Category Archives: Uncategorized

On Renaming Schools

The Ontario Elementary School Teachers union has recently come out calling for the removal of the name Sir John A. MacDonald from all schools because of his waged “genocide” against Indigenous peoples in Canada.   The argument is that we wouldn’t expect Jewish kids to happily attend Adolph Hitler Elementary School in Germany, so why would we expect Mohawk children to attend Sir John A. MacDonald Secondary School in Waterloo, Ontario?

In response some on the Right (and centre) object that the Leftists pushing this agenda of tearing down statues and insisting on renaming buildings and institutions are “revising history” and practicing Presentism – judging people of the past by current moral standards. Truthfully, everyone born 100 years ago was a racist, sexist and homophobe by today’s standards.  We need to consider that had you been born in 1920’s Germany then very likely you would have been a Nazi.  Had you been born in 1920’s Russia then very likely you would have gladly marched dissidents off to the gulags.  This is not to say that you would have been a “bad” person if you had, only that humans are fallible and our behaviours and attitudes are influenced by the cultures we are raised in and those cultures spawned a lot of deeds we would judge as evil today.  But just because we are born in this age and in this part of the world does not somehow make us uniquely and morally superior to those flawed peoples of the past.  We are flawed as well and should humbly appreciate this fact.  No doubt in just a few short decades our own children will look back at our attitudes and be dismayed and disgusted – does that make us “bad” people?

However, the Left view commemorative statues and naming things in honour of past leaders as an endorsement of those individuals and thus their worst beliefs that cannot be abided. I cite their “worst” beliefs because the Left never seem to want to judge people on the best things that they did but only on the worst things.  Forget that Sir John A. MacDonald was a founder of a great Western country that has since founding provided freedom and prosperity for millions of people and participated valiantly in wars against evil regimes.  No, let’s judge him by his starving of Indigenous people and establishment of residential schools.  Of course the counter argument is that whitewashing someone’s record could warrant even Pol Pot could have a school named after him if we restricted ourselves to judging people solely on the best they had to offer during their lives.

What if we approached this problem with a libertarian solution – the practice of Localism; provide local autonomy over cultural matters. If the people of Waterloo want Sir John A MacDonald taken off the name of their high school let them vote and say so – it’s their school, not the federal or provincial governments.  If the people of Charlottesville want a statue of Robert E Lee taken down let them vote locally and decide – it’s their history, not the history of Californians.  Conversely if the people in Quebec want the name of Wilfred Laurier retained on their buildings despite his advocacy for a Chinese head tax and calling Indigenous people “savages” then that’s their decision and if the people in British Columbia asked that his name be pulled off buildings there because of the high Chinese populations that’s OK too – the two solitudes can coexist.

However, the imposition from on high of politically correct directives on these matters should be avoided.  The argument on both sides has merit but polls show consistently that most people are opposed to the Left’s historical revanchism so why let a minority impose its will on the majority regardless of the minority’s claim to moral correctness.  Make the decisions on these matters local and democratic.  The great fear of course here in Canada is that the Panda Bear Justin Trudeau and his leftist sycophants at the provincial levels will start to make this an overarching policy and once again the imposition of cultural values of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa being imposed on everyone else.

Advertisements

On Never Ending Indigenous Grievance

If you ask a conservative, “What do you want?” a conservative would probably respond with a fairly short list of maybe 10 or 11 things.  Likely if you could give these to him or her, they’d be happy to go home and get on with the rest of their lives.  If I were leader of a conservative party in Canada I would offer to disband the party outright if the other parties agreed to… say, cut personal income taxes in half and make it constitutionally illegal to raise taxes or introduce new taxes without a referendum.  Just as an example of one thing on my list of nine or ten things.  That would certainly successfully shrink the size of government and force government to focus on its primary purpose, securing of the rights of its citizens.

Progressives on the other hand… they could not give you a list or an answer.  What they want never ends, it is constantly evolving.  The Left believe in agency;  there is always people that must be championed, an agenda to be pushed,  causes to be fought for and hence they industriously create victims on an almost daily basis, whether they be victims of racism, sexism, capitalism, climate change denialism, etc…. and colonialism.  Ah yes, we all need to answer for the sins of “our” colonialist past.

So I’ve lost all hope that if you were to ask an Indigenous person here in Canada, “what do you want?” they would not answer.  It’s not that they don’t know or won’t answer, it’s that there is simply no answer.  This can never end for them.  They don’t want an end game, they want this parade of Indigenous grievances to continue through my lifetime, my children’s lifetimes and their children’s children’s.

What’s inspired this post is a recent episode of TVO’s the Agenda, where Steve Paikin asks a panel of Indigenous persons about what Canada’s 150th birthday means to them.  The Agenda seems to be the go-to place on TV for Canadian Indigenous spokespersons to go and air their grievances to sympathetic ears.  None, I should add, are indistinguishable physically from you or me.  The one dude is blonde.  But regardless, they all wear their Indigenous status proudly, one even claiming he won’t call himself Canadian, and almost predictably they cannot get past a lens of “genocide” and discrimination.   Paikin asks them to name an accomplishment of Canada in the past 150 years and has to ask the question twice, offering up the second time his example of Medicare (which is fairly lame, God help us if that’s the best we’ve done in 150 years).  True to form they can’t even accept that.  Then the one person offers up that were it not for Indigenous peoples teaching white men about socialism and community, there would be no Medicare.  This is utter bullshit.  It’s all bullshit.  It needs to be called out as bullshit.

Because you believe something doesn’t make it true. A friend at work says we live in a “post-truth” era.  The truth doesn’t matter anymore… what seems to matter these days is narratives and how those stories make people feel.

I could go on for pages about the state of Indigenous peoples when the Europeans came ashore in North America. If the myth of the Noble Native, living in peace and harmony with the land and each other as spiritually enlightened beings makes you feel better then go ahead and believe it.  But it doesn’t make it true.

So you watch this and ask, instinctively, “What do you want?” Do you want us to apologize?  We’ve done it.  Do you want money as compensation to settle land claims and what not?  We’ve spent billions and today the federal government spends approximately $9,000 per person for Indigenous people versus approximately $7,300 per non-native person.  Offers to settle land claims with cash have been rejected.  Do you want sovereignty or special status for Indigenous people and rights… forever?  Do you want to punish white people and get revenge?  Those white people who did this are all long dead and you will get nowhere, ever, asking Canadians to support Indigenous people ad infinitum, everyone who is pounding out a living day to day, fighting traffic and paying taxes will never support a system that says to one group of people you are never expected to pull your own weight.

The sad answer is that they have no answer. They have exactly what they want right now – victim status, nearly unlimited money thrown at them by politicians who hope the problems and noise will disappear, and sympathetic liberals at TVO, CBC, Macleans and other media outlets that give their “leaders” minor celebrity status by letting them spread lies and falsehoods that only make the condition of their people worse, not better.

On Explaining Right-Wing Populists

Not everyone is thrilled with Donald Trump being elected. No kidding. And it seems there are some people, young people especially, who are in pain and need to be comforted and made to feel safe. And don’t you dare diminish their pain and anguish by telling them to “suck it up, pussies”, because that’s a hate crime. And it’s rude to point out that half of them didn’t even vote. It’s horrifying according to Stephen Colbert and John Oliver… two millionaire comedians.  These two grown men had a cry and a hug on stage in front of an audience (maybe off-stage… I’m guessing); they were so traumatized by the results of the election – still!

Lena Dunham (our favourite), in a quest to come to terms with what happened, went on a retreat to Sedona, Arizona where she communed with nature and sought guidance from the canyon and listened to the rocks. No, this is not satire. Instead of traveling to the rural Michigan or suburban Pennsylvania and talking with actual real life Trump voters and speak with the “racists”, “sexists” and “bigots” that voted for Trump, she runs to an isolated posh resort where Mother Gaia will provide all the answers to soothe her troubled soul.

The Left is having a crybaby fit. The comparisons to fascism and Hitler are rampant. So, in keeping with that spirit, let’s use Hitler to discuss an aspect about the Left’s inability to take a deep breath and do some self-examination.

It’s been almost twenty years since I read it, but Ron Rosenbaum wrote a book called “Explaining Hitler” wherein he examined the various theories as to why Hitler was who he was and why he may have been motivated to do the things he’d done. But in the book he recounts going to visit an old Jewish Nazi hunter who asked him not to try and explain Hitler. His reasoning was that once you can identify the roots of someone’s evil acts, you are then obligated to forgive them for those actions because inevitably the roots will lie in that person’s humanity – they were abused as a child, suffered from mental illness, were scarred by past experiences, made gross misjudgments etc. And the old Nazi hunter was of the opinion that Hitler was evil. Full stop. We should never diminish this fact. Understanding Hitler was not only unnecessary, it was morally wrong, because we can never forgive what was done.

This is where the Left is today; they are the old Jewish Nazi hunter looking at the Trump election, Brexit, Rob Ford and other swings towards right-wing populism in the West and saying, “We will not try to understand why you voted that way, because we cannot forgive you.”

A long standing problem is that the Right tends to want to discuss government in terms of Effective vs. Ineffective. The Left knows it cannot win those arguments because historical evidence leans in favour of most traditional right-wing positions; free market solutions over government bureaucracies, traditional family stability over libertine lifestyles etc. So the Left want to make everything into a right vs. wrong moral argument. They are on the side of the angels – the Left stand for the Brotherhood of Man ™, Social Peace through Social Equality™ and Harmony with Nature™… these are “good” causes. Who cares if the policies we’re using to pursue these goals are ineffective or actually causing damage, it’s the intent that counts! Good intentions trump (no pun intended) bad policies! It’s the reason we see so much doubling down on bad ideas even when there is evidence they don’t work. Witness the Trudeau government’s recent announcement that they’re going to go further into deficit to fund a raft of “infrastructure” spending in order to stimulate the economy and “invest” in our economy… it doesn’t work. It didn’t last time, and throwing more money at a bad program won’t make it any better. But again, it’s the intentions that count, not the actual outcome.  Double down, double down.

But I digress… since the Left reduces everything to a moral argument, the only way to win arguments is to portray the other side as not just wrong on policy but morally wrong. Evil. So this, in combination with a strong narcissistic trend in youth today, may in large part explain the unwillingness to see Trump’s election as legitimate and anything other than a vote affirming racism and sexism. We know it’s more nuanced than that – you can vote for a racist without voting for racism. But they will never acknowledge that because then they’d have to forgive 65 million Americans, 20 million Brits and 500,000 Torontonians. No way are they going to do that.  They are a long long way from considering forgiveness.  They are pissed.  And so they have no intentions trying to explain to each other right-wing populism.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the First Debate

Memo to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign:

Well, that was disappointing.

First, raise the microphone up so Mr. Trump stops leaning forward to speak.  He is trying to appeal to married women, that’s your swing voter.  Leaning forward to blurt answers comes across as aggressive.  Aggressive = not good.  Mr. Trump needs to look stately; stand up tall, keep movement to a minimum, talk to the camera when you speak and not Hillary or the moderator.  Speak to the American people.

Second, get rid of the split screen.  Mr. Trump is a tall man with stature.  She is a dumpy old woman.  People subconsciously associate stature and presence with leadership.  The split screen not only erased that advantage you had, but also allowed the camera to show your every strange wince and expression.  Why did Mr. Trump find it so hard to sip water?  He needs to practice drinking.

Your candidate is a horrible debater.  He tends to overuse words like “tremendous”, and “beautiful” when he’s trying to think of things to say.  His ramblings border on incoherent and he seems incapable of finishing an answer.  Besides prescribing him some Ritalin before the next debate to help focus his mind, perhaps he would do well to memorize some stock answers to expected questions like Hillary did.  For example;

On the issue of cyber-security:

“Your asking Secretary Clinton about cyber-security?  That’s rich.  The FBI report on Secretary Clinton’s emails and private server said that her server had been hacked by foreign agents.  Multiple times.  How much classified material was lifted by hackers Secretary Clinton?  What happened to the multiple cell phones that you lost but never reported?  The FBI report says that you clicked on a phishing email… for real?  Which one?  The one about the Nigerian prince with millions in a bank account?  Or the one about a free time-share in Costa Rica?  Why would anyone listen to you on cyber-security?  Unless it’s maybe advice on how to delete 33,000 emails.”

On the issue of not revealing his tax returns:

“You know why I haven’t revealed my tax returns?  Because I have done what every other smart rich person does; hire the best accountants and lawyers and instruct them find ways for me to pay as little tax as possible.  Does that make me unpatriotic?  No, it makes me smart.  And it makes me no different than your friends in Hollywood, the George Clooneys of the world throwing $10 million dollar fundraising dinners for you and Obama, but have homes in Switzerland because that’s where they hide their money away from US taxes.  I want to cut taxes on the wealthy because I don’t want rich people to have to hide their money or take it overseas, I want them to repatriate it.  Contrast that with your plan Secretary Clinton, to raise taxes even more on the wealthy.  It’s a fraud.  You won’t raise money for free tuition and all the other wonderful things  you want to spend money on… all you’re going to do is drive more money and investment out of the country.”

On his apparent support for the Iraq war in 2002:

“I wasn’t a politician in 2003.  I was a business man.  I am allowed to muse in public on whether or not the war was a good thing.  Perhaps I may have said that it sounded like a good idea to me at the time.  But you know what?  I rely on my elected representative to lead on those types of issues.  And you know who was my senator for the state of New York in 2003?   It was you, Secretary, or should I say, Senator Clinton, and you voted for the Iraq war.”

After Hillary speaks to the US allies to reassure them:

“That, Secretary Clinton, is an example of why you don’t get it.  You are more worried about talking to, and reassuring people in other countries than you are about reassuring the American people that we aren’t going to be asked to police the world while other countries, our supposed allies, freeload and fail to pay their fair share or honour their military commitments to our alliances.”

These are some examples.  Please feel free to contact us for help with more stock responses with regards to Black Lives Matter, race riots, accusations of sexism etc.

Yours sincerely,

RA

 

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Wynne Bag the Orville Redenbacher of Racist Popcorn

What does she mean by “systemic” racism?

Definition of systemic;

sys·tem·ic

səˈstemik/sys·tem·ic

/səˈstemik/

adjective: systemic

  1. of or relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.

“the disease is localized rather than systemic”

  1. Physiology

denoting the part of the circulatory system concerned with the transportation of oxygen to and carbon dioxide from the body in general, especially as distinct from the pulmonary part concerned with the transportation of oxygen from and carbon dioxide to the lungs.

The use of the word systemic then is meant to imply that it’s pervasive, it’s throughout. And of course the one protester wants to correct Ms. Wynne that it’s systemic black racism. Let’s be clear – there is no such thing in Canada, no such thing in Ontario, no such thing in Toronto. We may have pockets where racial biases exist today, but the implication that racism is pervasive in our country, province and largest, most diverse city is not just a lie, it’s essentially throwing all of us who attempt to conduct ourselves in as much of an non-racist fashion as possible under the bus, not to mention the Toronto police and every other police department in the province that for the most part goes out of its way to conduct outreach to minority communities.

So this is a leader? A leader doesn’t essentially accuse the majority of people in her province of being racist when confronted by a group of nonsensical, noisy, outrage addicts. Here’s what a real leader would have done; invite the “leaders” of this protest into her office for a chat, without cameras (I doubt they would have come then – it’s all about the publicity for them) and tell them, politely, to grow the f*ck up and stop slandering my province and my police. Then kick them out with a smile and a wave for the cameras and ignore them from then on. These people, starved of oxygen, will only flame out. But Wynne has just fanned the flames.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why is she singing?  ffs

Junk Science

The federal Liberals at least are supposed champions of “evidence based” policy making.  It’s not a leap to suppose that the Ontario Liberals believe they are similar champions, especially when you consider how many Ontario Liberal staffers now work in Ottawa for the Trudeau government.

The segment on the Agenda is pretty dull stuff overall, but for entertainment you should fast forward to about the 9:00 mark when the Liberal apologist tries to dismiss the Ontario Auditor General’s indictment of our hydro costs in this province by arguing how much money we’re saving – real money, in her words – by reducing the “social costs” of carbon emissions, and, get this, by reducing the costs of extreme weather events in the province.

To our knowledge, weather doesn’t really respect borders… so how’s that again?

It’s like the Wynne ad where the Ontario Liberals claim to “be stopping climate change”.  Sorry?

Ontario accounts for 0.5% roughly of global greenhouse gas emissions.  Contrast that with China at 24% (and there are reports that they under-report their carbon emissions by more than a 100,000 mega tonnes a year). So even if we went full retard, to quote Tropic Thunder, and got to ZERO carbon emissions as a province (and we’re headed that way if the Wynne government stays in charge and successfully drives out all business) we’d still have almost ZERO impact on climate change.

So we are castrating ourselves for no real purpose, and it gets justified with junk science and bullshit assessments of the “social costs” of carbon.  And for what?  So Wynne and her co-horts can jet off to Paris and get accolades from bureaucrats in other countries about what mavericks in the fight against climate change we are, while the loss of manufacturing and high-energy industries leaves southwestern Ontario a wasteland.

Oh, the Nausea

If you squeal, “I love you!” to a Prime Minister, maybe we need to consider taking away your right to vote.

I’m sure every generation said this at some point or another, but Christ Almighty, it sure seems like the Reign of Immaturity is upon us.  Us meaning western civilization, not just Canada.

It’s Getting Dirty in Ontario Schools…

… and we’re not talking about the new sex-ed curriculum.

Rather, it seems that school custodians are engaged in yet another work-to-rule and the hallways and bathrooms in some schools are not being cleaned.

Our question is really simple; how is this not part of their basic job description?  This is mystifying.  Who negotiates these deals with the public unions, like the one that says teachers don’t have to fill out report cards?

And then parents are being told they are not allowed to come in and clean the schools of their own accord;

a parent council member says hallways are full of litter, “cockroaches and other pests pose a serious threat to students,” its gymnasium is unusable and critical fundraising activities that support needy students in the central city school aren’t happening.

If it’s technically NOT a union job, then what’s the problem with letting parents clean?

The great majority of jobs in today’s world, if they all had formal job descriptions and employment agreements, include the line, “Other duties, as required.”  A reasonable clause because you can’t possibly itemize every minor task a person would be required to perform to carry out their work in a conscientious, mindful and responsible manner.  Except when it comes to unions it seems.  Then it’s OK to dissect even simple jobs (keep the schools clean) into minute absurd divisions (classrooms, but not hallways).

And they wonder why automation is increasingly replacing blue collar work; because if you want people to approach their jobs like automatons, why not just get the real things.

Some Levity

This is pretty spot on.

Tagged ,
%d bloggers like this: