whether this was a good or bad thing, but alas, he was forced to acknowledge the events had occurred, contradicting the Dems promise that those insured would be undisturbed. With that acknowledgement he closed his piece with a cheery glib assertion- "just think of the extra money you'll be getting in your paycheck". I kid you not. In his tortured reporting one phenomena was fact, had occurred. People had policies cancelled, perhaps because an elderly couple lacked pediatric care. His other assertion? Pure conjecture, a hypothetical that I'll wager 9 times out of 10 will *not* occur.

A few weeks ago, I was enjoying dinner at my parents house, with the News Hour playing in the background. A very concerned look at the use of software to manage workers scheduling was the topic of discussion. Deep discussion, several sources interviewed on air, footage outside various establishments in effected industries. Average joe managers on camera, about how they must utilize software to keep everyone below 30 hrs a week, the perspective of an employee unable to make ends meet, consultants opining and the great concern of how this effects "income inequality". A big production. Not one - not one - mention of the healthcare law as a driver of it all. The scheduling software has been around for years, why the push now? The News Hour knows *exactly* what it's doing.

I doubt public funding is the answer, as you assert. You'd like the government to fund reporting on the government?

The issue is one of people. You just cannot trust these people. And indeed bias, across mainstream news. Broadcast news, the places with the real reach. 7 to 8 million person reach, for each of the three broadcast networks. 10s of millions of viewers compared to the 2.5 million the dreaded Fox will reach in its most popular slot. Most people have no idea of the audience numbers. Why are they trained to revile Fox? Why does the Fox meme even exist? Are people asserting that *no* conservative voices should be heard at all?

Why is a single internet page, created by single guy, who doesn't even write any articles(!), reviled? The Drudge Report.

Why is Rush Limbaugh, largely on AM radio, whose reach is less than that of NPRs Morning Edition, such a cultural concern?

The fact that these memes are so prevalent among the people who don't watch or listen or read these outlets suggests something else is at play.

Your concern about the "Koch brothers" is along the same lines. Please review aggregate spending of Unions, where that goes, and how it compares to the "corrupting" influence of the Koch brothers. I assume you're interested in non-biased information."

Refresher On Who Gives Life To Monopolies

 
Just to add. Re cost of private vs. public schools.

Subsidized daycare in Quebec is far more expensive to run than a private one. Something along the lines of about $100 per day on the public side against $30 in the private.

It's not rocket science people.

Welcome Your Robot Overlords

What do you mean 'take' human jobs?

"...The "Fourth Industrial Revolution" is already underway, according to a report from the World Economic Forum, which is focusing on how technological change is reshaping the workplace and global economies at its meeting this week in Davos, Switzerland. Developments in fields including robotics, big data, and artificial intelligence will change workplaces and the required different skills from workers in the years to come, according to "The Future of Jobs" report.

Not everyone will be impacted equally, with the report concluding that the jobs most at risk are office and administrative roles. Other industries with negative job outlooks include manufacturing and production, the arts and entertainment, construction and extraction, and installation and maintenance. Overall, automation and robotics will cause 5.1 million job losses over the next five years, the researchers found" 

"...About 7.1 million jobs will be shed, with two-thirds of those losses concentrated in office and administrative categories. That will be somewhat offset by the gain of 2 million new jobs in areas such as business and financial operations. The net result? About 5.1 million fewer jobs overall by 2020, the report noted..."

"...Any industrial revolution comes with growing pains, and among those most likely to feel the brunt of it are women, given that some of the fields with the highest projected growth -- such as in computers and math -- have the lowest rates of female workforce participation."

Well, clearly we need a quota. Problem solved!

Robots don't make a 'living wage' at $15 an hour or demand that other people subsidize their living standards.

Quote Of The Day

"My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources," he said. "I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness." Justin Trudeau at World Economic Summit, 2016.

/drops cigarette from lips.

I think he wrote this with the purple crayola. 

Magic is illusion and illusion is magic! Dough Henning.
***

Canada is back baby! Bigger, badder, more compassionate, diverse and resourceful than ever!

Resource class for all!

*** 

Canada, of course, will always be known for its resources abroad because, well, we don't exactly have a massive finished product economy. It's a resource based one and likely will stay that way. Not sure what he meant by 'resourcefulness'. But don't expect him to actually articulate it.

***

I'm noticing a certain irritating tone with the new PM. I can't quite put my finger on it but it's a cross of Doug Henning and a quack doctor calmly selling you snake oil.

Fall Of The West Reason 588667788: Quota Away.

Call me crazy but applying the word 'quota' leaves me with all sorts of disturbing images. To me, whenever I hear someone say 'we need quotas' I hear 'social engineering'.

Not a fan at all.

But this is what the modern progressive belief system has come to embrace. Somewhere, somehow, someone has kept you down. People just ain't getting their fair shake.

Once upon a time Europeans took turns dominating each other. You had the Ancient Greeks and later Romans. Then came the Italians, French, Germans and English each taking stabs at being at the forefront of Western civilization. Imagine, during those great epochs where human achievement was reaching its zenith and apex if some shlep came along and said, 'yeah but the Moldovans just aren't getting a chance! We need a quota!'

Imagine if, when awarding the best minds we apply a quota system. Think about that for a second. Let's say, someone came along and siad, 'You know, not enough black people are represented in the Nobel ranks. They would mistakenly, I surmise, believe getting brothers in the committee will somehow 'normalize' and 'equalize' how prizes are awarded proportionally.

It's all nonsense of course. No one would take them seriously and we shouldn't pay to close attention to the worry that Hollywood isn't 'diverse' enough - another word that I've come to fucken loathe.

I mean, if Hollywood is 'racist' what the heck is going on in fly-over country?

If Idris Elba gets his way - he pleaded in British parliament (why are celebrities getting such platforms?) - there will be quotas. England has lost its minds giving up any modicum of common sense they may have possessed to political correctness and so will thoughtlessly push some 'Iris for the children'  bill through. 

No, I'm not downplaying the possibility there is some unfair practices going on (particularly among blacks) but to me this is not the way to go while at the same is probably the only area, ironically, where things are equal. Everyone gets fucked equally these days.

And with the American whatever awards, so fucking what 20 white people were nominated? Talk about disrespecting those who worked to get the nod. I doubt they care not that 'white' people were often snubbed too - hello Martin Scorsese. But he's a dago so not the same thing because slavery. If not these 20 who should have been replaced for a black actor or actress? Lee doesn't say.

And isn't this in of itself 'racist' to obsess of inanities such as movie award ceremonies? Personally, it's no skin off my back as I've never watched the Oscars or anything like that in my entire life. I was never one for awards - to much bull shit comes with them. Whether it's naming the best athlete or olive oil or peace prize or actor.

Who gives a shit, really? They say it's for recognition. I didn't realize you needed a piece of metal or ribbon to validate your work and existence.

What's the end game exactly? Do they really want to make a mockery of these things to the point everyone just raises a cynical eyebrow? How does this help anyone let alone black artists? Who, if you ask me, don't exactly need help. The outstanding, legendary and influential body of work in American popular culture speaks for itself. Ultimately, I think, it undermines what's been accomplished.

Alas, I'm in the minority. I reckon.

It's not just in the movies we see garbage like this. Trudeau's Liberal party played this meaningless game of diversity in naming his cabinet - as if Harper's cabinet was 100% old, white farted males. In fact, Harper's cabinet was remarkably diverse with one major difference. They weren't insufferable about it nor did the newspapers squawk and fawn over it like they do with Zoolander.

Closer to homel, the Montreal Canadiens have their own version of a 'quota' game going on whereby they don't hire a uni-lingual candidate to coach a lousy fucking hockey team that has been abnormally attached to a culture. When you do shit like that, it makes people do all sorts of stupid things. In this case, a counter-productive self-imposed rule that limits their ability to hire the very best. It's called discrimination across the continent but it gets a pass here because French and "unique".

What's the hubabub, bub? Why the rant, Grant?

I guess to someone who is of mediocre extract, this is perfect. Rooney rule and all that. Never mind about, you know, the merit principle. Throw that shit out! What matters is if you meet an arbitrary and imaginary quota of what constitutes our contemporary notion of equality and diversity.

In other words, a different way to fuck people - who did nothing wrong except excel - up indiscriminately. No matter how you dice and divide it up; how you flip and hop with your mental gymnastics in defense of it; how you pride yourself as being progressive minded it all adds up to one bleeping thing: A race to the bottom.

Bah. I may be reading all this wrong.

A quota system won't displace genius - genius is genius and can't be denied and sometimes easily recognized - but it will over rate mediocre minds.

And there will be consequences to this. We already see it with the closing of Western achievement, the quality of public intellectualism (have you seen what passes as 'smart' debate? On what's going on on campuses in North America?) and our general and collective misunderstanding of the West and its liberal roots. 

But hey, old news. As long as we make two wrongs to equal a right and fix a perceived wrong, Spike Lee (who, for what it's worth, I didn't care for how he depicted Italians in his own movies) is happy.

While Rome burns.








Habs

Nobel