“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”C. S. Lewis
2015-11-16
Quote Of The Day
2015-11-15
Krugman's Vapid Conscience
I accidentally fell upon Paul Krugman's blog. And boy did I regret it. I'd rather read Curious George.
What an insufferable and predictable bore and a snore he is.
Krugman has a knack for the opaque:
"...Meanwhile, the Democrats had a bizarrely rational and well-informed debate. By today’s standards, that’s positively un-American."
I thoroughly enjoy watching Democrats talk like Soviet-style commies and populist Marxists about who they're gonna 'go after' this and that.
Hillary is using the passage of time hoping people won't remember to rewrite her own history.
Not only is she a faux-populist she actually had the nerve to pull out the 9/11 card? I don't seem to recall Hillary's face anywhere in the streets of NYC on that day and in the aftermath.
In fact, she was nowhere to be found. That was GUILIANI'S TOWN.
It's not a first for such a liar. Recall she claimed to be under 'sniper fire' in Sarajevo which proved to be false.
And for kicks, it was her camp that started the whole Obama birth certificate thing. Funny how Democrats are glossing over this preferring to pretend it's the right-wing who started it.
It started as a rebuttal trying to defend her integrity but it ended with her revealing she has none.
What an insufferable and predictable bore and a snore he is.
Krugman has a knack for the opaque:
"...Meanwhile, the Democrats had a bizarrely rational and well-informed debate. By today’s standards, that’s positively un-American."
I thoroughly enjoy watching Democrats talk like Soviet-style commies and populist Marxists about who they're gonna 'go after' this and that.
Hillary is using the passage of time hoping people won't remember to rewrite her own history.
Not only is she a faux-populist she actually had the nerve to pull out the 9/11 card? I don't seem to recall Hillary's face anywhere in the streets of NYC on that day and in the aftermath.
In fact, she was nowhere to be found. That was GUILIANI'S TOWN.
It's not a first for such a liar. Recall she claimed to be under 'sniper fire' in Sarajevo which proved to be false.
And for kicks, it was her camp that started the whole Obama birth certificate thing. Funny how Democrats are glossing over this preferring to pretend it's the right-wing who started it.
It started as a rebuttal trying to defend her integrity but it ended with her revealing she has none.
Not Easy Time For Immigration Departments In North America
Let's get one thing straight. ISIS is not 'contained' and the Obama administration is not 'one step ahead'. Just wanted to mention this. I just don't understand how within days of a Russian airliner being shot down by ISIS Obama would go public with such an incredibly laughable statement.
But a mere four months earlier he said, “We don’t yet have a complete strategy,” Obama told reporters during a news conference at the G-7 summit of leading industrial nations in Germany. Since then, the administration hasn't really completed it either.
As for the refugees/migrants, here's the problem facing governments including Canada and the United States. We must avoid what Europe did in allowing over 800 000 people with little screening. It's hard to believe someone didn't warn national governments the potential of terrorists being among them. Unfortunately, the humanist aspect of helping people has to be weighed against the fact crazed fanatical murderous terrorists are among them.
The situation in Europe is so bizarre if not downright unbelievable, we have cases here the number of refugees/migrants exceeds the towns- as reported from Germany - their being sent into by the government!
We don't let convicted murderers (criminals) in so why should it be any different here? It has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant but protecting your citizens. Of course this sorts of stories bring out the xenophobes but in this matter, sensible people are not asking for any restrictions or closing of borders; and if they are it's temporary until things get sorted out, but want to ensure our public safety officials are vetting rigorously who is let in. The last thing you want is allowing a terrorist to slip in.
The most important objective of government as mandated by its citizens is national security. That's it.
All energies must be poured into this.
But a mere four months earlier he said, “We don’t yet have a complete strategy,” Obama told reporters during a news conference at the G-7 summit of leading industrial nations in Germany. Since then, the administration hasn't really completed it either.
As for the refugees/migrants, here's the problem facing governments including Canada and the United States. We must avoid what Europe did in allowing over 800 000 people with little screening. It's hard to believe someone didn't warn national governments the potential of terrorists being among them. Unfortunately, the humanist aspect of helping people has to be weighed against the fact crazed fanatical murderous terrorists are among them.
The situation in Europe is so bizarre if not downright unbelievable, we have cases here the number of refugees/migrants exceeds the towns- as reported from Germany - their being sent into by the government!
We don't let convicted murderers (criminals) in so why should it be any different here? It has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant but protecting your citizens. Of course this sorts of stories bring out the xenophobes but in this matter, sensible people are not asking for any restrictions or closing of borders; and if they are it's temporary until things get sorted out, but want to ensure our public safety officials are vetting rigorously who is let in. The last thing you want is allowing a terrorist to slip in.
The most important objective of government as mandated by its citizens is national security. That's it.
All energies must be poured into this.
Civilized World With France
Powerful images of buildings - including the CN Tower- around the world in red, white and blue.
The NHL honored France playing the French national anthem La Marseillaise in Montreal and Boston.
The NHL honored France playing the French national anthem La Marseillaise in Montreal and Boston.
2015-11-14
France: It's World War III; Trudeau Just Not Ready
My worst fears about Trudeau are coming true. He's just not ready. Interesting, he took only one question (I thought this was un-Democratic when Harper did it) after uttering nothing of value.
We've seen where 'on the job training' goes in the USA under Obama.
Who, not so long ago, said 'ISIS is on the run'. Interesting that, he pulled the Americans (prematurely) out of Iraq that left a vacuum that was filled by ISIS. And as ISIS grew and went on the march, he refused to act despite repeated warnings.
But we're too believe they're 'on the run'? Uh, no. They're on the rise.
No one, of course, who understands anything, believes him anymore.
We've seen where 'on the job training' goes in the USA under Obama.
Who, not so long ago, said 'ISIS is on the run'. Interesting that, he pulled the Americans (prematurely) out of Iraq that left a vacuum that was filled by ISIS. And as ISIS grew and went on the march, he refused to act despite repeated warnings.
But we're too believe they're 'on the run'? Uh, no. They're on the rise.
No one, of course, who understands anything, believes him anymore.
2015-11-13
Paris Shooting; 35 Dead And Counting
No. We should no longer 'be shocked'.
It's time to take these attacks seriously free of the PC bull shit.
It's time to take these attacks seriously free of the PC bull shit.
Reversing The Narrative
Stop micro-aggressing against me!
Mentions of global warming since 1980 mirrors the...hockey stick theory!
Proof!
Drink!
Mentions of global warming since 1980 mirrors the...hockey stick theory!
Proof!
Drink!
Florida Is Bat Shit Crazy
Couple face 15 years for having sex on a beach. Not the drink, but the real thing.
Americans have lost their fricken minds on a bunch of things but this 'sex registry' thing is scary as it is evil.
I can totally see abuse with this. And now Florida is set to wreck two lives over it.
Eat shit Ed Brodsky.
Americans have lost their fricken minds on a bunch of things but this 'sex registry' thing is scary as it is evil.
I can totally see abuse with this. And now Florida is set to wreck two lives over it.
Eat shit Ed Brodsky.
Government Can't Spur Business Growth
Well, they can by lowering taxes and offering goodies like tax credits. But often what happens is businesses locate here, take the money and then leave a few years down the road because few of them want to deal with the taxes, regulations and unnecessary language burdens that often come with hefty fines. They size up the business model and climate and take off. Much like how they're escaping California.
Instead, what I'm referring to is the notion that city planners can move business like they're pieces on a chess board. Montreal does this better than most cities given its communistic tendencies. Politicians in the city actually believe they are part of the solution when in fact they should step aside. They can't seem to understand few people are gonna calculate putting down capital only to deal with the excessive and coercive arm of bureaucrats.
Whenever they say 'We believe this will lead to more growth' is misleading since bureaucrats don't know the first thing about what drives business; consumer demand, laws of supply and demand etc.
All they know is ham-fisted, one-size fits all planning and regulating.
In order words, people have it exactly backwards. It's not government planning that leads to a healthy business environment, it's a free, entrepreneurial class that does that.
Instead, what I'm referring to is the notion that city planners can move business like they're pieces on a chess board. Montreal does this better than most cities given its communistic tendencies. Politicians in the city actually believe they are part of the solution when in fact they should step aside. They can't seem to understand few people are gonna calculate putting down capital only to deal with the excessive and coercive arm of bureaucrats.
Whenever they say 'We believe this will lead to more growth' is misleading since bureaucrats don't know the first thing about what drives business; consumer demand, laws of supply and demand etc.
All they know is ham-fisted, one-size fits all planning and regulating.
In order words, people have it exactly backwards. It's not government planning that leads to a healthy business environment, it's a free, entrepreneurial class that does that.
CUNY: Sick And Ignorant
Dark Age:
"On November 12th, students all across CUNY will rally to demand a freeze on tuition and new contracts! We must fight for funding for our university, and for CUNY to be accessible to working class communities in NYC as the public university system. The Zionist administration invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine, and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout CUNY through Zionist content of education. While CUNY aims to produce the next generation of professional Zionists, SJP [NYC Students for Justice in Palestine] aims to change the university to fight for all peoples [sic] liberation.
We demand:
An End to the Privatization of Education!
-Tuition-Free Education -Cancellation of all student debt! -15$ minimum wage for campus workers!
An End to Racial and Economic Segregation in Education!
-Racialized college-acceptance practices
-Work Program requirements for students on public assistance
-Rapid gentrification and privatization of public school property.
Transparency in Administration!
-Gender Resource Centers and perpretrators of sexual assault expelled -Demand CUNY divests from Israel, companies that maintain the Zionist occupation, private prisons, and prison labor.
-Pay Parity for Adjunct Professors
-A fair contract for CUNY Professors"
They're insane.
They blame Jews and then ask for the end of racial segregation in education?
They're mental.
When is it appropriate to tell these self-entitled, racist and intolerant buffoons to go fuck themselves?
Other than that, these morons do realize the cost of education is largely tied to government regulations correct? And that, in the event there were no government regulations driving costs up significantly, they would have to pay for quality. Right?
"On November 12th, students all across CUNY will rally to demand a freeze on tuition and new contracts! We must fight for funding for our university, and for CUNY to be accessible to working class communities in NYC as the public university system. The Zionist administration invests in Israeli companies, companies that support the Israeli occupation, hosts birthright programs and study abroad programs in occupied Palestine, and reproduces settler-colonial ideology throughout CUNY through Zionist content of education. While CUNY aims to produce the next generation of professional Zionists, SJP [NYC Students for Justice in Palestine] aims to change the university to fight for all peoples [sic] liberation.
We demand:
An End to the Privatization of Education!
-Tuition-Free Education -Cancellation of all student debt! -15$ minimum wage for campus workers!
An End to Racial and Economic Segregation in Education!
-Racialized college-acceptance practices
-Work Program requirements for students on public assistance
-Rapid gentrification and privatization of public school property.
Transparency in Administration!
-Gender Resource Centers and perpretrators of sexual assault expelled -Demand CUNY divests from Israel, companies that maintain the Zionist occupation, private prisons, and prison labor.
-Pay Parity for Adjunct Professors
-A fair contract for CUNY Professors"
They're insane.
They blame Jews and then ask for the end of racial segregation in education?
They're mental.
When is it appropriate to tell these self-entitled, racist and intolerant buffoons to go fuck themselves?
Other than that, these morons do realize the cost of education is largely tied to government regulations correct? And that, in the event there were no government regulations driving costs up significantly, they would have to pay for quality. Right?
2015-11-11
Wednesday Night Music: You Can't Do That No More
I went out to get some groceries the other day
From my neighborhood grocery store
And before I could open my mouth
The grocery man said "No! You can't get that no more"
That's what he said, you can't get that no more
He said, "I sold all I had the other day
It ain't me Mr. Jordan, it's the OPA
You just can't get it, you got to do with what you got
Ain't go have no more for the duration,
You got to be careful with your boots on"
The hip cats used to stand on the corner in their zoot suits
And them long chains hanging down all looking cute,
But things is very different now since Uncle Sam has got some Japs to shoot
You can't do that no more
You can't do that no more
No more standing on the corner day and night
Cause Uncle Sam says you got to work or you got to fight
So you can't do that no more
No you can't do that no more
You know the glamour gals stopped glamorizing
They working in defense plants wearing slacks
And some of them fine chicks is cutting out everyday
Joining the wave, the spas and the wax
Now fellas, you can't get that no more
I am telling you fellas, you just can't get it
You can't jive these girls like you used to do
Cause some of them is making more money than you
I am telling you boys, you just can't get that no more
No you can't get that no more
You know the girls used to wake up every morning
And say lord send me a handsome man
One that is physically fit
But uncle sam has got all of them now
And the gals is got to take just what they can get
You can't get that no more
Aint no need to be giggling girls
You just can't get it no more that's all
Girls you can't be particular
You've got to take what's left
Either them worn out 3A's or them beat up 4F's
That's all you just can't get it no more
No you can't get that no more
***
And as long as there are people like Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Schumer out there, this song will always be relevant. What's Chuck been up to? Fighting to stop the war on drugs? Rethinking how we view economic policies? Nah.
Caffeinated peanut butter.
"Caffeine is a powerful stimulant, unsafe amounts can cause adverse symptoms like increased heart rate and blood pressure and an overdose of caffeine can be fatal," Schumer said in a press release. "We must avoid exposing our families and children to the potential harmful effects that consuming caffeinated food may lead to."
Maude Flanders couldn't have said it any better.
You keep fighting the good fight, Chuck. You keep eroding freedom of choice and saving consumers from themselves.
/throws plastic medal at Schumer's feet.
The Myth Of Settled Science: Assault On Humans, Reason And Capitalism; France's Mathematicians Enter The Foray
/Taps mic. repeatedly. One, two. Cha, cha, blah. Testing. Herpes.
Ahem.
We're told by the forces of the Dark Ages the science pimped about climate system change is 'settled'. It is now my opinion there is no more a destructive assertion as people crying 'settled science'.
There is no settled science. Just political settled science.
In addition, I observed for too long that side of the debate hurl attacks, calls for imprisonment, lawsuits against journalists and outright refuse to engage in honest, open debate in the matter choosing instead to flee like arrogant cowards and attack from afar.
This raised worry flags for me.
In life, we usually dismiss someone who behaves this away as being defensive and not credible. I will apply this simple axiom to the defenders of climate-system change.
As time moves on, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year we discover we're not in any great peril. This is a straight forward observable fact. They will obviously, as a result, play on our fears with grand 'what ifs' showing rising sea levels, starving polar bears and burning forests. Surely, we're the cause of such madness because why would earth do this to itself?
Well, it doesn't take any grand intellect to know one thing. The earth is one ugly and violent place. And by this I don't mean the humans in it. I mean, the earthquakes, ice ages, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and everything else are part of the essence and soul of earth. Anyone who picks up a book knows this to be true.
Our part in the whole opera is tiny. Microscopic. Therefore, logically, our impact in making 'meaningful change' will be negligible. I don't praise people who do their 'small bit'. I pity them. They willingly fall for a false narrative without an attempt to engage in healthy skepticism. Hence, governments take out ads speaking of doing one's part in the 'fight' against global warming. Ride a bike to work, don't use plastic bags, use public transport, limit the use of cars are not noble activities when used as props for this silly crusade. Your bike should be a hobby; an exercise; an enjoyable activity for its own sake. It has NO IMPACT on the environment and if you ride a bike thinking you it's unfortunate.
Asking people to impractically do this is one designed for the economic suicide of an ignorant society mired in a dark age.
Simple observations. If the political and intellectual classes ask you to pay carbon taxes and reduce your 'carbon imprint' then perhaps they should reduce their excesses. It's only fair, no? We must all do our 'fair share' as the mantra chants.
Ah. They don't do this now do they?
I do not know what will reverse this runaway arrogance of man when it comes to global warming. I want to believe it will dissipate on its own. I would hope Mother Nature can spit in our faces in time before we truly engage in disastrous green policies - as been evidenced already.
Something has to reset or rational thought. What will serve as a leitmotif if you will, I await for.
I can no longer bear to watch these beggars and shysters attack reason anymore.
****
France's mathematicians know where it's at.
I'm only about quarter through but well-worth the read.
It's titled, "The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA"
Excerpts to intro:
"There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so called global warming. As for extreme weather events they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC?
Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2have continued to rise
Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.
French policy on CO2emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.
International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.
This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.
Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.
Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.
…One might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2concentrations.
…The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC‘s work. The IPPC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment.
In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition people who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action."
Amen.
Ahem.
We're told by the forces of the Dark Ages the science pimped about
There is no settled science. Just political settled science.
In addition, I observed for too long that side of the debate hurl attacks, calls for imprisonment, lawsuits against journalists and outright refuse to engage in honest, open debate in the matter choosing instead to flee like arrogant cowards and attack from afar.
This raised worry flags for me.
In life, we usually dismiss someone who behaves this away as being defensive and not credible. I will apply this simple axiom to the defenders of
As time moves on, day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year we discover we're not in any great peril. This is a straight forward observable fact. They will obviously, as a result, play on our fears with grand 'what ifs' showing rising sea levels, starving polar bears and burning forests. Surely, we're the cause of such madness because why would earth do this to itself?
Well, it doesn't take any grand intellect to know one thing. The earth is one ugly and violent place. And by this I don't mean the humans in it. I mean, the earthquakes, ice ages, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and everything else are part of the essence and soul of earth. Anyone who picks up a book knows this to be true.
Our part in the whole opera is tiny. Microscopic. Therefore, logically, our impact in making 'meaningful change' will be negligible. I don't praise people who do their 'small bit'. I pity them. They willingly fall for a false narrative without an attempt to engage in healthy skepticism. Hence, governments take out ads speaking of doing one's part in the 'fight' against global warming. Ride a bike to work, don't use plastic bags, use public transport, limit the use of cars are not noble activities when used as props for this silly crusade. Your bike should be a hobby; an exercise; an enjoyable activity for its own sake. It has NO IMPACT on the environment and if you ride a bike thinking you it's unfortunate.
Asking people to impractically do this is one designed for the economic suicide of an ignorant society mired in a dark age.
Simple observations. If the political and intellectual classes ask you to pay carbon taxes and reduce your 'carbon imprint' then perhaps they should reduce their excesses. It's only fair, no? We must all do our 'fair share' as the mantra chants.
Ah. They don't do this now do they?
I do not know what will reverse this runaway arrogance of man when it comes to global warming. I want to believe it will dissipate on its own. I would hope Mother Nature can spit in our faces in time before we truly engage in disastrous green policies - as been evidenced already.
Something has to reset or rational thought. What will serve as a leitmotif if you will, I await for.
I can no longer bear to watch these beggars and shysters attack reason anymore.
****
France's mathematicians know where it's at.
I'm only about quarter through but well-worth the read.
It's titled, "The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA"
Excerpts to intro:
"There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so called global warming. As for extreme weather events they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC?
Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.
We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2have continued to rise
Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.
French policy on CO2emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.
International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.
This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.
Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.
Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.
…One might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2concentrations.
…The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPPC‘s work. The IPPC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment.
In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition people who do not believe in global warming have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action."
Amen.
More Mizzou Fall Out; Respected Professor Resigns
This story keeps getting worse and more depressing.
And this is the sort of mediocre, middling mind pushing it.
Lovely. It appears this is the person behind it.
The future is in good hands.
But I'd still sell your bonds if you have any.
Just in case. Lunatics don't give up the asylum that easily.
***
Mizzou. Red China.
Same mentality?
"On August 19, I organized a meeting to criticize the leaders of the Beijing education system," Chen, now 67, recalls. "A rather serious armed struggle broke out. At the end, some students rushed onstage and used leather belts to whip some of the education officials, including the party secretary of my school."
Chen says he was against the violence, but the situation spiraled out of his control. Chen says his school's party secretary later committed suicide, and a vice secretary was crippled as a result of that day's attack.
The same summer, Chairman Mao met with crowds of frenzied Red Guards in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. He endorsed their violent tactics — consisting mainly of beatings with fists, clubs and other blunt instruments. In August and September 1966, a total of 1,772 people were killed in Beijing, according to the Beijing Daily newspaper.
Students beating up their teachers was a shocking reversal in the Confucian society, where educators were once held in the highest esteem.
Now, the teachers who were victimized in the Cultural Revolution are mostly in their 70s and 80s, and the Red Guards have said they wanted to apologize while they still have the chance.
Last October, Chen met with his former classmates and teachers and apologized for the violence he presided over.
Chen Xiaolu is one of the most high-profile former Red
Guards to publicly apologize for the attacks against his teachers.
"Looking back on it, I believe their human rights and dignity were
trampled upon," says Chen, shown here in the courtyard of his Beijing
residence.
In fact, Chen says, the
entire Cultural Revolution was illegal because it violated China's
Constitution — though he acknowledges that criticizing the movement as
unconstitutional is a way to make his point without being silenced by
the authorities.
Chen belongs to the "red second generation." He lives in spacious courtyard home in central Beijing. A black Audi sedan with paramilitary license plates — almost de rigueur for Beijing's power elite — can be seen in his garage.
And yet Chen says he must be careful in his critique of the Cultural Revolution. He's criticizing himself, he emphasizes, not Mao. And he says he's certainly not implying any criticism of China's current leadership.
Red Guards still use the euphemistic jargon of the era, including terms such as "struggling" against class enemies. Critics point out that these vague terms could be considered to include acts such as murder, torture and imprisonment."
Hm. Sounds vaguely familiar all this.
And this is the sort of mediocre, middling mind pushing it.
Lovely. It appears this is the person behind it.
The future is in good hands.
But I'd still sell your bonds if you have any.
Just in case. Lunatics don't give up the asylum that easily.
***
Mizzou. Red China.
Same mentality?
"On August 19, I organized a meeting to criticize the leaders of the Beijing education system," Chen, now 67, recalls. "A rather serious armed struggle broke out. At the end, some students rushed onstage and used leather belts to whip some of the education officials, including the party secretary of my school."
Chen says he was against the violence, but the situation spiraled out of his control. Chen says his school's party secretary later committed suicide, and a vice secretary was crippled as a result of that day's attack.
The same summer, Chairman Mao met with crowds of frenzied Red Guards in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. He endorsed their violent tactics — consisting mainly of beatings with fists, clubs and other blunt instruments. In August and September 1966, a total of 1,772 people were killed in Beijing, according to the Beijing Daily newspaper.
Students beating up their teachers was a shocking reversal in the Confucian society, where educators were once held in the highest esteem.
Now, the teachers who were victimized in the Cultural Revolution are mostly in their 70s and 80s, and the Red Guards have said they wanted to apologize while they still have the chance.
Last October, Chen met with his former classmates and teachers and apologized for the violence he presided over.
Chen belongs to the "red second generation." He lives in spacious courtyard home in central Beijing. A black Audi sedan with paramilitary license plates — almost de rigueur for Beijing's power elite — can be seen in his garage.
And yet Chen says he must be careful in his critique of the Cultural Revolution. He's criticizing himself, he emphasizes, not Mao. And he says he's certainly not implying any criticism of China's current leadership.
Red Guards still use the euphemistic jargon of the era, including terms such as "struggling" against class enemies. Critics point out that these vague terms could be considered to include acts such as murder, torture and imprisonment."
Hm. Sounds vaguely familiar all this.
The Devil (And Truth) Is In The Details
Was reading about the Gov. of New York Andrew Cuomo is raising the minimum wage to $15 /hr (love how they arbitrarily selected the number 15. Musta sounded nice to the derp who came up with it) for public workers in his state.
But here's the thing. If this magical wage hike is theoretically meant to immediately increase aggregate demand thus ushering in instant job growth why the five year delay? After all, us small businesses are immoral for paying less than what they think is a 'living wage'.
Reminds me of the wholeclimate system change Gaia freak-out session. If the situation is so dire and in need of immediate action, why are targets always set for many years down the road?
Other than that, more for the parasite class to plunder the private sector.
But here's the thing. If this magical wage hike is theoretically meant to immediately increase aggregate demand thus ushering in instant job growth why the five year delay? After all, us small businesses are immoral for paying less than what they think is a 'living wage'.
Reminds me of the whole
Other than that, more for the parasite class to plunder the private sector.
Satire No More And The Madness At Mizzou
When does satire become reality?
Regarding this whole University of Mizzou thing. I ain't touching this one. I think it's pretty safe to conclude most of what's being charged by the students is bull shit and likely never happened. It's a scourge we're seeing on campus and not a simple 'communication breakdown' as some have ridiculously asserted. Not to mention the story of communications professor Melissa Click scolding a journalist and preventing them from doing their jobs. Freedom of speech? Of the press? You mad, bro? Someone made a poo Swastika! Allegedly. But we're gonna stick with the fabrication because, er, social justice?
Everyone has lost their fricken minds.
For more on Mizzou Lies just follow Reason. The stories are coming in fast and furiously. I can't keep up; nor do I want to. Bunch of luniles.
This is not social justice. It's just plain tyranny of the mob.
Regarding this whole University of Mizzou thing. I ain't touching this one. I think it's pretty safe to conclude most of what's being charged by the students is bull shit and likely never happened. It's a scourge we're seeing on campus and not a simple 'communication breakdown' as some have ridiculously asserted. Not to mention the story of communications professor Melissa Click scolding a journalist and preventing them from doing their jobs. Freedom of speech? Of the press? You mad, bro? Someone made a poo Swastika! Allegedly. But we're gonna stick with the fabrication because, er, social justice?
Everyone has lost their fricken minds.
For more on Mizzou Lies just follow Reason. The stories are coming in fast and furiously. I can't keep up; nor do I want to. Bunch of luniles.
This is not social justice. It's just plain tyranny of the mob.
Remembrance Day
Please take a moment to remember.
I fear, these days, more and more, we willingly disconnect from the past; from history.
Forever condemned to never understanding or contextualizing.
2015-11-10
Random Unverified Thoughts
Back in the day, the Middle-Ages, alchemists were sly shysters profiting off the ignorance of people.
Today, the modern Middle-Ages, green activists have replaced the alchemists garnering wealth off the ignorance of the people.
Which reminded me of a comment I got from someone at Volkswagen. 'Before, the decision to buy diesel was an economic one. After, when the emissions scandal broke, they suddenly worried about the environment but when VW began to make financial amends, they straightened up, kicked Gaia aside and became rationally economic again.
Emphasis mine.
***
Don't buy the hype. Canada can't afford to join in on the climate-system change alchemy.
There's no such thing as finding 'solutions that balance the economy and climate change policy'.
Someone will pay a heavy price.
***
What makes libertarians and sometimes conservatives different from liberals and progressives?
I think the former when presented with a set of policies, rules or regulations tend to go look at the potential ramifications on the 'unseen'. Moreover, once those become law, they follow the results of such enactments.
Whereas the latter focus on the intent and rhetoric of the idea. The results don't matter much since their intent ensured success in their view. The narrative prevails over the actual result. What is seen is much easier than contemplating the abstract in the unseen.
In other words, libertarians and conservatives are better at spotting bull shit.
Today, the modern Middle-Ages, green activists have replaced the alchemists garnering wealth off the ignorance of the people.
Which reminded me of a comment I got from someone at Volkswagen. 'Before, the decision to buy diesel was an economic one. After, when the emissions scandal broke, they suddenly worried about the environment but when VW began to make financial amends, they straightened up, kicked Gaia aside and became rationally economic again.
Emphasis mine.
***
Don't buy the hype. Canada can't afford to join in on the climate-system change alchemy.
There's no such thing as finding 'solutions that balance the economy and climate change policy'.
Someone will pay a heavy price.
***
What makes libertarians and sometimes conservatives different from liberals and progressives?
I think the former when presented with a set of policies, rules or regulations tend to go look at the potential ramifications on the 'unseen'. Moreover, once those become law, they follow the results of such enactments.
Whereas the latter focus on the intent and rhetoric of the idea. The results don't matter much since their intent ensured success in their view. The narrative prevails over the actual result. What is seen is much easier than contemplating the abstract in the unseen.
In other words, libertarians and conservatives are better at spotting bull shit.
Cult Of Personality Forming Around Trudeau And Why Too Much Is Made Of His Cabinet
And so the 'we're not Harper' government is taking root.
The derp is coming fast hard from 'democracy was restored' (because an imposed affirmative action quota is democracy and equality) to 'I didn't recognize my Canada anymore.'
Funny. I come from the same Canada as the next guy and never felt like anything changed much. But then again, this narrow view is nothing new if you're from the Quebec-Ontario power base. In a way, the Liberals represent old-school, blue blood politics. For progressives (and let's face it, the Liberal party of Canada is basically left-wing now), romanticizing Trudeaumania Redux is 'Canada'.
Superficial to you and me, not so much to them.
But reality will set in.
Unless they kill reality.
And $145 billion in spending may just do that.
Get ready for Derek Zoolander.
***
Of course, they - mostly progressives - were hooked on the semantics more than anything when it came to Harper. For example, the hysterical hysteria around the long-form census was mostly focused on the government making it voluntary rather than mandatory. That 94% of Canadians filled it out anyway matters little. But the Liberals went ahead and made it mandatory again anyway. Because democracy or some shit. Or it was just an easy, early cynical move to signal a new 'style' of governance is in play now.
All theater.
In any event, the buses ran just fine and Canadian civilization remained in tact.
They also obsess over proroguing Parliament but on one of those occasions he was right to do so as the NDP and Liberals cynically tried to usurp the will of Canadians who handed Harper a minority by threatening to merge. Funny how they neglected to mention this to the electorate during the election.
Democracy in action. Or they want to bring Canada back so badly they were willing to undermine the Canadian public.
Nor did he stop scientists from scienting. He just didn't want them going rogue with dissenting (politicized) views from official policy. Chretien was equally as hard on this point if memory serves me right.
It's not different, I reckon, from how diplomats can't go off whenever the government doesn't implement their recommendations. Or, more to the point, how a boss of a company is not interested in watching one of his or her employees take their grievances to other clients.
And quite honestly, like his move to make the LFC voluntary proved to be a non-issue given that Canadians complied anyway, he kinda had a point.
Well, look.
If this is not the cult of the personality taking root like we saw down south with Obama, I don't know what is.
If Harper was not transparent, then he fairly faced criticism for such actions. The Harper government was taken to task.
But here's my worry and concern. Even The Northern Light Bringer was elected the media was fabricating the narrative. And with images like the one above in the link, it should leave you skeptical as to whether the media will critically cover this government.
***
His 'Because it's 2015' quip has already made an impact with those who like their empty platitudes and mediocre rhetoric with their Tim Horton's coffee, is already infiltrating schools.
Now I have to explain to my daughter - delicately - the potential pitfalls of such actions and how to read things critically by knowing history.
Lest she be a victim of it or be given something she didn't deserve.
It's not the values I want to instill in my daughter.
To wit I will have to deconstruct this mess:
"Justin Trudeau’s cabinet is made up of 15 women and 15 men (plus Trudeau). For the first time in Canada’s history, half (50 per cent) of the Prime Minister’s closest advisors are women. In contrast, just 30 per cent—one-third—of the members of Stephen Harper’s most recent cabinet were female.
Trudeau’s cabinet also includes people from different backgrounds, cultures and ways of life. For instance, there is an astronaut, a person in a wheelchair, someone who used to own a campground, a Rhodes Scholar, a refugee, an athlete, an Inuit person, and a former soldier, among others."
One, cabinet ministers have always come from 'diverse backgrounds' so not sure why this was said.
In addition, who makes decisions in accordance to a quota? It's one thing if all criteria were satisfied, whereby in every single of those cases the best candidate was given the job and quite another if a nod was given based on gender, race or creed - which is a form of discrimination in of itself.
Two, the assertion about Harper having only 30% of his cabinet is pointless. It implies it had no diversity which is not accurate. Do Bal Gosal, Leona Aglukklaq and Alice Wong, Lyne Yellich and Julian Fantino (Italian born who worked his way up to Chief of Police in Toronto and Commissioner of the OPP) not count? How about Shelley Glover, part Metis, was the first to police Sargent to become an MP? Or Steven Fletcher who is quadriplegic and an engineer. What, do they fail some 'diversity' definition I'm missing?
I guess the CBC missed it.
Seems to me it was already diverse. Just not in the "percentages" deemed acceptable by...well I guess progressives? Which automatically makes it ridiculous as it demeans Harper's cabinet who served this country.
And spare the crap about them being 'corpses' because Harper controlled the message. If you think and say this you're an asshole.
Four, with 11 cabinet positions. Why? Because the province gave him over 80 seats. So let's keep things in perspective a tad shall we? Personally, this part doesn't bother me at all as it's always been the case.
BE INFORMED. Trudeau is not ushering in a Golden Age of anything. It's been done. I urge young Canadians to research an assertion made or heard. Don't take it at face value. Or else we, among other things, misplace or exaggerate praise.
The derp is coming fast hard from 'democracy was restored' (because an imposed affirmative action quota is democracy and equality) to 'I didn't recognize my Canada anymore.'
Funny. I come from the same Canada as the next guy and never felt like anything changed much. But then again, this narrow view is nothing new if you're from the Quebec-Ontario power base. In a way, the Liberals represent old-school, blue blood politics. For progressives (and let's face it, the Liberal party of Canada is basically left-wing now), romanticizing Trudeaumania Redux is 'Canada'.
Superficial to you and me, not so much to them.
But reality will set in.
Unless they kill reality.
And $145 billion in spending may just do that.
Get ready for Derek Zoolander.
***
Of course, they - mostly progressives - were hooked on the semantics more than anything when it came to Harper. For example, the hysterical hysteria around the long-form census was mostly focused on the government making it voluntary rather than mandatory. That 94% of Canadians filled it out anyway matters little. But the Liberals went ahead and made it mandatory again anyway. Because democracy or some shit. Or it was just an easy, early cynical move to signal a new 'style' of governance is in play now.
All theater.
In any event, the buses ran just fine and Canadian civilization remained in tact.
They also obsess over proroguing Parliament but on one of those occasions he was right to do so as the NDP and Liberals cynically tried to usurp the will of Canadians who handed Harper a minority by threatening to merge. Funny how they neglected to mention this to the electorate during the election.
Democracy in action. Or they want to bring Canada back so badly they were willing to undermine the Canadian public.
Nor did he stop scientists from scienting. He just didn't want them going rogue with dissenting (politicized) views from official policy. Chretien was equally as hard on this point if memory serves me right.
It's not different, I reckon, from how diplomats can't go off whenever the government doesn't implement their recommendations. Or, more to the point, how a boss of a company is not interested in watching one of his or her employees take their grievances to other clients.
And quite honestly, like his move to make the LFC voluntary proved to be a non-issue given that Canadians complied anyway, he kinda had a point.
Well, look.
If this is not the cult of the personality taking root like we saw down south with Obama, I don't know what is.
If Harper was not transparent, then he fairly faced criticism for such actions. The Harper government was taken to task.
But here's my worry and concern. Even The Northern Light Bringer was elected the media was fabricating the narrative. And with images like the one above in the link, it should leave you skeptical as to whether the media will critically cover this government.
***
His 'Because it's 2015' quip has already made an impact with those who like their empty platitudes and mediocre rhetoric with their Tim Horton's coffee, is already infiltrating schools.
Now I have to explain to my daughter - delicately - the potential pitfalls of such actions and how to read things critically by knowing history.
Lest she be a victim of it or be given something she didn't deserve.
It's not the values I want to instill in my daughter.
To wit I will have to deconstruct this mess:
"Justin Trudeau’s cabinet is made up of 15 women and 15 men (plus Trudeau). For the first time in Canada’s history, half (50 per cent) of the Prime Minister’s closest advisors are women. In contrast, just 30 per cent—one-third—of the members of Stephen Harper’s most recent cabinet were female.
Trudeau’s cabinet also includes people from different backgrounds, cultures and ways of life. For instance, there is an astronaut, a person in a wheelchair, someone who used to own a campground, a Rhodes Scholar, a refugee, an athlete, an Inuit person, and a former soldier, among others."
One, cabinet ministers have always come from 'diverse backgrounds' so not sure why this was said.
In addition, who makes decisions in accordance to a quota? It's one thing if all criteria were satisfied, whereby in every single of those cases the best candidate was given the job and quite another if a nod was given based on gender, race or creed - which is a form of discrimination in of itself.
Two, the assertion about Harper having only 30% of his cabinet is pointless. It implies it had no diversity which is not accurate. Do Bal Gosal, Leona Aglukklaq and Alice Wong, Lyne Yellich and Julian Fantino (Italian born who worked his way up to Chief of Police in Toronto and Commissioner of the OPP) not count? How about Shelley Glover, part Metis, was the first to police Sargent to become an MP? Or Steven Fletcher who is quadriplegic and an engineer. What, do they fail some 'diversity' definition I'm missing?
I guess the CBC missed it.
Seems to me it was already diverse. Just not in the "percentages" deemed acceptable by...well I guess progressives? Which automatically makes it ridiculous as it demeans Harper's cabinet who served this country.
And spare the crap about them being 'corpses' because Harper controlled the message. If you think and say this you're an asshole.
Four, with 11 cabinet positions. Why? Because the province gave him over 80 seats. So let's keep things in perspective a tad shall we? Personally, this part doesn't bother me at all as it's always been the case.
BE INFORMED. Trudeau is not ushering in a Golden Age of anything. It's been done. I urge young Canadians to research an assertion made or heard. Don't take it at face value. Or else we, among other things, misplace or exaggerate praise.
USA Soccer Will Come To Regret Its Heading Ban
"USA Soccer recently settled a class action lawsuit that claimed it was negligent in player safety when it came to concussions. As part of the settlement, USA Soccer is implementing new concussion protocols and restrictions, though the organization claims those programs were in the works before the settlement was reached."
As part of the new restrictions, players under 10 will be banned from using their heads to hit the ball in practice and in games. Kids from 11 to 13 years old will only be able to head the ball in games, and not in practices.
This is a terrible decision by USA soccer that will likely have consequences down the line. And for the wrong reasons. What was 'negligent' exactly? Heading is an essential part of the game.
I have no idea what statistics they used and quite frankly I'd be skeptical of them anyway. Something tells me the 'precautionary principle' prevailed here and fear of lawsuits more than anything.
Problem is, as these kids turn 11 they will have to learn a skill they should have already mastered at a young age.
“Taking headers out of the game would change how the flow of the game goes," Estrella Middle School soccer coach Jon Hessburg said. "There’s a lot of offense involved in headers, there’s a lot of defense involved.”
Absolutely. You're changing the very idea of the game itself. Not to mention put Americans at a disadvantage against Europeans and South Americans.
Other coaches agree, saying not teaching kids such an integral part of the game might put them at a disadvantage in high school or college.Some also believe heading can be less dangerous if it's taught correctly, but they believe that teaching has to start early.
EXACTLY. Once they learn, as I did, they know when and how to head. The occasional head-to-head collision is rare and usually a freak incident not worthy of such an action.
But concussion experts say contact with the ball doesn't concern them. They say most serious injuries come from contact with other players who are also trying to use their heads.
Answered above. Ban sports then. Because when you mess with the fundamentals of a game you mess with its essence.
"They either collide with each other o,r one of them falls to the ground, striking their head on the ground," Dr. Javier Cardenas, director of the Barrow Concussion and Brain Injury Center said.
Gee thanks Captain Obvious. Again. Rare. I played and have watched soccer for over 37 years and saw more knee injuries than I did head incidents.
The Arizona Interscholastic Association already restricts heading practice to 15 minutes twice a week," Cardenas said. He said more restrictions won't put kids at any more risk for injuries by not teaching them early.
Oh, it will. My hunch.
We see it in hockey already. They banned body checking at a young age. There's reasonable theory that the dirty checking, injuries sustained to hitting and general all around clumsy physical play including lashing out violently to a clean check is directly attributed to the fact they never learned how to hit and take a hit.
Above all. What in the end separates two teams is grit and mental strength. The tougher team usually prevails in sports. I know this may offend the snowflakes among us but this is what it is. Sports is not 'recreational' at the competitive level. It's brutal, brutish in its brutality.
Heading in soccer, among other things, is a way to fight for the ball. Take this away and you're left with what exactly? If a player doesn't know how to head a ball it limits their usefulness.
I myself have multiple tears and twists and root canals to prove it. If you can't rise above the pain then you have no business playing sports.
At all.
Go play tennis, or take up swimming or cycling (all fine sports in their own right) if the physicality of soccer, football, basketball and hockey are too much.
****
Once again, it's not about science or any substantial stance. As noted above, it's the precautionary principle:
"But today, given the enormous stakes of a significant health risk to millions of American children, it was the right thing to do."
What the heck are they talking about? If this is not fear-mongering look to appeal to emotions I don't know what is. Of course the medical profession is gonna focus on the risk but if we let doctors run our sports we'd all end up playing checkers.
I mean, why stop at this? Stop kids from riding their bikes because 'significant health risks'.
As part of the new restrictions, players under 10 will be banned from using their heads to hit the ball in practice and in games. Kids from 11 to 13 years old will only be able to head the ball in games, and not in practices.
This is a terrible decision by USA soccer that will likely have consequences down the line. And for the wrong reasons. What was 'negligent' exactly? Heading is an essential part of the game.
I have no idea what statistics they used and quite frankly I'd be skeptical of them anyway. Something tells me the 'precautionary principle' prevailed here and fear of lawsuits more than anything.
Problem is, as these kids turn 11 they will have to learn a skill they should have already mastered at a young age.
“Taking headers out of the game would change how the flow of the game goes," Estrella Middle School soccer coach Jon Hessburg said. "There’s a lot of offense involved in headers, there’s a lot of defense involved.”
Absolutely. You're changing the very idea of the game itself. Not to mention put Americans at a disadvantage against Europeans and South Americans.
Other coaches agree, saying not teaching kids such an integral part of the game might put them at a disadvantage in high school or college.Some also believe heading can be less dangerous if it's taught correctly, but they believe that teaching has to start early.
EXACTLY. Once they learn, as I did, they know when and how to head. The occasional head-to-head collision is rare and usually a freak incident not worthy of such an action.
But concussion experts say contact with the ball doesn't concern them. They say most serious injuries come from contact with other players who are also trying to use their heads.
Answered above. Ban sports then. Because when you mess with the fundamentals of a game you mess with its essence.
"They either collide with each other o,r one of them falls to the ground, striking their head on the ground," Dr. Javier Cardenas, director of the Barrow Concussion and Brain Injury Center said.
Gee thanks Captain Obvious. Again. Rare. I played and have watched soccer for over 37 years and saw more knee injuries than I did head incidents.
The Arizona Interscholastic Association already restricts heading practice to 15 minutes twice a week," Cardenas said. He said more restrictions won't put kids at any more risk for injuries by not teaching them early.
Oh, it will. My hunch.
We see it in hockey already. They banned body checking at a young age. There's reasonable theory that the dirty checking, injuries sustained to hitting and general all around clumsy physical play including lashing out violently to a clean check is directly attributed to the fact they never learned how to hit and take a hit.
Above all. What in the end separates two teams is grit and mental strength. The tougher team usually prevails in sports. I know this may offend the snowflakes among us but this is what it is. Sports is not 'recreational' at the competitive level. It's brutal, brutish in its brutality.
Heading in soccer, among other things, is a way to fight for the ball. Take this away and you're left with what exactly? If a player doesn't know how to head a ball it limits their usefulness.
I myself have multiple tears and twists and root canals to prove it. If you can't rise above the pain then you have no business playing sports.
At all.
Go play tennis, or take up swimming or cycling (all fine sports in their own right) if the physicality of soccer, football, basketball and hockey are too much.
****
Once again, it's not about science or any substantial stance. As noted above, it's the precautionary principle:
"But today, given the enormous stakes of a significant health risk to millions of American children, it was the right thing to do."
What the heck are they talking about? If this is not fear-mongering look to appeal to emotions I don't know what is. Of course the medical profession is gonna focus on the risk but if we let doctors run our sports we'd all end up playing checkers.
I mean, why stop at this? Stop kids from riding their bikes because 'significant health risks'.
Couillard And The Liberals Are A Disgrace
Wow am I totally and thoroughly disappointed with the actions of the Liberal party of Quebec.
In the latest proposal, they offered teachers 3%.
On one side of their mouth they preach austerity and on the other they give themselves a 55% pay increase while giving Bombardier - those inept bums - $1.2 billion in bail out money to be wasted away.
This is a clear and concise example signal being sent to society. The political class and their cronies will not tighten their belts. It will be up to the rest of Quebec's population to bite the austerity lip.
What a bunch of bullying, parasitical thieves.
In the latest proposal, they offered teachers 3%.
On one side of their mouth they preach austerity and on the other they give themselves a 55% pay increase while giving Bombardier - those inept bums - $1.2 billion in bail out money to be wasted away.
This is a clear and concise example signal being sent to society. The political class and their cronies will not tighten their belts. It will be up to the rest of Quebec's population to bite the austerity lip.
What a bunch of bullying, parasitical thieves.
Prime Minister Zoolander Hard At Work Making Canadians Feel Good About Themselves; Democracy
He's gonna build 'The Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can't Read
Good and Want to Do Other Stuff Good Too' because he loves Canada more
than Harper!
Yeah, I'm gonna go with this nickname. It's perfect. This shameless theft comes by way of a Reason-commenter friend who I've already notified since it wasn't copyrighted.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with this nickname. It's perfect. This shameless theft comes by way of a Reason-commenter friend who I've already notified since it wasn't copyrighted.
ESPN Is Full Of Shit
ESPN, like all organizations these days, adheres to the meaningless PC term 'equal opportunity and diversity'.
So whenever a radio host pushes the envelope and inevitably offends someone in the audience, ESPN is ready to fire them under such clauses.
The most recent incident happened with Colin Cowherd. Granted, he was already on his way out but it didn't stop ESPN jumping on it to show their PC cred.
Cowherd made some point about how the education system sucks in the Dominican Republic. A point that can largely be proven by facts. Nothing wrong in the comment but hey. It's 2015, as Sparkles Trudeau (with a glimmer of smug pride) said in response to his PC-appointed cabinet. So everyone needs to get outraged like it's 1999. Or something.
Naturally, they did go nuts and out went Cowherd. Now, I understand he can rub people the wrong way but rarely does he make a comment on social matters without much research. In any event, how in the world is he anymore or less offensive than Stephen A. Smith?
They tolerated his racial commentary but didn't Cowherd? Why? Because the former is black and the latter is white?
Right there ESPN showed they're disingenuous.
Worse, this is an organization that has a former football player with a violent past and was present at the scene of a murder. Is Ray Lewis the sort of individual ESPN is proud to have but a radio host who made an easily verifiable comment that hurt people's feelings is not?
Stew on that.
Not good.
Not good at all.
So whenever a radio host pushes the envelope and inevitably offends someone in the audience, ESPN is ready to fire them under such clauses.
The most recent incident happened with Colin Cowherd. Granted, he was already on his way out but it didn't stop ESPN jumping on it to show their PC cred.
Cowherd made some point about how the education system sucks in the Dominican Republic. A point that can largely be proven by facts. Nothing wrong in the comment but hey. It's 2015, as Sparkles Trudeau (with a glimmer of smug pride) said in response to his PC-appointed cabinet. So everyone needs to get outraged like it's 1999. Or something.
Naturally, they did go nuts and out went Cowherd. Now, I understand he can rub people the wrong way but rarely does he make a comment on social matters without much research. In any event, how in the world is he anymore or less offensive than Stephen A. Smith?
They tolerated his racial commentary but didn't Cowherd? Why? Because the former is black and the latter is white?
Right there ESPN showed they're disingenuous.
Worse, this is an organization that has a former football player with a violent past and was present at the scene of a murder. Is Ray Lewis the sort of individual ESPN is proud to have but a radio host who made an easily verifiable comment that hurt people's feelings is not?
Stew on that.
Not good.
Not good at all.
2015-11-08
If Obama Was President In The 19th Century....
He'd stop the expansion of the railway and production of fossil fuels; ie coal.
Two things that spearheaded the West into unprecedented prosperity and lifted millions out of poverty.
Two things that spearheaded the West into unprecedented prosperity and lifted millions out of poverty.
2015-11-07
America: Land Of The Free No More
America is the last hope for freedom and liberty.
This is why stories like this are deplorable and depressing.
"Over the weekend, San Francisco will lose its last gun store: High Bridge Arms.
Why? The city has mandated that gun shops hand over information about its customers to the cops.
"Just the idea of giving that information willingly to the police department, for no real reason, seemed very unreasonable to me." says Steven Alcairo, the general manager of High Bridge Arms. Alcairo notes that the store already complies with all federal and state reporting requirements."
Mark Farrell, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, was behind the local ordinance. The ordinance places new requirements on gun shops like High Bridge Arms, such as videotaping everything that happens in their stores and providing the San Francisco Police Department with weekly updates on customers and purchases.
"I would never introduce legislation to hurt a small business in our city," Farrell told the local NBC affiliate. "However, if a gun store in particular wants to close as a result of it, so be it."
Go fuck yourself Farrell. You parasite.
I'm sorry Bob Chow. May you continue to fight the good fight against these a-holes.
This is why stories like this are deplorable and depressing.
"Over the weekend, San Francisco will lose its last gun store: High Bridge Arms.
Why? The city has mandated that gun shops hand over information about its customers to the cops.
"Just the idea of giving that information willingly to the police department, for no real reason, seemed very unreasonable to me." says Steven Alcairo, the general manager of High Bridge Arms. Alcairo notes that the store already complies with all federal and state reporting requirements."
Mark Farrell, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, was behind the local ordinance. The ordinance places new requirements on gun shops like High Bridge Arms, such as videotaping everything that happens in their stores and providing the San Francisco Police Department with weekly updates on customers and purchases.
"I would never introduce legislation to hurt a small business in our city," Farrell told the local NBC affiliate. "However, if a gun store in particular wants to close as a result of it, so be it."
Go fuck yourself Farrell. You parasite.
I'm sorry Bob Chow. May you continue to fight the good fight against these a-holes.
The Biggest Bully Of Them All: The Government
This story about a sociopath cop entrapping an autistic kid into buying drugs and then arresting him in Riverside County, California is one disturbing story. The student sued but the judge through dismissed the case.
Justice.
For the people.
Give yourselves a round of high fives blue bloods!
Cops name is Daniel Zipperstein. According to his police deparment:
"Serve the public, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent and weak"
Ha!
Here's more of that protecting people shit. Cops kill six year-old autistic boy.
They're sick in the head cops.
War on cops...my ass.
deputy sheriff
Serve the public, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent
Justice.
For the people.
Give yourselves a round of high fives blue bloods!
Cops name is Daniel Zipperstein. According to his police deparment:
"Serve the public, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent and weak"
Ha!
Here's more of that protecting people shit. Cops kill six year-old autistic boy.
They're sick in the head cops.
War on cops...my ass.
deputy sheriff
Serve the public, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent
Climate Change: A Tale Of Two Forces
On the debate abouthan climate cge Each side will claim the other to be irrational
All I see is one side skeptically debating the facts as presented about man-made global warming and climate change (or whatever it is they call it now. The narrative and its terms shift as the facts erase their claims I reckon). They point, with some validity, to many studies that bring to question the accepted beliefs in what causes global warming; not to mention it's been strenuously and convincingly argued the entire climate change deck of cards is built on lousy models and thus a faulty premise. Moreover, having become a highly politicized process. And with politics comes cronyism. Enter people like Al Gore who score a buck off this ignorance or entrepreneurs jumping on the green craze by setting up environmental adventures like Tesla mostly on the dime of taxpayers through subsidies and tax credits. It doesn't matter, despite its impressive technological attributes, it's unprofitable. Society is expected to cover its losses because the narrative dictates it.
Interestingly, Tesla is not accessible to the middle-class given its lofty six-figure price. It remains a novelty for the rich; 'climate indulgences for the wealthy' as it were. Ironically, in a small, weird way, it's the rich who are spearheading climate change!
Absent on this side is vapid terms and name-calling that only confuse the debate. Outside some conservatives claiming it's a 'hoax' I don't see much calls for 'arresting' climate change scientists who likely fudged the numbers.
The belief is so strong that even if climate change changes again they'll forever just shift along with it thus leaving them in a perpetual state of climate fear and notion of 'needing to take action now'.
This is where hyper language takes over. They will claim their opponents (science is never about us versus them) are "anti-science" and harking back to their witch hunting impulses are "deniers" and appealing to authority and their inquisitional totalitarianism they assert "we must imprison" and of course my personal favorite empty claim it's all 'settled' even though climate is an ever-changing phenomena.
There's no such thing as 'settled' climate and weather. Ever wake up in the morning and notice the temperature changes? Same with climate over time. It varies.
So. I ask. Who exactly is acting irrational with religious cult-like tendencies?
But it's not about climate change now is it? It's about system change.
Around 15 years ago I read a now mostly forgotten article in The National Post. In the opinion of the author (I can't for the life of me remember her name so I have to go on memory) climate change was about uprooting capitalism. Her (prescient) assessment led her to conclude climate change was just a red herring to change the system. And as we observe closer, we see that we're indeed attempting to change it. Just look at the language we use. 'It's rigged' and 'income inequality' and 'gender gaps' and 'fair wage' and 'pay your fair share' all culminating into one neat calls to 'eat the rich'.
Shamanistic economic jargon now matches the climate change gibberish.
Note, I'm not suggesting none of things don't exist in some form or another. Humans are flawed and the system is indeed imperfect. I just don't see the solutions offered as being reasonable is all.
Since this article, they've let that mask slip and now acknowledge the only way to deal with the "settled science" (in of itself an ignorant statement) is to get rid of capitalism altogether because they see it as an obstacle to their goals and objectives.
Capitalism is the enemy see? The NP writer was right all along.
Personally, I think it's the entire environmental movement and its insane declarations of war on fossil fuels who are not permitting healthy debate. After all, one would think they'd be happy if they were proven wrong, no? I mean, who wants to die in a freak tsunami slamming against New York City, right? Yet, something tells me if things shift for the better (recall climate doomsayers have been warning death and destruction is right around the corner since the early 1900s and have always generally been wrong. As recently as the 1970s we were told it was a 'global cooling'. The 70s wasn't that long ago and it's surprising people aren't more skeptical about such claims. Are we that indebted to the notion of 'just in case' rhetoric?) it wouldn't be cause for celebration in their ranks.
Well, for starters I can understand why. First off, grants would dry up. Second, and esoterically more important, no one wants to be wrong about something they've poured so much of their energy and passion into.
Alas, that's their problem. If they couldn't take a second to stop and smell the roses of rationalism, then perhaps they're condemned to another type of doom.
All I see is one side skeptically debating the facts as presented about man-made global warming and climate change (or whatever it is they call it now. The narrative and its terms shift as the facts erase their claims I reckon). They point, with some validity, to many studies that bring to question the accepted beliefs in what causes global warming; not to mention it's been strenuously and convincingly argued the entire climate change deck of cards is built on lousy models and thus a faulty premise. Moreover, having become a highly politicized process. And with politics comes cronyism. Enter people like Al Gore who score a buck off this ignorance or entrepreneurs jumping on the green craze by setting up environmental adventures like Tesla mostly on the dime of taxpayers through subsidies and tax credits. It doesn't matter, despite its impressive technological attributes, it's unprofitable. Society is expected to cover its losses because the narrative dictates it.
Interestingly, Tesla is not accessible to the middle-class given its lofty six-figure price. It remains a novelty for the rich; 'climate indulgences for the wealthy' as it were. Ironically, in a small, weird way, it's the rich who are spearheading climate change!
Absent on this side is vapid terms and name-calling that only confuse the debate. Outside some conservatives claiming it's a 'hoax' I don't see much calls for 'arresting' climate change scientists who likely fudged the numbers.
The belief is so strong that even if climate change changes again they'll forever just shift along with it thus leaving them in a perpetual state of climate fear and notion of 'needing to take action now'.
This is where hyper language takes over. They will claim their opponents (science is never about us versus them) are "anti-science" and harking back to their witch hunting impulses are "deniers" and appealing to authority and their inquisitional totalitarianism they assert "we must imprison" and of course my personal favorite empty claim it's all 'settled' even though climate is an ever-changing phenomena.
There's no such thing as 'settled' climate and weather. Ever wake up in the morning and notice the temperature changes? Same with climate over time. It varies.
So. I ask. Who exactly is acting irrational with religious cult-like tendencies?
But it's not about climate change now is it? It's about system change.
Around 15 years ago I read a now mostly forgotten article in The National Post. In the opinion of the author (I can't for the life of me remember her name so I have to go on memory) climate change was about uprooting capitalism. Her (prescient) assessment led her to conclude climate change was just a red herring to change the system. And as we observe closer, we see that we're indeed attempting to change it. Just look at the language we use. 'It's rigged' and 'income inequality' and 'gender gaps' and 'fair wage' and 'pay your fair share' all culminating into one neat calls to 'eat the rich'.
Shamanistic economic jargon now matches the climate change gibberish.
Note, I'm not suggesting none of things don't exist in some form or another. Humans are flawed and the system is indeed imperfect. I just don't see the solutions offered as being reasonable is all.
Since this article, they've let that mask slip and now acknowledge the only way to deal with the "settled science" (in of itself an ignorant statement) is to get rid of capitalism altogether because they see it as an obstacle to their goals and objectives.
Capitalism is the enemy see? The NP writer was right all along.
Personally, I think it's the entire environmental movement and its insane declarations of war on fossil fuels who are not permitting healthy debate. After all, one would think they'd be happy if they were proven wrong, no? I mean, who wants to die in a freak tsunami slamming against New York City, right? Yet, something tells me if things shift for the better (recall climate doomsayers have been warning death and destruction is right around the corner since the early 1900s and have always generally been wrong. As recently as the 1970s we were told it was a 'global cooling'. The 70s wasn't that long ago and it's surprising people aren't more skeptical about such claims. Are we that indebted to the notion of 'just in case' rhetoric?) it wouldn't be cause for celebration in their ranks.
Well, for starters I can understand why. First off, grants would dry up. Second, and esoterically more important, no one wants to be wrong about something they've poured so much of their energy and passion into.
Alas, that's their problem. If they couldn't take a second to stop and smell the roses of rationalism, then perhaps they're condemned to another type of doom.
2015-11-06
Obama Nixes Keystone; Bows Before Gaia
Unsurprisingly, the United States officially turned down TransCanada Keystone pipeline.
I agree with the Trans Canada's statemen: Rhetoric gave way to reason.
Obama wants to keep 'fossil fuels in the ground.'
Remember. Democrats are the party of 'science'.
I agree with the Trans Canada's statemen: Rhetoric gave way to reason.
Obama wants to keep 'fossil fuels in the ground.'
Remember. Democrats are the party of 'science'.
We Want Shiny Toys!
I keep reading how "science is restored" now that the Liberals are in charge.
Got that?! Charles is in Charge now!
It's stupid as it is devoid of any reasonable and rational thought.
Science didn't go anywhere in the last 10 years.
What did disappear for a while was politically charged science. The Conservatives clamped down on that crap as was their right and rightfully so because it was done on the government's dime. It did give us some peace of mind and keep us out of the politics of climate change rubbish.
The charge he was anti-science was just hyper petulance on the part of the people who felt entitled to tax dollars to fund whatever it was they were studying. Hence the predictable narrative that pitted the conservatives as 'anti-science jesus freaks' against enlightened and rational people.
The only irrational forces were the ones pimping that narrative.
Like it is whenever you take away their toys. They react as if the world is gonna end. What? No research for global warming? We're gonna die! What? Long-form census is not mandatory? Kids won't get school buses!
Of course, Canada still stands as it always has.
Dumbass fear-mongering babies.
And that's the blunt truth of it.
Alas, now they have their Shiny Toy governance. They can suck on the tit of the state again and over shoot their importance.
All is well.
Got that?! Charles is in Charge now!
It's stupid as it is devoid of any reasonable and rational thought.
Science didn't go anywhere in the last 10 years.
What did disappear for a while was politically charged science. The Conservatives clamped down on that crap as was their right and rightfully so because it was done on the government's dime. It did give us some peace of mind and keep us out of the politics of climate change rubbish.
The charge he was anti-science was just hyper petulance on the part of the people who felt entitled to tax dollars to fund whatever it was they were studying. Hence the predictable narrative that pitted the conservatives as 'anti-science jesus freaks' against enlightened and rational people.
The only irrational forces were the ones pimping that narrative.
Like it is whenever you take away their toys. They react as if the world is gonna end. What? No research for global warming? We're gonna die! What? Long-form census is not mandatory? Kids won't get school buses!
Of course, Canada still stands as it always has.
Dumbass fear-mongering babies.
And that's the blunt truth of it.
Alas, now they have their Shiny Toy governance. They can suck on the tit of the state again and over shoot their importance.
All is well.
Adidas Goes SJW
Man am I getting tired of this shit.
"The German sports apparel company this week released a plan at the White House Tribal Nations Conference to encourage schools to change mascots or other symbols representing Native Americans in derogatory ways.
Adidas says it will give free design assistance for institutions agreeing to switch their logos and “who want to change their identity to ensure the transition is not cost prohibitive.”
Not to sound shrill or anything but I'm definitely not buying Adidas gear. Not that I bought much but this certainly isn't going to help.
I know. I'm such an extremist not buying into the SJW cause.
I wonder how the Germans would feel if someone made too much of the fact Volkswagen was founded by Adolf Hitler. And that the iconic VW symbol is probably offensive to Jews.
They'd be right if they argued they shouldn't be penalized for something that happened 80 years ago or that the company's values obviously do not reflect Nazi ideology. Contemporary Germany is not Nazi Germany.
So why the fuck are they not applying this simple argument and logic to mascots and the Washington Redskins? Not to mention, often, it has in some cases become a term of respect and endearment for Native culture.
The hypocrisy is blinding.
"The German sports apparel company this week released a plan at the White House Tribal Nations Conference to encourage schools to change mascots or other symbols representing Native Americans in derogatory ways.
Adidas says it will give free design assistance for institutions agreeing to switch their logos and “who want to change their identity to ensure the transition is not cost prohibitive.”
Not to sound shrill or anything but I'm definitely not buying Adidas gear. Not that I bought much but this certainly isn't going to help.
I know. I'm such an extremist not buying into the SJW cause.
I wonder how the Germans would feel if someone made too much of the fact Volkswagen was founded by Adolf Hitler. And that the iconic VW symbol is probably offensive to Jews.
They'd be right if they argued they shouldn't be penalized for something that happened 80 years ago or that the company's values obviously do not reflect Nazi ideology. Contemporary Germany is not Nazi Germany.
So why the fuck are they not applying this simple argument and logic to mascots and the Washington Redskins? Not to mention, often, it has in some cases become a term of respect and endearment for Native culture.
The hypocrisy is blinding.
'What A Bunch Of Assholes'
Years from now, when the West experiences its Second Renaissance following Dark Age II, historians will look back on the issues with much amusement and sadness.
They will repeat the age old questions of how could we have been so stupid? Why is man so vulnerable to such inane fear-mongering and hyper social outrage?
They will read about micro-aggressions and climate-system change and wars on coal and women and misplaced economic spending and all the other nonsensical gibber-gabber idiocy spewed on the grounds of being progressive and compassionate and conclude 'what a bunch of fucken (control freak) assholes' they were.
And they will, like we do today, make recommendations on how to avoid another dark age but it will be to no avail because there's no such thing as peak derp.
****
Climate skeptic/Witch hunt language dichotomy:
Denier! Witch!
Imprisonment! Burn at the stake!
They will repeat the age old questions of how could we have been so stupid? Why is man so vulnerable to such inane fear-mongering and hyper social outrage?
They will read about micro-aggressions and climate-system change and wars on coal and women and misplaced economic spending and all the other nonsensical gibber-gabber idiocy spewed on the grounds of being progressive and compassionate and conclude 'what a bunch of fucken (control freak) assholes' they were.
And they will, like we do today, make recommendations on how to avoid another dark age but it will be to no avail because there's no such thing as peak derp.
****
Climate skeptic/Witch hunt language dichotomy:
Denier! Witch!
Imprisonment! Burn at the stake!
CBC Renames Itself TTC: The Trudeau Corporation
Well, that didn't take long. We all knew the CBC was and is in love with the emotional Trudeau era but, sheesh, could they at least pretend? For the children.
"Justin Trudeau begins his bold experiment in 'government by cabinet"
I didn't realize poo-pooing merit for forced egalitarianism was a legitimate "bold" action.
********
PM: "YOU! Yeah, you. You have a vulva? You're in!'
MP:"But I don't want to be in! I just want to have the flexibility to raise my child who has special needs!"
PM:"Nonsense! That's what the government is for. You're in! We have quotas to fulfill, Debbie. QUOTAS! You don't wants disappoints quotas, right?'
MP:"Guess not."
PM: "Atta girl!
/waves her off. Continues...
"Dumba el-Labbody! Yeah you! You're in...."
********
To those who are like me and watch all this rubbish with a raised eyebrow, all I can say is be prepared because we have four years of this crap on the docket.
2015-11-05
Shiny Toy Governance: Rationalism Restored!
Not really.
Bains could not say what the penalty would be for refusing to fill out the compulsory questionnaire, but said there will be a "robust" communication plan. The vast majority of Canadians understand the importance of this data and want to participate in the process, he said, noting that 93.5 per cent of the population filled out the forms last time.
Key phrase: 93.5% and all VOLUNTARY.
Chalk up to petulant babies acting like fucken assholes.
Yet, they still want to make it mandatory under the threat of a fine? Let's go after the 6.5%. Freedom of choice means jack shit to the Liberals.
Anytime you see the word 'mandatory' it's never a good thing. Ever.
If anything, the conservatives were correct to have scrapped the coercive aspect of the long-form census. They proved A) the country rolled along and B) people still filled it out anyway.
So what's the friggin problem?
Right.
Progressives are control freaks. They just love a good fine or threat for a good cause. They just talk nicer is all.
Again. Nothing new. Expect much more of this superficial governance from a government that lacks any real substance.
I look forward to what kind of nonsense the Minister of Environment and Global Warming will concot.
The Liberals are not governing for the people. They're governing according to a narrative; through progressive optics. That's it. They govern the same way they shrilled the conservatives for.
Not a fan.
Bains could not say what the penalty would be for refusing to fill out the compulsory questionnaire, but said there will be a "robust" communication plan. The vast majority of Canadians understand the importance of this data and want to participate in the process, he said, noting that 93.5 per cent of the population filled out the forms last time.
Key phrase: 93.5% and all VOLUNTARY.
Chalk up to petulant babies acting like fucken assholes.
Yet, they still want to make it mandatory under the threat of a fine? Let's go after the 6.5%. Freedom of choice means jack shit to the Liberals.
Anytime you see the word 'mandatory' it's never a good thing. Ever.
If anything, the conservatives were correct to have scrapped the coercive aspect of the long-form census. They proved A) the country rolled along and B) people still filled it out anyway.
So what's the friggin problem?
Right.
Progressives are control freaks. They just love a good fine or threat for a good cause. They just talk nicer is all.
Again. Nothing new. Expect much more of this superficial governance from a government that lacks any real substance.
I look forward to what kind of nonsense the Minister of Environment and Global Warming will concot.
The Liberals are not governing for the people. They're governing according to a narrative; through progressive optics. That's it. They govern the same way they shrilled the conservatives for.
Not a fan.
2015-11-04
Shiny Toy Government: Justice And Equality You Can Believe in
Justin Trudeau announced his cabinet and true to progressive form he nominated 15 men and 15 women.
Nothing says equality like forced-faked equality.
Naturally, the media is eating this theater up.
The brain dead fawning only further exposes their liberal bias. Truly is sad.
It would take a special kind of person to actually believe the appointments were entirely based on merit.
Imagine if you worked for a company and were passed over because of political correct nonsense? It wouldn't be great for morale.
This sort of thing is frowned upon in serious companies and sports teams. And for good reason. You can't let a narrative rule your decisions lest you lose or fail.
In fact, I wonder about those Liberals overlooked who probably deserved a post ahead of some of these folks. They can't be too pleased. To be frank, I don't feel sorry for them. They signed up for this.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an organization that runs its affairs this way. There's nothing more corrosive than watching boobs and babs get undeserved promotions. But that's me.
Trudeau's emotional vapidity is only surpassed by the cynicism that grips modern progressivism. Rooted in this decision is the misplaced and misguided notion that somehow unfair practices based on gender was a common practice; that somehow he's righting a wrong.
Sorta like how the left-wing narrative in the USA and Obama.
Utter bollocks.
Then again, I would not expect anything less from the Liberals.
They are the natural governing party of Shiny Toys.
To those of us who pull classical liberal. Saddle up. It's going to be one derpy ride with this bunch.
***
Watch what the Liberals do not what they say. It won't be pretty and Alberta is going to be a far different place in a couple of years.
It always stuns me how people vote NDP and then are shocked they want to spend their way into oblivion. You get what you vote for. The NDP will spend Alberta into oblivion.
While Trudeau is gonna make people swoon with his empty 'different kind of governance' talk, the actual politics a may affect us negatively in our pockets.
Style over substance will be the order of the day.
Just watch him.
Nothing says equality like forced-faked equality.
Naturally, the media is eating this theater up.
The brain dead fawning only further exposes their liberal bias. Truly is sad.
It would take a special kind of person to actually believe the appointments were entirely based on merit.
Imagine if you worked for a company and were passed over because of political correct nonsense? It wouldn't be great for morale.
This sort of thing is frowned upon in serious companies and sports teams. And for good reason. You can't let a narrative rule your decisions lest you lose or fail.
In fact, I wonder about those Liberals overlooked who probably deserved a post ahead of some of these folks. They can't be too pleased. To be frank, I don't feel sorry for them. They signed up for this.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an organization that runs its affairs this way. There's nothing more corrosive than watching boobs and babs get undeserved promotions. But that's me.
Trudeau's emotional vapidity is only surpassed by the cynicism that grips modern progressivism. Rooted in this decision is the misplaced and misguided notion that somehow unfair practices based on gender was a common practice; that somehow he's righting a wrong.
Sorta like how the left-wing narrative in the USA and Obama.
Utter bollocks.
Then again, I would not expect anything less from the Liberals.
They are the natural governing party of Shiny Toys.
To those of us who pull classical liberal. Saddle up. It's going to be one derpy ride with this bunch.
***
Watch what the Liberals do not what they say. It won't be pretty and Alberta is going to be a far different place in a couple of years.
It always stuns me how people vote NDP and then are shocked they want to spend their way into oblivion. You get what you vote for. The NDP will spend Alberta into oblivion.
While Trudeau is gonna make people swoon with his empty 'different kind of governance' talk, the actual politics a may affect us negatively in our pockets.
Style over substance will be the order of the day.
Just watch him.
Celebrities say The Darndest Things
Zooey Deschanel on otters:
'We just really loved the name Elsie and we both love otters,' she said on The Today Show.
'We just really loved the name Elsie and we both love otters,' she said on The Today Show.
And she explained that the semi-aquatic animals had always been her favourite.
'They
are very sweet and they are also smart,' she said. 'They use tools,
they keep their favourite tools. They hold hands while they sleep.
'There are so many amazing things about otters. Who doesn't love otters.'
And
Zooey joked of baby Elsie: 'I love otters, she better love otters. We
don't know yet because she's only a few months old. But she's going to.'
Aw.
Except.
"...A weaned harbor seal pup was resting onshore when an untagged male sea
otter approached it, grasped it with its teeth and forepaws, bit it on
the nose, and flipped it over. The harbor seal moved toward the water
with the sea otter following closely. Once in the water, the sea otter
gripped the harbor seal’s head with its forepaws and repeatedly bit it
on the nose, causing a deep laceration. The sea otter and pup rolled
violently in the water for approximately 15 min, while the pup struggled
to free itself from the sea otter’s grasp. Finally, the sea otter
positioned itself dorsal to the pup’s smaller body while grasping it by
the head and holding it underwater in a position typical of mating sea
otters. As the sea otter thrust his pelvis, his penis was extruded and
intromission was observed. At 105 min into the encounter, the sea otter
released the pup, now dead, and began grooming."
Basically they fuck and rape you to death.
It always helps to, you know, research things in life.
It may stop you from regretting some decisions.
2015-11-03
This Dark Age Will Run Rampant Until We Rediscover And Accept What Made Western Civilzation Great And Prosperous
'I don't need to use your logic. Those are dead white men constructs and I refute it on the basis of my culture and gender'. The Commentator on progressive identity political intellectualism.
This is the same person The Atlantic ridiculously called Melissa Harris-Perry (the progressive who owes back taxes) 'America's foremost public intellectual'.
For true.
Well, Te-Nehisi Coates called her that. The guy some organization deemed a 'genius'.
Walla, walla, wee. Whatever.
I don't see intellectuals or geniuses.
Just a couple of banal twits.
Mike Rowe answers Melissa's pointless and unproductive, infantile rant:
To me, it sounds as though Melissa is displaying images of slavery or drudgery in her office to remind herself of what hard work really and truly looks like. That’s a bit like hanging images of rape and bondage to better illustrate the true nature of human sexuality. Whatever her logic might be, it’s difficult to respond without first pointing out a few things that most people will find screamingly obvious. So let’s do that.
First of all, slavery is not “hard work;” it’s forced labor. There’s a big difference. Likewise, slaves are not workers; they are by definition, property. They have no freedom, no hope, and no rights. Yes, they work hard, obviously. But there can be no “work ethic” among slaves, because the slave has no choice in the matter.
Workers on the other hand, have free will. They are free to work as hard as they wish. Or not. The choice is theirs. And their decision to work hard, or not, is not a function of compliance or coercion; it’s a reflection of character and ambition.
This business of conflating hard work with forced labor not only minimizes the importance of a decent work ethic, it diminishes the unspeakable horror of slavery. Unfortunately, people do this all the time. We routinely describe bosses as “slave-drivers,” and paychecks as “slave’s wages.” Melissa though, has come at it from the other side. She’s suggesting that because certain “hard workers” are not as prosperous as other “hard workers,” – like the people on her office wall – we should all be “super-careful” about overly-praising hard work.
I suspect this is because Melissa believes – as do many others – that success today is mostly a function of what she calls, “relative privilege.” This is fancy talk for the simple fact that life is unfair, and some people are born with more advantages than others. It’s also a fine way to prepare the unsuspecting viewer for the extraordinary suggestion that slavery is proof-positive that hard work doesn’t pay off.
Obviously, I don’t see the world the same way as Melissa, but we do have something in common. Like her, I keep a picture on my office wall.
That’s me, squatting next to the most disappointing toilet I’ve ever encountered, preparing to clean it out with a garden trowel. I keep it there to remind me of what happens when you need a plumber but can’t find one.
It’s also a nice reminder that a good plumber these days has a hell of a lot more job security than the average news anchor. (With respect.)
This is what happens when a sensible adult speaks and what we call in the business 'burn'.
Well done Mike.
Amen.
***
On the 'macro' level of history and time, if you will, that Coates and Melissa-Perry are remotely considered intellectuals really points to the state of depraved indifference - or just plain ignorance - held by people in academia. I understand to this duo it's a white-privileged history of subjugation and blah, blah, but they operate in the very intellectual world bestowed upon us by true men of genius.
They don't carry this torch of Western excellence.
They mock it with their inane babblings.
But hey, they must be smart because, in the case of Coates anyway, they get prizes and awards.
Couillard Are You Listening
I find it unconscionable your government is cutting all these programs and yet you give $1 billion to Bombardier?
I'm as pro-capitalist and libertarian as they come but I don't stand for this crony nonsense.
I'm as pro-capitalist and libertarian as they come but I don't stand for this crony nonsense.
To This Criminal Coaltion Red Spectre Threatening Schools
You son of a bitches for threatening kids.
May you face justice.
May you face justice.
Media: Do Your Jobs About Bombardier
A friend of mine is a mechanic in the Global Express division at Bombardier.
He informed me he's out of a job come January.
They were saying about jobs?
This is to say nothing of teachers striking like hobos while not getting paid to do so because they feel strongly about what the government is doing. It's much easier for the government to bully teachers though than it is Bombardier. A company that has blazed through more CEO's than the Cleveland Browns have with QB's and coaches.
The optics are just plain awful.
Now I hear the Shiny Toy government is serious about kicking in another billion. So much for Trudeau's faux-populist 1% gibberish and protecting the middle-class, huh?
The ROI on all these 'investments' over the years has been pitiful. A complete waste of tax dollars.
Note to Alain Bellemare. I'm glad you assembled a great team. It's not the first time I hear Bombardier does this. The last CEO was given a nice package while he split for Hydro-Quebec.
Cronies are gonna crony, you know?
The day I see Bombardier stop feeding incompetent executives rich pay outs and actually survive on its own as a company is the day I will accept it's on a proper path (which I don't believe will come) and earn my respect. At this point, teachers have more honor than they do.
Until then, Bombardier is a ward of the state in my eyes. By handing them money all you do is delay the inevitable because one day there will be nothing to give. Imagine being the Premier the day that happens!
And damn them to hell for making me side with unionized civil servants!
He informed me he's out of a job come January.
They were saying about jobs?
This is to say nothing of teachers striking like hobos while not getting paid to do so because they feel strongly about what the government is doing. It's much easier for the government to bully teachers though than it is Bombardier. A company that has blazed through more CEO's than the Cleveland Browns have with QB's and coaches.
The optics are just plain awful.
Now I hear the Shiny Toy government is serious about kicking in another billion. So much for Trudeau's faux-populist 1% gibberish and protecting the middle-class, huh?
The ROI on all these 'investments' over the years has been pitiful. A complete waste of tax dollars.
Note to Alain Bellemare. I'm glad you assembled a great team. It's not the first time I hear Bombardier does this. The last CEO was given a nice package while he split for Hydro-Quebec.
Cronies are gonna crony, you know?
The day I see Bombardier stop feeding incompetent executives rich pay outs and actually survive on its own as a company is the day I will accept it's on a proper path (which I don't believe will come) and earn my respect. At this point, teachers have more honor than they do.
Until then, Bombardier is a ward of the state in my eyes. By handing them money all you do is delay the inevitable because one day there will be nothing to give. Imagine being the Premier the day that happens!
And damn them to hell for making me side with unionized civil servants!
2015-11-02
Excuses Abound For Bombardier's Bail Out; Iconic No More
Three excuses passing off as justification for Bombardier's $1 billion bail out. Its defenders go around selling the arguments presented with the dedication of a scientologist.
It will ensure it has cash flow until the C-series takes off!
When I took a few marketing, business and accounting classes in university professors would often emphasize the importance of making sure you have cash flow before you get into business. With no cash flow, you basically die.
Yet, that message is completely irrelevant when it comes to propping up the puppet we call Bombardier.
Since when is it the problem of the people that a private a company lacks cash flow? Do a simple exercise. Ask your local politician you lack cash flow and if only you could get that loan you could make it!
But when this simple fact is pointed out it moves to...
All companies in the industry are subsidized and we need to do the same to compete!
Everyone is doing it! Drugs and orgies! We're all incompetent and inept!
It doesn't say much for your business model if you constantly have to rely on the government to survive. Normally, any business that reaches this point either goes bankrupt or sells.
Yes, it's true their competitors are subsidized and it's true Ontario too gives to Bombardier but it doesn't make it right.
Alas, the great shining light of Bombardier must not fail because....
It's the pride of Quebec!
Mixing nationalism and business is rarely a good idea. It leads to poor decisions.
Decisions like handing over $1 billion of tax dollars to a company $9 billion in debt and with a market cap of $3.2 billion.
Quebec loves to talk populist bull shit until it comes to greasing their crony pals.
Surely we need to protect all these jobs!
Yet, Bombardier is cutting jobs in other divisions like Global Express. That is magically not mentioned in the media.
The government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Ever.
For the simple reason it's not a business and doesn't know jack shit about it. What about politicians who are businessmen! Well, by the time they make that transition into political life, they no longer are businessmen but politicians looking for votes.
It's absurd and utterly and inherently unfair to the vast majority of businesses who survive with government assistance.
We have to stop conflating the fact that Bombardier builds quality products with the need to bail it out whenever it misses. The more important fact is the government needs to stop enabling Bombardier.
DO YOU JOB as a company by making sound decisions and you won't have to worry about jobs.
Imagine if the government gave a bank $1 billion to 'save jobs'. How would the public react then? Or Wal-Mart? How are those jobs any different than those of Bombardier? What about big pharma?
I mention those three because they're often attacked in the media or by the public. Actually, in the case of pharma they may have a case since they manufacture pills we often need to survive or get healthy on. Bombardier manufacturers ski-doos and planes.
I stand by my assertion that Bombardier is not a symbol of pride or cares for jobs if it consistently mismanages its affairs and expects daddy to bail them out.
It's not my job to given them cash flow or make sure their pensions are safe or the CEO gets his fat salary.
NOR IS IT YOURS.
An iconic company has pride in itself.
I'm not so sure Bombardier acts it.
It will ensure it has cash flow until the C-series takes off!
When I took a few marketing, business and accounting classes in university professors would often emphasize the importance of making sure you have cash flow before you get into business. With no cash flow, you basically die.
Yet, that message is completely irrelevant when it comes to propping up the puppet we call Bombardier.
Since when is it the problem of the people that a private a company lacks cash flow? Do a simple exercise. Ask your local politician you lack cash flow and if only you could get that loan you could make it!
But when this simple fact is pointed out it moves to...
All companies in the industry are subsidized and we need to do the same to compete!
Everyone is doing it! Drugs and orgies! We're all incompetent and inept!
It doesn't say much for your business model if you constantly have to rely on the government to survive. Normally, any business that reaches this point either goes bankrupt or sells.
Yes, it's true their competitors are subsidized and it's true Ontario too gives to Bombardier but it doesn't make it right.
Alas, the great shining light of Bombardier must not fail because....
It's the pride of Quebec!
Mixing nationalism and business is rarely a good idea. It leads to poor decisions.
Decisions like handing over $1 billion of tax dollars to a company $9 billion in debt and with a market cap of $3.2 billion.
Quebec loves to talk populist bull shit until it comes to greasing their crony pals.
Surely we need to protect all these jobs!
Yet, Bombardier is cutting jobs in other divisions like Global Express. That is magically not mentioned in the media.
The government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers.
Ever.
For the simple reason it's not a business and doesn't know jack shit about it. What about politicians who are businessmen! Well, by the time they make that transition into political life, they no longer are businessmen but politicians looking for votes.
It's absurd and utterly and inherently unfair to the vast majority of businesses who survive with government assistance.
We have to stop conflating the fact that Bombardier builds quality products with the need to bail it out whenever it misses. The more important fact is the government needs to stop enabling Bombardier.
DO YOU JOB as a company by making sound decisions and you won't have to worry about jobs.
Imagine if the government gave a bank $1 billion to 'save jobs'. How would the public react then? Or Wal-Mart? How are those jobs any different than those of Bombardier? What about big pharma?
I mention those three because they're often attacked in the media or by the public. Actually, in the case of pharma they may have a case since they manufacture pills we often need to survive or get healthy on. Bombardier manufacturers ski-doos and planes.
I stand by my assertion that Bombardier is not a symbol of pride or cares for jobs if it consistently mismanages its affairs and expects daddy to bail them out.
It's not my job to given them cash flow or make sure their pensions are safe or the CEO gets his fat salary.
NOR IS IT YOURS.
An iconic company has pride in itself.
I'm not so sure Bombardier acts it.
2015-11-01
Quebec's Business Protectionism Is Not Healthy
'Investing $1 billion in a company with a market cap of $3.6 billion and $9 billion dollars in debt is not sound 'investing'. It's welfare by other means.' The Commentator.
Meanwhile, go ask how hard it is for small-businesses to get a mere $40 000 loan from a bank or the government. Suddenly all the rules and criteria waived for companies deemed 'too big to fail' become very strict for small players.
All bull shit and don't you forget it.
You know it's bad when protecting 5000 jobs in one industry is more important than one with just 50 but not plugged in with the cronies.
***
On the heels of Quebec's decision to fork over $1 billion in tax dollars (I never tire of this) and with the Feds considering their own crony package (although I hear they're more skeptical - and for good reason) for Bombardier there's another problematic trend taking place in Quebec. That of the government involving itself to 'protect' Quebec businesses from takeovers over the misguided premise of conflating pride with business no matter how much financial trouble they may be in.
This unhealthy political patriotic posturing was summarized perfectly by Premier Couillard:
“We’ve always been at the side of Bombardier,” he said.
Got that? They could build a failed Mechano plane and still get the support of Quebec.
Problem is, the public may not be so forgiving. Here's the problem - and possible rub in the usual populist promiscuity politicians love to pimp - it's taxpayer dollars from the middle-class - many of whom do not earn the same type of salaries as those earned by Bombardier managers and executives - that covers the 'learning curve' CEO Alain Bellemare described in a recent interview on BNN.
At some point one wonders why not just nationalize Bombardier because patience is wearing thin?
"Supporting Quebec companies has become an increasingly sensitive issue for governments in recent years after the takeover of aluminum maker Alcan Inc. by Rio Tinto Group in 2007, which highlighted the slow march of head office jobs out of Quebec. Montreal, home to Air Canada and Canadian National Railway Co., has seen the number of top 500 Canadian companies based there drop to 75 in 2011 from 96 in 1990, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian research organization.
The issue took prominence in 2012 after U.S. home improvement retailer Lowe’s Cos. dropped its plan for an unsolicited takeover of Quebec rival Rona Inc. in 2012. The proposal sparked opposition from provincial politicians and investors such as the Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, the province’s pension fund manager.
After the takeover bid, a panel of experts led by CGI Group Inc. Executive Vice President Claude Seguin was tasked to study the issue and identified 25 Quebec-based companies that were “vulnerable” to hostile takeovers. Bombardier wasn’t on the list, because its dual-class share structure protects the company from hostile takeovers."
Remember this whenever Canadians complain about price gouging and access to limited products.
This is how consumers lose.
The government should not get involved in business. I understand asking to put an end to corporate welfare is political suicide in North America, but it's this kind of crony capitalism that makes the whole process stink. Why should one type of business be favored over another? And spare me all the nonsense about 'green investments' and for 'pride'. It's all about lobbying and connections. That's how it gets determined.
Business and patriotism is a recipe for bad ghoulash and should not mix. In the case of Ro-Na and Bombardier the best thing that could ever happen is if they did get sold.
People. History is littered with businesses becoming landmark and iconic brands identifying with a country only to be sold off in order to survive. Italy is a great example of this. For every Ferrari and Berretta that manage to stay in Italian hands, there are Fila, Lamborghini and Ducati who don't.
Circle of life.
And Canada better get used to it.
For more on Bombardier go here and here.
From The National Post:
"Bombardier confirmed Thursday that the Quebec government is set to invest in Bombardier’s C-Series jetliner, a dazzling piece of aerospace technology that, unfortunately, does not yet fly commercially due in part to lack of investor cash on hand to get the massively over-budget plane off the ground. Quebec has agreed to buy 49.5 per cent of the CSeries program for a US$1 billion investment. The company also dropped plans to do an initial public offering of its rail business, saying it will instead aim to sell a minority stake in the unit to unidentified investors, with an announcement due “soon.”
That’s hundreds of millions more in new taxpayer commitment. There’s no mention of the need for backing from the new Liberal government in Ottawa, although former astronaut Marc Garneau, star Liberal MP and possible minister in a Trudeau cabinet, has expressed concern about Canada’s aviation industry."
"It is highly likely that if Bombardier were not a giant of Canadian corporate subsidy-seeking, Toronto would today have new streetcars on the street instead of lumbering through the problematic production line in Thunder Bay.
The objectives of the Bombardier streetcar contract often seemed to be more about local employment in Ontario and less about getting the best deal. Even today, Unifor, the big Canadian union representing Bombardier’s 1,200 Thunder Bay workers (and who took them on strike last year), has urged Toronto officials to go easy on the company because jobs are more important than meeting contract conditions."
If they're so worried about jobs then how about this. How about the company actually engages in sound business management and where it can't do so and finds itself in the unenviable position of having to admit it's bankrupt to just sell the business. This thing of using jobs as a threat in order to get tax dollars has to stop.
"There’s nothing new in Bombardier’s headline-grabbing conflicts with government over subsidies and contracts. The company has many successful operations and products — sales last year exceeded $20 billion — but it has a long history of leaning on governments, local and national, to bring in grants or new business. Each deal is a cost to taxpayers in the name of building and protecting a national champion in aerospace and urban transportation.
Both industries are unfortunately the worst in the world when it comes to dependency on government. Political games, subsidy-seeking, grant-extracting and backroom manoeuvring are all part of the culture. It’s a jungle of taxpayer extortion for subway contracts and aerospace jobs."
But I get to where my Bombardier pride on my sleeve! See here, my Bombardier Ski-Doo t-shirt validates my patriotism!
Meanwhile, go ask how hard it is for small-businesses to get a mere $40 000 loan from a bank or the government. Suddenly all the rules and criteria waived for companies deemed 'too big to fail' become very strict for small players.
All bull shit and don't you forget it.
You know it's bad when protecting 5000 jobs in one industry is more important than one with just 50 but not plugged in with the cronies.
***
On the heels of Quebec's decision to fork over $1 billion in tax dollars (I never tire of this) and with the Feds considering their own crony package (although I hear they're more skeptical - and for good reason) for Bombardier there's another problematic trend taking place in Quebec. That of the government involving itself to 'protect' Quebec businesses from takeovers over the misguided premise of conflating pride with business no matter how much financial trouble they may be in.
This unhealthy political patriotic posturing was summarized perfectly by Premier Couillard:
“We’ve always been at the side of Bombardier,” he said.
Got that? They could build a failed Mechano plane and still get the support of Quebec.
Problem is, the public may not be so forgiving. Here's the problem - and possible rub in the usual populist promiscuity politicians love to pimp - it's taxpayer dollars from the middle-class - many of whom do not earn the same type of salaries as those earned by Bombardier managers and executives - that covers the 'learning curve' CEO Alain Bellemare described in a recent interview on BNN.
At some point one wonders why not just nationalize Bombardier because patience is wearing thin?
"Supporting Quebec companies has become an increasingly sensitive issue for governments in recent years after the takeover of aluminum maker Alcan Inc. by Rio Tinto Group in 2007, which highlighted the slow march of head office jobs out of Quebec. Montreal, home to Air Canada and Canadian National Railway Co., has seen the number of top 500 Canadian companies based there drop to 75 in 2011 from 96 in 1990, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian research organization.
The issue took prominence in 2012 after U.S. home improvement retailer Lowe’s Cos. dropped its plan for an unsolicited takeover of Quebec rival Rona Inc. in 2012. The proposal sparked opposition from provincial politicians and investors such as the Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, the province’s pension fund manager.
After the takeover bid, a panel of experts led by CGI Group Inc. Executive Vice President Claude Seguin was tasked to study the issue and identified 25 Quebec-based companies that were “vulnerable” to hostile takeovers. Bombardier wasn’t on the list, because its dual-class share structure protects the company from hostile takeovers."
Remember this whenever Canadians complain about price gouging and access to limited products.
This is how consumers lose.
The government should not get involved in business. I understand asking to put an end to corporate welfare is political suicide in North America, but it's this kind of crony capitalism that makes the whole process stink. Why should one type of business be favored over another? And spare me all the nonsense about 'green investments' and for 'pride'. It's all about lobbying and connections. That's how it gets determined.
Business and patriotism is a recipe for bad ghoulash and should not mix. In the case of Ro-Na and Bombardier the best thing that could ever happen is if they did get sold.
People. History is littered with businesses becoming landmark and iconic brands identifying with a country only to be sold off in order to survive. Italy is a great example of this. For every Ferrari and Berretta that manage to stay in Italian hands, there are Fila, Lamborghini and Ducati who don't.
Circle of life.
And Canada better get used to it.
For more on Bombardier go here and here.
From The National Post:
"Bombardier confirmed Thursday that the Quebec government is set to invest in Bombardier’s C-Series jetliner, a dazzling piece of aerospace technology that, unfortunately, does not yet fly commercially due in part to lack of investor cash on hand to get the massively over-budget plane off the ground. Quebec has agreed to buy 49.5 per cent of the CSeries program for a US$1 billion investment. The company also dropped plans to do an initial public offering of its rail business, saying it will instead aim to sell a minority stake in the unit to unidentified investors, with an announcement due “soon.”
That’s hundreds of millions more in new taxpayer commitment. There’s no mention of the need for backing from the new Liberal government in Ottawa, although former astronaut Marc Garneau, star Liberal MP and possible minister in a Trudeau cabinet, has expressed concern about Canada’s aviation industry."
"It is highly likely that if Bombardier were not a giant of Canadian corporate subsidy-seeking, Toronto would today have new streetcars on the street instead of lumbering through the problematic production line in Thunder Bay.
The objectives of the Bombardier streetcar contract often seemed to be more about local employment in Ontario and less about getting the best deal. Even today, Unifor, the big Canadian union representing Bombardier’s 1,200 Thunder Bay workers (and who took them on strike last year), has urged Toronto officials to go easy on the company because jobs are more important than meeting contract conditions."
If they're so worried about jobs then how about this. How about the company actually engages in sound business management and where it can't do so and finds itself in the unenviable position of having to admit it's bankrupt to just sell the business. This thing of using jobs as a threat in order to get tax dollars has to stop.
"There’s nothing new in Bombardier’s headline-grabbing conflicts with government over subsidies and contracts. The company has many successful operations and products — sales last year exceeded $20 billion — but it has a long history of leaning on governments, local and national, to bring in grants or new business. Each deal is a cost to taxpayers in the name of building and protecting a national champion in aerospace and urban transportation.
Both industries are unfortunately the worst in the world when it comes to dependency on government. Political games, subsidy-seeking, grant-extracting and backroom manoeuvring are all part of the culture. It’s a jungle of taxpayer extortion for subway contracts and aerospace jobs."
But I get to where my Bombardier pride on my sleeve! See here, my Bombardier Ski-Doo t-shirt validates my patriotism!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)