Friday, September 20, 2019


If this doesn't take him down, nothing will.

How can my fellow Canadians, people who howled at the 'homophobia' of Andrew Scheer, whose recently revived speech echoed the sentiments of the vast majority of the Western world in that time period -- how can the people who reviled and cheered the cancelling of an SNL comedian for repeatedly using racial epithets -- how can those same people dismiss Justin Trudeau's blackface x 3 (+?) scandal as though it was as one Toronto Star contributor said: as Canadian as hockey.

FFS -- Justin Trudeau can violate ethics, break the law, interfere in legal administration, railroad an admiral to subvert blame, interfere with financial administration, refuse to adhere to his own policies, violate conflict of interest, allegedly grope a woman -- because there are no pictures -- there is no easy BLACK and WHITE... all of those issues require some level of understanding of historical actions, chronology of events, workings of various governmental departments, or conflicting versions from various external parties.... Justin Trudeau wore blackface at least three times in his life (that he can remember). There is photographic evidence of this pathetic display of either racism or poor judgement. And people are giving it a shrug, accepting his 'my privilege gave me blinders' bullshit.

Is Justin Trudeau racist? I'm going to pass on answering that and just say, I guess the difference between someone like Mr. Trudeau, and someone like me, is I grew up in a multicultural neighbourhood, and I've raised my kids in the same environment. When he says his privilege prevented him from grasping the racism of his actions, he's telling the truth. Someone like Mr. Trudeau has never met a person of colour who wasn't a prop or a vote. 

Thursday, June 06, 2019

Andrew Scheer blinked

Much as I disagreed with Michael Cooper's grandstanding at the Justice Committee, expunging his statement from the record is plain stupid, and it's been done to give the impression that what Cooper said, was far worse than it actually was.

This is the problem with the world today - people aren't content to disagree, or disavow, or dissect and discuss -- they feel the need to erase points of view, and muzzle opinions that don't follow their own ideology. That, and blowing things out of proportion, implying meaning that isn't there - are all tactics of people who are trying to control the way people think and speak about ideas.

Michael Cooper's words were not hate speech. They did not incite violence. He was rude to a witness and then quoted from a mass-murder's manifesto -- which really, shouldn't be a problem since it wasn't to agree or promote, but to enlighten. But in Canada (and much of the Western world) you just know that the liberal fascists will pounce on that as stoking the flames of populism or some such BS, which is exactly what happened. Cooper should have known would happen, which is why he should have referenced the document without directly quoting.

But removing the cited passage from the record? Why? It wasn't scary - it had nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with ideology and motivation. How is this controversial at all?

Andrew Scheer took the bait and removed Cooper from the committee. Mistake. An apology by Cooper for being rude should have sufficed, and Andrew Scheer should have stood by his MP for quoting the manifesto because it was done to support a point and didn't say one violent or hateful word against any group or person (except conservatives). Scheer dropped the ball, yet again. It's okay for someone like me to comment and say Cooper shouldn't have read from that paper - but Andrew Scheer is the Conservative leader, hoping to become my PM. He should have stood up for his MP and for conservatism in general by saying - Cooper was rude and has apologized for that, but reading from the writings of a terrorist is not a hate crime, and was necessary to counter the assertion of the witness. Period. And Cooper should still be on that committee.

This is how liberals win. They decide to be outraged over something that is not outrageous, and conservatives get wobbly and concede ground.

I hate Justin Trudeau. Maxime Bernier and his party have become too extreme for mainstream politics. But Andrew Scheer is tepid at best. He's so eager to please everyone that he's lost his moral compass.

The only thing that was wrong with Cooper's actions was his manner. A simple, okay - he was rude but he was right - would have changed the channel. Instead, days later the Liberals are saying that Scheer didn't go far enough - that Cooper should be removed from caucus. Given the extremity of the punishment Scheer meted out, that makes sense, because expulsion from the committee conceded that Cooper's actions were that extremely egregious, and if that's the case, how do you justify keeping him in the fold?

People aren't reading whole stories. Except conservatives, did anyone really bother to scroll down far enough to see, or play the video to hear exactly what Cooper said? Probably not. So most people are taking it from the headlines that a bigot still sits on the opposition benches and Andrew Scheer won't expel him.

The only one to blame for the perception is Andrew Scheer. He gave them fodder.


Friday, May 31, 2019

Conservatives need to walk a tighter line

You'd think by now, Canada's (C)onservatives would understand that they can't just speak, they need to think first -- how will this be heard? And  -- how will my words affect conservatives in general.

No other party seems to have that issue. Liberals all speak as one giant unit these days, but if one goes off message, no one tries to tie the whole brand to the words. Same with NDP and Greens. There are nutters and cranks in both parties, some elected, some not - they're just who they are and don't seem to taint the parties through their nuttery.

It's different with conservatives - whether they're elected members, or just self-proclaimed conservatives, a controversial conservative voice draws the accusation of broader and deeper scariness hidden in the core of the party- scariness that's just waiting for an election win to rear its ugly head and make this country an alt-right haven.

It's crazy, sure. But I'm thinking that this is why Stephen Harper required such discipline within the his ranks. There has never been the group-think in the CPC that exists within the Liberal Party now, but there was a chill on speaking out about some issues because of how they would be taken out of context by the other side and by media. Better I suppose, to have MPs silent than to say stupid things on committee as Michael Cooper did to a Muslim witness during his submission on online hatred.

Cooper was not wrong in what he said -- the witness had tied recent racist mass shootings to conservatism. Based on the shooters' own manifestos and online presences' for the most part had made it clear that they were not conservatively politically aligned, but rather, in one case, supported Bernie Sanders, and in another felt more aligned with China's politics. Still - in response to the witness, Cooper said that he should 'be ashamed' for having implied conservatism was to blame, and then proceeded to read from the manifesto of one of the killers.


No one should be 'ashamed' for how they've perceived racial or religious hatred. The fact that this man felt or believed that these mass murders are conservatively motivated means that conservatives have more work to do distancing themselves from that sort of hatred. Yes, the media fosters the narrative, but Cooper helped no one by trying to embarrass and humiliate someone who was sharing a personal (or his group's) perspective on violent hatred that was directed at members of his community.

Cooper's indignance at the speaker's concerns about conservatives switched the narrative from the actual online haters to conservatives. Better he had not challenged, or if he felt he must, better to simply point out the factual errors and move on. But better still to simply listen and learn. Getting defensive just makes you look defensive. It does nothing to change the other person's point of view. Does Cooper think this person is now contrite and sorry for the errors of his ways? NO, the man is going to feel pissed and attacked - and so he should. He was there to give perspective - even if it's factually wrong - much of the response to online hatred is emotional. This is how this man feels. The only way to challenge his perceptions is to ensure that those representing conservatism don't act like assholes. Cooper failed, big time.

Maybe it isn't fair that conservatives need to be more careful when they speak, but it's reality.

Michael Cooper has stepped back from his 'ashamed' comment but stands by the rest of what he said. His mouth has drawn negative attention to conservatives about an already contentious issue, where conservatives often come out looking bad even when they say and do all the right things.

Cooper had a duty to as a member of the committee to be respectful to the witness. He failed.

He had a duty as a Conservative MP, to speak in a manner that would not cast a negative light on his party by misrepresenting their position. He failed.

Cooper had a responsibility to simply be a decent human,  and to understand that people testifying at these committees are emotional, and to show some restraint and compassion when responding. He failed.

Michael Cooper should be ashamed.


Friday, May 24, 2019

Afghanistan War Memorial

I can think of only one reason that the Trudeau government held the opening ceremony quietly, without inviting the families of those being honoured, without media attention, without any sort of public observance.

There can be only one reason that the memorial will not be open to the public, and might only be open to veterans and their families, or interested groups, by appointment.

I haven't seen anyone else say it, but by celebrating the lives of those who died, and by honouring the service of all of the veterans in that war, Canada is acknowledging WITH PRIDE (hopefully) their contributions to a war that took place in a Muslim country, against Muslims.

This government would have difficulty publically celebrating those who fought in Afghanistan because it likely wouldn't go over well with the Muslims within their caucus and perhaps the Muslim community as a whole (although I can't speak with any authority on that).

Given the aggressive responses of Trudeau's Muslim ministers to anything that might seem vaguely critical or questioning of Islam, and their quick accusations of 'Islamophobia' or insensitivity, it's hard to imagine them being supportive of this memorial. What other reason could this government have for hiding a reminder of this war and those who served in it?

Tucked away in some secret place, where access can only be had by a certain few, maybe they're hoping that going forward, Canadians will forget all about Afghanistan and not cause offense to the Muslim community. Out of sight, out of mind, right?



Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Ford Nation

The last provincial election was tough for me. The Liberals deserved to be booted. The NDP didn't deserve to govern, but I really don't like Doug Ford. He strikes me as ham-fisted and thoughtless. He thinks he's like his brother, but he isn't. Whatever you thought of Rob Ford, he helped people. He was in the job for two reasons -- to be liked and to be of service. He was well liked by those he served, and he made an effort to serve everyone who asked.

When Patrick Brown was first accused of sexual misconduct, and summarily excised from the PC leadership, I wondered if the Liberals had something to do with it. Now I wonder if it was an internal thing -- or external, but from the right.

Ford's election as PC leader was an astonishing reversal from the *expected*. Comparisons to Trump ring true to me, not just on the surface level, where both men are bombastic and boorish and rather stupid, but also in the manner to which they came to power. Few within the kingmaker class would have predicted either outcome. I'm not suggesting that democracy was thwarted in any way, or that their victories were invalid, simply that a series of unforeseen events shaped the races in ways no one could imagine.

I'm not a fan of how Ford operates, in what seems to be a very autocratic way. He has smart people around him, a couple of whom might have been more deserving of the leadership than he, but everyone seems to defer to Doug. I concede that this is pretty much always the case in politics -- Trudeau, Harper, Trump .... so maybe Ford is just following precedent. What bothers me I suppose, is that while I feel like the PCs are my 'side', with him as their leader, they aren't. It's like being in a political wilderness. I suppose anti-Trump Republicans feel this way.

Even if you agree with everything Ford is doing, his manner creates distrust and apprehension, even from people who are onside --  because although he was voted in on the promise of change, people want change as a process - not some bullish demolition, but a gradual dismantling and renewal. Sometimes, radical change is required, but some things - autism funding, libraries, public health, endangered species et al - are not necessary all at once. Rapid change requires thoughtful and thorough communication. Change for the sake of change serves no one. And reversals and tweaks to proclamations just prove you haven't thought things out before you've spouted off.

Doug Ford was no more ready to run a province than Justin Trudeau was to run the country. Just because he's 'conservative' doesn't mean I can support him. Even when I think they're doing something right, Doug's manner of handling every policy, every idea, makes it feel suspect.

Ford has become the PC brand. To buy-in, you have to take him and I don't. And what bothers me about the small-minded, blustery way he governs, is that he appears to be speaking for conservatives and I fear that will be used to our great disadvantage come federal election time. He comes off as mean-spirited and dumb. I think he is a real liability to the CPC. So long as Doug keeps talking, the 905 is very much in play. Before the provincial election, Doug was a novelty. Now he's the reality and I think a lot of people are second-guessing that decision - doesn't matter that the Liberals were truly a worse option. That's not going to factor in when people are at the voting booth in October. Enough Canadians like to see themselves as liberal anyway, that Doug Ford's exhibition of 'conservatism' could mitigate all of Trudeau's disasters.


Thursday, April 11, 2019

Cratering too early

Often we see that a politician peaks too soon before an election for his own good. Then he'll plateau or even drop in the polls and when the vote finally comes, everyone recalls those high numbers back when, and wonders what happened that the bottom fell out.

Timing is everything in politics. A six-week election cycle is too long for many candidates. After four, the wheels start to fall off. People can't sustain the energy, and positivity (or negativity) required to keep up the act for so long.

With our current system of fixed elections, the next election cycle starts the day after the last. Everyone is constantly campaigning. Voter fatigue is a huge issue, I think. It can take an epic event to engage or enrage voters to step out of their apathy and actually care about an election when they're forced to digest politics daily.

That epic event happened for Justin Trudeau back in February, and has been happening ever since.

While the SNC-Lavalin affair and its various collateral boondoggles might seem like a gift to the opposition parties, timing might be the saving grace of the Prime Minister.

We've had two full months of the scandal and its subsequent fallout, and the Prime Minister, while showing signs of agitation, remains leader of his party, with the support of the majority of his caucus. His personal polling numbers have tanked, yes, but the Liberals haven't dropped to levels that really challenge their ability to rise up and win come October. There has been no surge in any of the opposition parties, and there is no reason to believe that it might happen at all, if it hasn't by now.

The Liberal Party election strategy has, for a long time, been to promote fear, hatred and division. It used to be Stephen Harper's hidden agenda, but they've upped their game this time -- apparently white nationalists are lurking everywhere in this incarnation of the Conservative Party, along with people who want the world to end in twelve years because of their Climate Change Denial, and there might even be some conservatives who hold socially conservative views on marriage and abortion when we all know, you're not allowed to think like that anymore, even if you never say it out loud, and even if neither of those subjects is an election issue.

Twitter is a shit-flinging show, with Liberal MPs testing what will either stick, or rile enough CPC supporting tweeters to bare their teeth and push back.

They will have plenty of time to provoke and to screenshot and to use ordinary people's frustration at being vilified, as fodder for their vile accusations.

That's politics I guess. Use the weakness of the enemy -- and I guess that's the thing that bothers me most. I don't believe that conservatives view liberals or progressive as enemies, but I do believe that Liberals see us that way.

In an election campaign that has not yet begun, Canadians who are going to hate him have already reached peak-hatred of PMJT, but I don't think that Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party are even close to their peak-hatred of us.

Not looking forward to all the things they plan to accuse me of, and the names they're going to call me. I'm already weary of it and it's barely started. And I dread if their messaging works on vulnerable and fearful people, and propels them to victory on the crushed soul of the nation.

Sounds dramatic, I know. But this is personal. It's meant to be. They want to make you uncomfortable and angry and bitter, because that's how they need other people to see you.



Thursday, April 04, 2019

Just watch him

I used to just think Justin Trudeau was an airhead. Nice enough guy - if he'd done the Ben Mulroney thing and gone into entertainment, a harmless sort of fellow that you couldn't help but like.

His ascension to power has proved him anything but.

There seem to be a lot of people willing to just brush past the SNC-Lavalin thing because it isn't a world-class scandal. Its elements are so simple. Right/wrong. Lies/truth.

It's like some people really think that everyone gets it wrong now and again, so what?

And everyone tells a white lie every once in a while, what's the big deal?

Making a mistake is not a huge deal. Most people are inclined to forgive. We don't want to hold grudges and be angry. Takes too much effort and energy. It's nice to hear a sincere 'I messed up' without an accompanying 'but .... ' or 'I didn't it's your fault for not having said....'

That didn't happen here, but we can assume they're at least sorry they got caught, right?

So, the mistake is not the issue. It's not about the pressure put on the former AG to do anything. Let's assume it truly was a mistake-- let's give them that.

The mistake is just the opening of our window into Justin Trudeau's lying, self-important, unrepentant, egomaniacal, sinister soul -- yes sinister. The efforts that man and his team have gone to in order to pretend they did nothing wrong is just unreal. It borders on insane. It's like this frenzied outpouring of venom and bile about anyone who dares stray from the narrative -- and even some who had no skin in the game. From the smear-tactics used against Wilson-Raybould, to the leaking of private information about a SCC nominee... and all of the miniscule, mean-spirited steps in between.

It's the lies that matter. That's who he is.

Yesterday he suggested in a speech to The Daughters of the Vote, that this was somehow something to do with diversity and choosing between two women (Wilson-Raybould and  Minister Freeland) as though there was some connection between them that was relevant to anything that's gone on - and what? Lack of trust, so diversity? If that last couple of sentences make no sense, they're about as coherent as Trudeau was in that talk.

Anyway, Justin Trudeau remains an airhead. He's as stupid as I always thought, but he's an airhead with power which is pretty scary. I think much of what's wrong with him is daddy issues. He's living out his father's legacy, pitting region against region, finding reasons for fear, and having one after another 'just watch me' moments.

I can't stand watching him anymore.


Thursday, March 28, 2019

Who's sorry now

So he said it. For once in his life, Justin Trudeau said 'sorry' for something he did.

This apology came swiftly and almost seemed real -- but here's why I'm not impressed:

It was at that $1,500 per person fundraiser where Justin Trudeau was at his most authentic.

This wouldn't have happened at a townhall -- he'd have known it was public. But there, with his fellow Laurentian elites, Trudeau was in his element and he played to them. This is who he really is -- this is his comfort zone. He rose to their laughter and struck again, and again. These are his people. He was at home, and enjoying the mirth of the crowd as he dismissed this young woman and her pedestrian concerns.

Had the whole thing not been filmed, he'd have never spared an ounce of 'sorry' on her.

In that moment, it didn't occur to him that someone who spent $1,500 to be there  must have been very serious about their concerns.

But what's $1,500 to a Trudeau or his fellow well-heeled Liberals. Chump change.

The Liberal Party, its members, its MPs --  should start really thinking about whether they want to be associated with this kind of bozo eruption.


PM for who?

He's shown often, that he is the Prime Minister for Liberals -- and not all Liberals -- Liberals who agree with him. His contempt for his own MPs and fellow liberals when they don't fall into line with Trudeau-think is well known. Don't dare even try to run for the party if you have any reservations about abortion whatsoever. You're not allowed. You must think along party lines -- Fine - anyone who wants to belong to a party like that - your issue. You march in-step if that's your thing.

But what about the rest of us -- or more importantly, the least of us? The MOST vulnerable people in Canadian society are those living on reserves. Their issues are life and death, every single day. And government after government has failed them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to change the way we deal with First Nations issues. He sure has. Never have I seen a Canadian Prime Minister treat someone with a genuine, legitimate concern with such utter derision. Listen to the following clip from Free Grassy on Twitter, where someone asks her Prime Minister why nothing has been done in over 500 days, to remedy the problem of mercury in the water in Grassy Narrows:

She says: people from Grassy Narrows are suffering from mercury poisoning and you committed...

He says: Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for your donation.

OMFG. The disrespect... the disregard... the distain. The utter lack of empathy. HOW is this man our Prime Minister???

She paid $1500 for the opportunity to raise her concern - look what she got in return.

She does not deserve this man as Prime Minister. None of us do.


Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Justin has jumped the shark

Like with most things, a sincere acceptance of culpability and an apology likely would have washed the SNC-Lavalin scandal away.

People like moments when other people genuinely admit their humanity: "I made a mistake."

Justin Trudeau doesn't know how to do that. We've all noted that he is an ace at apologizing for the wrongs of others, the problem is, he has no ability to see wrongs committed my himself.

Whether it was his upbringing, or whether its a character flaw, Justin Trudeau believes Justin Trudeau is always right, otherwise, actor that he is, he'd have been able to feign a competent enough sorry to pass. But Justin's attitude seems to have been -- why should I? and instead he's spent the better part of two months blaming and vilifying others.

Well, it's too late for sorry now. Even his boldest supporters have to see what he is, and if they want to soil themselves and keep him afloat, so be it, but I think even average Canadians are shocked at his utter disregard for the law and for us.

Attempts to paint people as racist or homophobic aren't going to float this time around, because they're aimed at all of us this time -- because all of us see through his charade of 'nice'. He never was nice. He could seem nice because he was rarely challenged and he lives a life of absolute unmitigated privilege. Anyone could seem nice if they never had to work or worry. He doesn't understand real-life stress - and now that he's facing some challenges - he's made some very suspect decisions.

I've never been a fan of Justin Trudeau, but it bothers me how easily he waltzed in, charmed the world and decided he could do all the wrong things because he was just so sure that he had all the right reasons.

It was too easy for him to take the helm of this country when he'd never done a serious thing in his life. And he still doesn't see that it's time for him to go. He's still trying to find ways to blame everyone else. I used to hope he was trounced come election time, but he's doing so much damage, I hope for once in his life he does the right thing and resigns.

Angry Liberals have to start aiming their venom in the right direction.



Friday, March 22, 2019

A different take...

My younger daughter and I commute to and from downtown together every day, and lately many of our conversations have been about politics.

Yesterday, I told her what I thought about Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott remaining Liberals in the wake of all that's happened. I was surprised that she a had a completely different take, and it's shifted my perspective some.

My daughter doesn't believe these two MPs should be chased from their chosen vocation by men in authority trying to push them around. She believes that they showed their principles and integrity when they resigned their cabinet posts and elected to sit as backbenchers on the basis of their convictions.

She believes that if they had quit the Liberal Party, despite identifying with the tenets of their policies, they would be depriving their constituents of the representation they deserve, and undermining their own futures.

She believes this scandal will pass, and should these women remove themselves from the Liberal Party at this stage, they would have no standing going forward. By forcing Trudeau to either put up with them, or kick them out, they have asserted their voices as moral compasses of the team, and despite some lingering animosity in the short-term, the party will need to renew, and it's people like Wilson-Raybould and Philpott with their positive images, and their moral fortitude that will be the force to drive that change. If they leave now, they lose out on that opportunity and it won't come around again.

My daughter believes that by persevering in what must be a very uncomfortable environment, these woman are forcing a mouldering party to take stock. Every Liberal MP will at some point, face a reckoning about the events of the past few months, and will be forced to stand with the status quo, or step away. Whether the Liberals get re-elected or not, the behaviour of individuals during this time will matter - if only as part of the historical record. Honour matters.

So, despite my own concerns about Wilson-Raybould and Philpott appearing to try to serve two masters, I see where perhaps the only masters they are trying to serve are their own consciences.


Thursday, March 21, 2019

Team players

Paul Wells' interview with Jane Philpott left me with the same feeling as Jody Wilson-Raybould's statement to her constituents. Nice sentiments, but conflicting.

Put in terms of a personal relationship, since this scandal broke, the behaviour of the PM and his closest people, toward Jody Wilson-Raybould (and frankly, many other women in his sphere) parallels an abusive partnership. I don't think it's a stretch.
  • there's denial (haven't a clue what she's talking about - didn't happen at all)
  • incredulity (I didn't realize - if only she had told us how she felt)
  • rationalization (only happened because Scott Brison resigned)
  • minimizing the problem (20 times over four months? That's nothing)
  • calling the accuser a liar (the people accused are too good to have done what she said)
  • blaming the accuser (she could have said 'no' and if it really happened, she would have quit)
  • resentment about going public (we're like family, this should have been handled internally)
  • suggesting the accuser had ulterior motives for her accusations (didn't want to lose her dream job)
  • promises to be better (this is a learning experience)
  • shutting down the conversation (we've heard as much as we need to hear. It's over)
All of the above behaviours are how abusers manipulate their accusers. People use the term gaslighting far too loosely these days, but when you look at the consistent efforts of the Liberals to discredit the accuser and shut her down, I think it applies here. Just because Wilson-Raybould hasn't backed down, doesn't mean that isn't the goal of the efforts.The mastery of the Liberal at the techniques of abusive partners is really quite astonishing.

It makes me wonder how anyone who has been on the receiving end of this sort of behaviour can continue to be around, and more suprising -- to represent the brand that is inflicting it on them.

I can't imagine still stumping for a team I felt was cheating, or manipulating or interfering -- and yet these women are. Why? One bad apple does spoil the lot if it's not purged. It hasn't been - and worse, every effort is being made to sustain the status quo and to undermine the testimony, opinions and public statements of these women. Why are they still willing to play on the team? Especially when both women contend that we only know part of the wrongdoing -- that there's more (and, my inference) worse to be heard.

None of this makes sense to me. The political interference part, I could forgive on a personal level. The people surrounding the PMO felt they were doing the right thing, maybe didn't feel they were crossing a line -- okay -- let's give them that -- but everything they've said and done since this became public has been done with the aim of maligning Wilson-Raybould, and now Philpott by extension. On a personal level, how do you just shrug off the ongoing campaign to shut you up and to paint you as hysterical and vindictive?

I don't get it. Most of Liberal team has backed Trudeau on this one. I don't know how these women can reconcile their decision to stay on that team.


Wednesday, March 20, 2019


So, I guess it's pretty much over. It's hard to sustain outrage without coming off as unhinged.

Much as the Conservatives were right to be outraged during AdScam, their reactions to the scandal hurt their leader and their brand, causing the then, unknown entity of Stephen Harper, to be labeled 'angry' -- a perception that stuck amongst a lot of average Canadians.

They're facing the same dilemma here. Some of their strongest and most talented voices are going to be painted in a negative light. Doesn't matter if they are justified. It only matters how it's framed.

Again, I believe Jody Wilson-Raybould, but her silence right now is a little eerie. She's letting the opposition parties do the dirty work of stirring things up on her behalf. Maybe she feels there's little else she can do, but after the show by the Liberals at the Justice Committee, wouldn't she feel even more indignant about their response, and have some sort of response herself? I don't believe she's just saving it all up. I don't know what to think anymore... but whatever momentum there was to find the truth, it's waning.

Justin Trudeau now says he's looking forward to working with both Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the future, so it would appear that bygones are bygones as far as he's concerned -- and the messaging Wilson-Raybould sent out to her constituents? I guess that just means she's satisfied for injustice to be done.

Between the breezy way the Liberals have effectively shrugged away this scandal, and the idea of the upcoming election being based more on identity politics, I think a lot of us are bracing ourselves for the prediction made last year by Justin Trudeau, that this campaign will be the nastiest in history.

I'm not looking forward to it.

The 'us' against 'them' rhetoric has already started, aided in part by the timing of Friday's terrorist attack on the mosque in New Zealand.

What better way to respond to a tragedy than to exploit it.

And then there's that sly way the Liberals have of just dodging anything unpleasant. The Mike Duffy scandal lasted forever -- and it was a true 'nothingburger'. It was a drop in the bucket compared to what governments of all stripes waste, daily -- and the scandal was that someone felt obligated to give it back??????

All of this is why people tune out of politics. You give up half your paycheque to pay for it all, and for what? For a budget that makes promises it won't keep, or if it does keep them, will bankrupt us and where a good half of us are too young, too old or too something to benefit from any of the largess if it ever found its way to where it's supposed to go anyway.

Maybe this is what they all want. Exasperate us to the point where we just turn off the tv, close twitter, and walk away.


Monday, March 18, 2019

It matters where it happens

For all those conservatives bleating on Twitter, how the mainstream media, politicians etc. have made a big deal over the New Zealand mosque terror attacks, and have not shown similar emotion for Christians slaughtered in Nigeria -- you already know the reason.

Whenever anything horrible happens in a western democracy, we watch, we weep, we grieve alongside -- because we see ourselves there. It doesn't matter the race or religion of the victims or the perpetrators, we are the same society. Things like that shouldn't happen here, because we deem our world, the 1st world, to be civilized. When terror strikes in our 'peaceful' nations, it strikes us in a way that brings the devastation home, even if it happened across the world.

It isn't that deaths in Nigeria don't matter, or that Christians matter less that Muslims, and no sane, rational person would ever suggest such. But terrorism, brutality and all manner of violent racism, religious persecution and inhuman treatment of 'the other' is still the norm in countries and regions where society still has a mindset of the ancients. We expect no better. There is no shock in its occurrence. These people share our world, but the expectation of civilization does not exist from us, for them.

If you live in and function as part of a modern society, we expect that regardless of who you are, your race, your religion, your country of origin -- you will not take up arms against your fellow citizens based on their race or religion -- it's that simple.

For people to try to make this a big deal of who gets the most outrage for their victimhood -- shut up. You know better.


Friday, March 15, 2019

Lovely sentiment, but very conflicting

Jody Wilson-Raybould's letter to Liberals and other citizens is uplifting, inspirational and very conflicting.

Much as I agree with her sentiments, I find they don't mesh well with staying in the party. It seems incongruent to me that she could find they behaved so egregiously that she quit cabinet, but that she feels she can somehow work within the party for change.

Trust has eroded -- that's a two way street. Just as she (apparently) lost trust in those within the highest level of her party, surely she must see that they have lost trust in her as well, and therefore, she will have no voice.

Had there been a stampede out the door following the resignation of Jane Philpott, I might say there was something to the concept of change from within. Instead we've had support for the Prime Minister from the rest of cabinet, and from the rest of caucus, yawns and shrugs and support for the status quo.

We've just had a Liberal dominated committee refuse to hear the rest of the details of her story -- I'm sorry. I just don't get it.

While I believe the allegations of the former AG, in my opinion, she discredits herself by continuing to pledge support for the brand.

The brand is the problem. How does she not get this?

You might like the Carbon Tax, and support action on climate change -- you might agree with every plank in their platform, but if the leadership of the Liberal Party still doesn't get why its behaviour in the SNC-Lavalin affair is wrong, how can she reconcile working along side these same people?

This is not a government problem. This is not a Canadian problem. This is a Liberal problem.

How can something your company's leadership has done, be so bad that you would quit your position, but then with no changes, no admissions of culpability, no acts or words of contrition -- you still feel that it was a worthy enough company that you want to maintain your relationship, and to represent the brand.

Doesn't compute.