Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

On Wilfred Laurier and Pronoun Rights

In the whole Lindsay Shepherd and Wilfred Laurier University fiasco it is hard to nail down a root cause for the affair because it sits at the nexus of a lot of issues swirling about in our culture and society today. But the story can be traced as such; Lindsay Shepherd showed a clip of Jordan Peterson in class.  Jordan Peterson is opposed to the concept of the use of gender neutral pronouns being potentially legally enforced under the auspices of bill C-16 and the Ontario Human Rights Code.  Progressives have come to view any opposition to the idea of using gender neutral pronouns is a litmus test for whether a person is “trans-phobic” and thus, whether intentionally or not, an advocate/agent for the Patriarchy.  The Patriarchy is an important idea because life is seen by modern Progressives as a giant series of ongoing power struggles between groups and identities with White Males at the top.  And to get to the top a group must actively be oppressing other groups.  And so, by proxy, Jordan Peterson by opposing the enforced use of gender neutral pronouns has become representative of the Oppressor.  The Oppressor must be resisted.  He must not be provided platforms for disseminating his views.  His views have no validity and any suggestion that they may have some merit is morally wrong because oppression of any type is wrong.  Some common examples of ongoing oppressions in our society;

  • Christianity oppresses free sexual expression
  • Whites oppress blacks and minorities
  • Straights oppress gays and transgendered
  • Capitalism oppresses poor people
  • The West oppresses Islam
  • Jews oppress Palestinians

And thusly Lindsay Shepherd was complicit in perpetuating the ongoing oppression of trans-gender people by providing Jordan Peterson a platform. And this warranted sanction in the eyes of the university… until the recording of the interrogation session became public.

The whole Post-Modernist world view of Oppressors and Victims and eternal power struggles is not something we have the philosophical tools to unpack here. Suffice to say that we should all be scared; university social studies and humanities faculties are filled with professors that believe in the Post-Modernist narrative and are “training” hundreds of thousands of young people who enter life interpreting the world through this prism that discards ideals of merit, rationality, intellectual rigour and cultural stability.

It is interesting though to examine whether being called “xie” or “xer” is a right or if failing to use those artificial words is a violation of transgender rights or an abrogation of one’s responsibilities in the exercise of Free Speech. If it weren’t actually a “right”, or seen to be a violation of accepted limitations on Free Speech, much of this brouhaha would be laughed at as just another peculiarity of politically correct campus life.

Rights should always be discussed in tandem with Responsibilities. There are no rights without the responsibilities that accompany each right.  Libertarians view rights as either “Negative” or “Positive” rights.   For a person to have rights there are responsibilities imposed on their fellow humans.  In the case of Negative Rights our fellow humans need to do nothing and need only abstain from doing anything.  Negative = Abstention.  Positive Rights however ask fellow humans for action in order for that right to be exercised.  Positive = Action.

An example is the Right to Free Speech. It is a Negative Right because in order for me to exercise my right I need you to do nothing, only abstain from any interference.  A Positive Right would be, say, a Right to Education which would by extension mean that someone has to take action to provide you with an education either by actually doing the teaching or funding it.  Libertarians argue that the only natural rights are Negative Rights and that all Positive Rights can only be enforced by contract between individuals; that it is morally wrong for the government to impose Positive Rights on the citizens and the country at large by compelling behaviour as a result of their monopoly on violence.

It’s worth noting that there is some dispute on the validity of Negative vs. Positive rights, the argument being that while say, the Right to Property is a Negative Right, if it’s violated and some thieves steal off with your stuff, it’s everyone’s prerogative to take action and restore your stuff to you as a way of ensuring that your Right to Property is not just some theoretical abstract and actual reality. Taking up the Libertarian idea of a Positive Right requiring contract, arguably by being citizens in a country we have contract with each other to ensure the protection of rights through necessary action.  And this introduces the notion of Reciprocity – a right can only be such a thing if there is reciprocity, an unwritten contract between citizens that if you protect and respect my rights then in turn I will protect and respect your same rights.  It’s a main reason why animals can have no rights like humans have – we can love and respect them and treat them humanely but because they cannot reciprocate our actions they cannot therefore have rights like humans.

But in today’s Western societies we accept that the self is not absolved of any responsibility in the exercise of rights. Going back to my Free Speech as an example, it is a Negative Right that asks you to do nothing, but our society also legally requires me to not use that Free Speech to incite violence, to incite hatred, nor to slander anyone.  Those are my responsibilities.  Unless you are a Free Speech absolutist that rejects government coercion of any behaviour and endorses a position of no restrictions and thusly no legally enforceable personal responsibilities in the matter of Free Speech, it’s generally accepted here in Canada that these are “reasonable” limitations on Free Speech and my responsibilities as a practitioner of that right.

So going back to “xie” and “xir”… if there were any “right” to have your gender pronoun of choice used that would be a Positive Right because it is asking for action by others. Beyond disputing the whole notion of Positive Rights (see the three generations of rights and what an open-ended mess Positive Rights in the 2nd and 3rd generation can become), but what is the reciprocal action from the trans community?  There is none.  And because it is a one-way street it is not a “right” but more appropriately a requested courtesy.  And manners are subjective and cannot be enforced by law.  I can call someone an asshole to their face, and while that may be rude and perhaps I should be socially sanctioned for this behaviour, I should not be thrown in jail or fined for doing so.  The government should never be in the business of compelling manners.

But that’s not the argument the proponents of gender neutral pronouns have taken up because they know it’s an easy loser. Rather they’ve hinged their argument on the idea that my responsibility in the exercise of Free Speech is not to incite violence or hatred as was described and is widely acknowledged.  And by refusing to use gender neutral pronouns I am doing exactly that.  Speech is violence. But that argument cannot stand either.  Better articles have been written by Jonathan Haidt and others about the push to have speech (or silence) interpreted as violence so there is no need to rehash them here.

So, in the end one can conclude that there is no first generation or even second generational “right” to be called by your gender pronoun of choice – at best it’s a Positive 3rd generational (i.e. social aspirational) right that has no evident reciprocity for the vast majority of fellow citizens.  And it’s a dangerous overstretch of the definition of violence to suggest that failure to use these pronouns of choice are in violation of our responsibility not to use Free Speech to incite violence or hatred.  It’s not a right, but virtue signaling and political correctness run amok, a power play and an attempt to create yet another litmus test to measure where you land on the Progressive scale of morality.

We’re still waiting for Justin Trudeau to use “xie” or “xer” in a speech. It’s coming.

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

On Social Justice Warrior Modus Operandi and the Google Memo

So some young doofus who worked at Google thought it was wise (it wasn’t) to post a 10-page manifesto (who writes long manifestos other than Ted Kaczyinski?) to the company website complaining about the company’s diversity hiring practices. He’s fired now.

He’d do well to read the following. The Left are obsessed with three things; Security, the Great Virtues (Agape, Egalitarianism, Justice) and Agency.   Under the heading of Egalitarianism falls the ideas of Equality and Fairness and a subheading under Equality is Equality of Outcomes.  Not Equality of Opportunity… Equality of Outcomes.

So the typical Social Justice Warrior modus operandi is as follows;

1) Search for an issue where the outcomes for one group are not the same as for another group (or groups);

2) Label the group enjoying a favorable outcome the Oppressors;

3) Label the groups not enjoying a favorable outcome the Victims;

4) Declare that the Oppressors are enjoying favorable outcomes because of discriminatory practices or societal biases against the Victims. These identified discriminatory practices can be merely alleged and unproven because, in true post-Modernism thinking so long as something is perceived or felt it has truth attached to it.

5) Demand that reverse discriminatory practices be employed to correct the imbalance in outcomes;

6) Never, ever entertain any suggestion that the disparity in outcomes might be the result of Victim behavior or character. Ostracize anyone who suggests as such and label them homophobes, transphobes, racists, sexists, bigots, etc.

7) Never, ever look back over your shoulder and review to see if the reversal of discriminatory practices has worked to actually improve outcomes for the Victims;

8)  Return to 1).

So, let’s take the issue of there not being a lot of female computer programmers.

There are way more male programmers than female programmers in Silicon Valley. An unequal outcome.

The males in charge of tech companies in Silicon Valley = the Oppressors

Females (in general) = the Victims

Females don’t get hired as computer programmers because Men (the Patriarchy) are systematically refusing to hire them.

Demand that this practice is reversed and that Men go out of their way to hire more female programmers to right the imbalance.

Scream “Sexist!” at anyone who suggests the problem may in fact be that a) not a lot of women actually go into computer programming or b) it’s not an occupation that women have shown to be particularly great at (with exceptions, of course)… for whatever reason.

Demand that affirmative action and hiring quotas be put in place, but never go back and see if these practices have actually improved the outcomes for female programmers, knowing instead that what it will more likely do is prevent male programmers from getting hired or promoted, which is OK because it’s harming the Oppressors (justice).

And so on. I could do this on any social issue of the day.  The formula for faux outrage, labeling, demands or justice and ignorance of results can apply to just about anything.

So young Google guy, James Damore, please learn your lesson.  You can’t fight the machine.

Here’s an exercise; Justin Trudeau says there is not enough female representation in federal cabinet.  Go through steps 2-8.  Enjoy.


Update – here’s the memo.


It’s actually a very reasonable and well thought out article.  However, that doesn’t change the fact that writing it and posting it on your company board, when you know you work for a left-leaning company, is not a wise thing to do if you hope to keep your job.  Brave.  But bravery’s cousin is very often stupidity.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

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 Eve of the US Elections

Tomorrow the US will elect a new President. Well, tomorrow is when they’ll vote; in all likelihood we won’t know the official result until December after all the legal challenges are concluded in every state where the margin of victory was a percentage point or two of the popular vote. That is, unless Trump badly underperforms the current polling and loses by a solid margin in Florida, which is the key tipping point state – Trump cannot win the election if he doesn’t win Florida. But right now it looks like he’s even odds to win that state but it won’t be by much, maybe one or two points; in which case expect the recount saga of 2000 repeated all over again if those state’s 29 electoral votes are the difference between either President Trump or President Clinton.

That said, find something else to watch on TV Tuesday night, Clinton will win the election.  She has a better overall organization and Republicans have underperformed the polls the past couple of elections because they don’t have the ground game to get the vote to the polls.   All the Hollywood elites, media, academics and public sector unions, the unelected left-wing cabal that steers the discourse in the West can breathe easier.

The question will then become – how violent is this going to get? What am I talking about?

See this clip from last Friday’s Bill Maher show… he more or less apologizes on behalf of the Left for their demonization of John McCain and Mitt Romney, the latter being a perfectly decent man, a moderate Republican but who was still compared to Hitler. We have our own example here in Canada where a very milquetoast and overly-cautious Stephen Harper was called a “fascist” on a regular basis, and when he was defeated last year the left-wing cabal were almost orgasmic in their celebrations. But Maher and the others in the clip are essentially saying, “All those other times we told you the Republicans were fascists… well we were exaggerating, but this time – this time – it’s true! It really, really is!”

We all know who Lena Dunham is… a talentless Hollywood darling and devoutly evil person who lied about being raped to make a good story for her book. Well, here she is in this clip obnoxiously pushing for her girl Hillary, or how about this clip where she (and her father, a man who made his living painting pictures of women’s breasts) says that white males should be made extinct. Do they say this stuff just to make their peers laugh and score brownie points with their fellow brain-dead leftists, or do they really believe white male babies should be aborted? Do they believe in eugenics? Because that’s evil, or do they not realize that? Oh wait, what are we talking about – they believe in an evil ideology that has produced more suffering than any other ideology in history, of course they realize they’re being evil.

Here is the thing… there is a cycle in our local, provincial/state, national politics… we elect leftists because that’s where our natural, romantic tendencies trend as a people – we all dream of a more inclusive and tolerant world, one that protects the vulnerable and promotes social and natural harmony. But the left think this type of world can be created by fiat and they, after a time, just go too far, their agendas get hijacked by special interests groups and the bills for their plans need to get paid… and then people push the reset button and elect conservatives to clean up the inevitable mess and do what conservatives do – provide balance, stability and rational government.  David Miller was a horrible mayor of Toronto; cue Rob Ford.  Bob Rae, horrible premier of Ontario, bring in Mike Harris.  Paul Martin weak and ineffective Liberal, bring in Stephen Harper.  Jimmy Carter a weak President brings in Ronald Reagan.  It’s going to happen here in Ontario, finally, Wynne out, Brown in.  Give it a few years and Trudeau will be trounced circa 2024 when it becomes abundantly clear that he’s bankrupted Canada.  The pendulum swings back and forth; the left has good intentions but makes a mess of it, conservatives come in and clean up said mess, the left comes back and says we’ve learned our lessons and will be more reasonable this time, left get back into power but forget the lessons soon enough, and on it goes.  Wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

But this time we face a bigger more modern problem in that we are dealing with the crap that the aforementioned unelected cultural leftists are dumping on us; in their recent emboldened moral vanity they now call conservatives stupid and bigoted, they insist on gutting the economy in a futile effort to stop global warming, they want to force you to call people “zie” and suggest white males are a cancer in the world to be cut out, they want a segregated society with different rules for every identity group and apologize for being the West.

Trump is a result of all this. But what people will realize after this election is that what they want is to hit the reset button on the culture, and not necessarily the politics. As the expression goes “politics is downstream of culture”. After Trump is defeated, after Brexit is delayed or quashed by courts in England, after we get a Bill C-16 here in Canada making it illegal to call someone “he” or “her” without their consent or a carbon tax that will slow the economy down during a recession, a large segment of the population in the West is going to start casting their eyes higher, at the culture that produces the unelected leftist cabal.

A positive outlook would be to say, hey – the “long arc of history” as Obama likes to describe it shows that there is a cycle and things will self-correct.  Bu the more cynical outlook would say there are only three things that affect cultural change; demographics, violent conflict and technology. And two out of the three are largely beyond doing anything about. It’s going to be a rocky road the next few years.

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

On Using ‘Zie’ and ‘Hir’ and More Shooting the Survivors

Does anyone care to place bets on when we will get the first politician in Canada to stand up and make a speech using “genderless pronouns”?  It may be sooner than you think – maybe as soon as next year…. maybe even this year.

The same way Kathleen Wynne obnoxiously pays homage in hir every speech to the Indigenous tribe on whose ancestral lands zie stands, we’re going to see Liberal and NDP politicians start referring to ‘zie’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’.

No?  Don’t think it can happen?  You are naïve then.

The federal Liberals are all set to pass Bill C-16 which will outlaw the discrimination and harassment of individuals based on their gender identity.  Not actual physically gender, but what that person identifies as.  Identity.

Don’t forget that it was Canada’s over-reaching human rights legislation that spawned provincial and federal Human Rights Commissions, where just being offended or insulted it seemed was grounds for being charged with human rights violations. In Quebec now a teacher cannot criticize Muslims without being brought before a Human Rights Commission. A comedian in BC cannot insult hecklers without being levied a $40,000 fine.  Mark Steyn and Maclean’s had an epic battle with the human rights courts for simply suggesting the “future belonged to Islam” which was interpreted to be anti-Muslim.  Thankfully the Conservatives (belatedly) repealed the law.

But here come the Liberals and their Hirster-in-Chief.

It would serve everyone well to become familiar then with the use of these new pronouns;

zie zim zir zis zieself
sie sie hir hirs hirself
ey em eir eirs eirself
ve ver vis vers verself
tey ter tem ters terself
e em eir eirs emself

See, while this legislation is intended to virtue signal what a kind and tolerant society we have what it does instead is give the SJW bullies another club to beat us with. Case in point – this brave University of Toronto professor who is pushing back against the university’s human resources directive, that all professors begin using gender-less pronouns. Zie will soon be a pariah.

“If Peterson fears the Trudeau government passing Bill C-16 into law, he should smarten up his act by upgrading his ethics circuits, not by trying to marshal opposition to basic human rights protections for people he refuses to even try to understand,” added Peet.”

Just examine the frightening power in that quote – zero acknowledgement of concerns or validity to the other side, rather the onus is on Professor Peterson to “upgrade his ethics circuits” because he’s clearly evil, zie has moral failings if zie‘s engaged in Wrong Think.

Wait a second – did Professor Peet check with Professor Peterson if zie wants to be called “he”?  Uh oh.

We wish zim good luck, but in all likelihood zis position at the university will become untenable because in the great hierarchy of evils in the eyes of the left, after racism and climate change denial, comes opposition to trans-gender rights.

The SJW’s envision a world where before you speak to someone you each, as a matter of courtesy, inform the other person of the pronouns you would like used. Seriously. This is not new and many universities across the US have already instructed their students to adopt this new protocol of human interaction.

So one can easily imagine a future of people, in all manners of private and public businesses being charged for failing to properly address a person by their self-identified gender or using genderless pronouns. It will be paralyzing. And you can laugh it off as paranoid fantasy, but these people will have the Law behind them. The most powerful person in any work place setting will now become that one employee that forces everyone to learn a new language and forces emails and memos to be rewritten to suit their sensibilities.

Justin Trudeau, early next year. That’s my bet for the first politician and when.


Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

On Warriors and Our Nation of Children

Do you ever wonder what a nation or society of children we’ve become?

I’ve become a big fan of Jocko Willink of late and based on his praise for the book, I’ve begun reading About Face by Col. David Hackworth. Reading the book gives you great perspective on how soft (and fortunate) we’ve become in our modern age; Hackworth joined the army at age 15, and by age 21 was a 1st Lieutenant commanding 200 infantry in the Korean War.  In the book he details the horrors of fighting in Korea and later Vietnam, the trench warfare, trying to sleep and cope with constant artillery shelling and sniping and attacks, rats nibbling on your toes at night, digits cut off due to frostbite, starvation and dehydration, feet rotting due to poor hygiene and constant rain, comrades killed and wounded on a daily basis… Hackworth at one point gets his arm and shoulder shredded by landing on a grenade, and when a doctor tells him he will never straighten his arm again he jumps out of his hospital bed, drain still inserted in his arm after surgery, does a push-up to straighten his arm and tells the doctor to shove off. This is a warrior. Without these types of individuals none of us would enjoy any of the freedoms we take for granted.  Only those who are intellectually dishonest would argue otherwise.

It is to laugh when Donald Trump claims to have made many sacrifices and then you compare his “list” to individuals like Hackworth and others who unfortunately lost their lives. Trump is an idiot; the proper response to the question of what sacrifices he’s made was to admit in all honesty that he has not made any sacrifices comparable to Capt. Khan and his family, but then subtly turn it around and ask what sacrifices can Hillary Clinton claim? Barack Obama? Bernie Sanders? Any Leftie leader in the US? Instead he didn’t do that, he attacked the family of a fallen soldier. That alone is proof that he is unfit to lead a nation and be a Commander-in-Chief.

But then how much different is this; an artist in B.C. paints a fawning picture of Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau performing a yoga pose and then has the temerity of call her a “warrior”, the “Queen” of Canada… grow up woman. You are a child that is impressed by ridiculous things. She and her husband are the hipster products of a silver-spoon fed privilege that haven’t made any sacrifices on a scale with real warriors. Neither have what it takes for a real fight or conflict.

Take for example the latest story that our Defense Minister, an actual warrior, is being humiliated with the assigned task of searching for a peacekeeping mission somewhere in Africa that Canada can attach onto, because for Justin Trudeau the military is a tool for Liberal virtue-signaling of what a wonderful, peaceful nation we are, how much he believes in an unworkable utopian United Nations, instead of understanding that true peace is achieved by our warriors fighting for our side, killing people and breaking things that belong to the other side, not just standing in between two groups of hostile people. How’d that Canadian/UN peace keeping mission go in Rwanda?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

On Virtue Signaling as City Zoning Policy

Remember Justin Trudeau’s promise for more “evidence-based” policy making? Supposedly evidence-based means an objective analysis of historical evidence and facts to support the creation of policy. What a superb idea. As conservatives we’d embrace this approach, seeing as how conservatism should be at its heart about balance, stability and rational government.

But what we’re more likely to see from your standard leftie is “virtue-based” policy making.   We talked about virtue-signaling in the last post. Now let’s examine a microscopic example of how virtue-signaling doesn’t just infect our social media with misplaced outpourings of grief and support for victims and causes, but also our policy making at something as mundane as a city planning level.

See the picture of these fine young urban planners? Four young professionals about to transform a city of 250,000 into a modern green-topia of cyclists, bus riders and LRT users. The ordinary car powered by a combustion engine? Evil. These four become nauseous at the sight of one in the city core. So here’s what they propose to do with their new city zoning by-laws; make it impossible to find a spot for any cars.

“The proposal would require no parking for the first 100 units and then 0.9 spaces/unit thereafter.”

The practicalities of this are almost insane – would you spend $300k+ on a condo apartment that doesn’t provide you at least ONE parking spot?  No.  So two things will happen; the market for older apartments with one or more parking spots per unit will skyrocket and developers will either abandon the idea of building condos or, what is more likely, find ways to pay off politicians for by-law exemptions.  It actually opens the market for corruption.

As an example you don’t have to stray too far – the Ontario Liberal government’s Green Belt legislation was supposed to curtail development beyond certain boundaries and prevent urban sprawl, a noble goal but what’s been shown is that in practice all it did was put some more friction in the system that could be overcome with a little green, and not the environmental kind. This is evidenced by the fact that the number one financial contributor to the Ontario Liberals is in fact developers.

And I guess we’re all supposed to work at City Hall and live downtown so we can walk to work in -30C temps.  You can only bike in this country for maybe six months of the year.

So what’s this about then? It’s not about the actual ability to get rid of cars; it’s about the virtue-signaling of one community of urban planners to another, so they can go to conferences in the future and compare impractical and failed ideas and pat each other on the back about all the supposed good they’re doing. As time trudges maybe one or two at the most of this daring foursome will attempt to stick their goals with puritanical zeal and be real pains-in-the-ass to your typical downtown developer, but the others will kowtow to political pressure from developers savvy enough to throw fundraising dinners for the mayor and councilors and get their bylaw exemptions via the backdoor. And the additional cost of application delays and fundraising will just be passed on to the consumer, making the market for condos and housing in general all that more expensive and unaffordable .  Cue the stories about how young people are priced out of the housing market.

There are plenty of market-based solutions to curbing urban sprawl and incentivizing people to use mass transit and alternative modes of transportation.  But those kinds or solutions are devoid of any kind of virtue-signaling because using the free market and letting urban development evolve according to market forces doesn’t provide fodder for fawning news articles that get circulated to your peers around the country.

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

One Conservative Explanation for Donald Trump

John Robson’s piece in the National Post today comes closer than a lot of other articles lately about trying to understand how a Donald Trump has arisen in the US.  He comes pretty close to explaining it, but maybe doesn’t go far enough.

It’s funny because when I read John Robson’s piece, I wondered if he listened to the latest Ricochet podcast.

In the episode they interview Charles Murray, who  has been pointing out for a long time that whites have been disintegrating socially for a long time.  He’s very pessimistic about the future; he thinks that fully 1/3 of the American population is beyond reclamation socially and has collapsed because of the prevalence of divorce, children born out of wedlock, the lack of civic-mindedness and respect for rule-of-law, amongst other things.  Unfortunately, I think he is probably right.

Murray also hates Trump for the reason I’m going to start using; conservativism is as much about the importance of character as it is about some set of policies, and Trump is a despicable character.  We’ve discussed this before in this blog, that one cannot champion economic liberty without also championing social conservative values and the rugged character traits those values support; if you remove government from people’s lives, what fills the vacuum?  The growth of government has been a response to the growing infantilization of our culture.  You can’t have a small government, low tax regime if the people are psychologically incapable of caring for themselves, their families and their local communities.  It’s like spitting in the wind, it will never stick.

And how do kids behave when they don’t get their way?  They act up.  They throw temper tantrums.  They start losing jobs and feeling left behind they become abusive and blame others, like, say Mexicans.  They call other kids names like “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted” as does Trump.  Kids like to see that, their leaders acting like a kid, it’s amusing to them.  Because they aren’t serious.  Kids can be quite cruel and psychotic.

You can throw in for good measure the feminization of our culture; Beta-males like Justin Trudeau are paraded around like some ideal kind of “caring” leader, so much so that even “conservative” leaders like Patrick Brown are in a desperate race to demonstrate their EQ and how emotionally linked they are to issues such as climate change , Syrian refugees and gay rights.  So here comes an “Alpha” male, Donald Trump and his aggressive straight-shooter behavior triggers some primal longing in a lot of men to see that kind of leader, John Wayne rebooted and galloping to the rescue from all the panty waists that seem to run the show and insist on safe-rooms on college campuses.

And finally you sit at home and you watch the John Olivers and Jon Stewarts of the world tell you that your views on life?  They’re wrong.  Not just wrong, but sexist, racist and ignorant.  You pick up the paper, watch CNN and they say you’re “angry” and “confused”.  You get pummeled with subliminal and overt messaging that says these ideas and notions that you have when you read about gunmen in San Bernadino and see your jobs being shipped overseas to a “communist” country and hear Hollywood stars berate you from the decks of their yachts about your per capita consumption of energy… you get hit with this over and over and it breeds a real resentment to the status quo.

So Trump is pretty easy to explain, he’s a creation of 50 years of leftist culture left unchecked; a broken family culture, a culture that encourages dependence and immaturity, a dismissal of the need and usefulness of “men” and traditional male character traits and constant barrage of leftist condescension for opposing viewpoints.  Congratulations to all the progressives out there, you reap what you sow.

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

Well, Sure They Are. They’re Married to the Same Man

Apparently Michelle Obama thinks she’s her “soul mate”.

Here’s a “unique” narrative…

A relatively unaccomplished but charismatic young(er) man, married to an attractive woman, with two adorable kids, incredibly, improbably becomes the leader of his country after only a brief and, by all objective accounts, unspectacular spell in elected office.  He is elected on the winds of change and hope, positivism and restoration.   The nation breaks out in celebration when he wins, because he represents a relief to the masses of people oppressed by the previous regime’s catering to corporate interests, war mongering, and willful ignorance of environmental catastrophes.  He is almost immediately awarded international recognition for things he hasn’t done, but rather what he has promised to do.

I guess then here’s some predictions based on how things went south of the border since 2008;

  • The next Nobel Peace Prize will go to Justin Trudeau for his compassionate work on the Syrian refugee file and the shining example he has set for other western leaders;
  • The Canadian economy will not only continue to flat-line, but decline over his next 5 years as Prime Minister.  Oil will not be coming back, his (and the compliant provinces’) environmental policies will continue to hamstring manufacturing and natural resource based businesses and the country’s financial position will grow increasingly precarious as the federal and provincial governments continue to run massive deficits in the name of “stimulus”;
  • Files that the federal Liberals had promised to improve upon the Conservative’s hard and mean ways, like aboriginal rights and reparations, women’s rights et al actually get worse, not better;
  • Despite retreating from military conflicts and hard lifting in the world’s trouble spots we still suffer from increased Islamic jihadist activity on Canadian soil; and yet
  • Come the 2020 federal election, the Liberals win another majority government, crushing some poor milquetoast Conservative leader (McKay, Rait, Kenney… it won’t matter).  Everyone is stunned.
  • Repeat steps 2-4 again, for another 5 years.
  • 2025 – enter Canada’s version of Donald Trump to address the ANGER as millions of people awake to the idea that they’ve been badly misled for the past 10 years.

Who wants to bet us?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

What the F*ck is the ORPP?

Hey, I’ve been hearing a lot about this new ORPP that the Ontario Liberals want to bring in.  What is it?

It’s supposed to be the Ontario version of the CPP – the Ontario government will deduct a certain amount from your paycheque each week, and your employer will match that amount.  Do that for x number of years and you are eligible to receive an Ontario pension cheque in your glorious retirement to add to the Canadian pension cheque you get.

OK, but do we need another pension?  Sounds redundant.

According to Wynne you do.  Household savings rates have slipped from a high of about 20% in the late 70’s to less than 5% of household income.  So her thoughts are we aren’t doing enough saving to provide for ourselves in our old age and the CPP doesn’t cover it, so they’re going to come and “help” us save more money.

That’s right, didn’t she say she’s only introducing this because Harper wouldn’t improve the CPP?  But wait a second… isn’t her buddy Justin Trudeau in power now, and didn’t he say that he would improve the CPP?

Yes, but it was never about Harper or the CPP.  Harper did plenty for assisting people with saving for their retirement by creating TFSAs and other vehicles, and still the rate of household savings fell – there’s over $100 billion in unused capacity in RRSPs and TFSA’s in Canada.  Harper took the view that government should provide vehicles for savings, but that how much you saved was ultimately your responsibility.  And by and large people didn’t take that responsibility.

So now Wynne wants to force us to save money?

Exactly right.  It’s actually referred to as “forced retirement savings plan”.  You have no choice in the matter.  Which is a typical liberal approach; they’re looking out for us, they have our best interests at heart, so do as we say.  Nanny statism at it’s finest.

So everyone is being told they have to contribute to the ORPP?

Not everyone – approximately 35% of Ontarian’s already have a pension plan.  Wynne says those people will be exempt… well, some of them.


Not all pension plans are the same.  In simplistic terms there are Defined Benefit plans, where the contribution amount may fluctuate but you know exactly how much you are going to pull out in retirement, and Defined Contribution plans where how much you contribute is defined, but how much you pull out is going to vary depending on how your investments have done.  The ORPP is a DB plan, and so Wynne wants the ability to review existing DC plans – and if they aren’t up to her standards you’ll be forced to contribute to the ORPP.

So what’s the chance my DC plan will be exempted?

Pretty low, my friend.  Unless your contributions are 8% of income, which is a pretty high bar that has been set by the Liberals.

Alright, but defined benefits sounds great, there’s no guess work, no worrying about the how well my investments might be doing…  So how much would I get out of the plan?

Well, if your income is around $90k/year and you start contributing to the plan in 2020 when it’s in full gear, after 40 years of contributions you will be eligible for approximately $12,800 per year upon retirement.

Umm… in 2060?  What’s $13k a year going to worth in 2060?

Who knows?  Probably not much.  Will there even be a Canada or Ontario in 2060?  Who knows?

But I don’t get it, why so little?  How much am I contributing to collect that amount?

Your payroll will be deducted 1.9% of income and your employer will be forced to match that contribution, so effectively every year an amount equal to 3.8% of your income will go into the plan.  Government pension plans usually return about 2% per annum.

What?  That’s worse than the stock market!

Yes, it is.

But then why not encourage people to save and invest on their own, they’ll have a better return?

Because governments have been doing that for 30 years, and the rates of savings are still not going up.  The Liberals need to come save us from ourselves.

But surely some people are saving money!

They are, but it’s just a different manifestation.  Household equity has increased 76% since the late 80’s – people put their money into their houses, real estate and other non-obvious retirement investments.  It’s not the best of ideas, but between high mortgage costs, high taxes and increases in the cost of living, perhaps there isn’t as much disposable income available for savings.

So why do this?

The ORPP is being sold as a needed supplement to the CPP, but it’s really just another revenue tool for the Ontario government.  They’re too scared to actually raise taxes, so they’ve come up with this clever scheme to take money out of our pockets – for our own good.


Sure.  Consider that there are approximately 4.5 million Ontarians with incomes over $30,000 per year.  If we take the 35% ORPP exemption rate that still leaves 3 million potential contributors.  If the mean income is $31,800 per year, a 3.8% contribution deduction probably equals about $3 billion per year.

Wow!  Where does all that money go?

If it’s similar to the CPP, that pension invests in a mix of private equity, debt and infrastructure.  Debt = Ontario government green bonds.  Infrastructure = Ontario Hydro One and other pet infrastructure projects in the province that the province will sell shares in.

Wait… so a lot of that ORPP money will just come back to the government in terms of general revenue?

Yep.  So it’s essentially just another tax to help Wynne bank roll her government’s addiction to spending.

Wow.  That’s downright dishonest and deceptive.

Welcome to Ontario.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: