Feline Ferocity

I don't approve of this at all! I only bring it to your attention for your collective disapproval 😁

The American Dream - A Trenchant Interpretation

I have likely posted this in the past, but a repeat viewing in these troubled times is surely warranted: George Carlin parsing the truth about the 'American Dream'. As always with Mr. Carlin, be aware that the following contains language that may be offensive to some.

UPDATED: One Thing About Moudakis

 He certainly doesn't play political favourites.

UPDATE: Graeme MacKay is no slouch either:

Warning Signs

 

I realize there are some who see the Liberal Party of Canada as our natural governing party, and hence are perhaps too forgiving when wrongdoing is detected. While I am certainly glad that it was Justin Trudeau who presided over the past two-year-plus of our pandemic (a Conservative administration during our crisis being unthinkable), I do not subscribe to the notion that one particular entity should be above criticism or accountability.

And there is much to criticize about the current incarnation of the Liberals who, the longer they are in power, steadily revert to their old ways. The SNC Lavalin scandal immediately comes to mind, plus the fact that they are far too close to the corporate sector. (On that note, for example I have little doubt that despite the problems at Rogers, their acquisition of Shaw will ultimately be approved.)

Heather Scoffield turns her attention to the matter of the Liberals and public trust, citing both the Rogers debacle and the accusations of political interference in the Nova Scotia mass shooting probe:

On Monday, in one corner, we had the contrite and apologetic corporate executives ready to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at a problem to make it go away.

In the other corner, we had a federal minister talking tough, assuring the public he had let that company have it, in no uncertain terms, and it had better shape up — or else.

Tough words, but why so much secrecy around discussions?

Government officials, the CRTC and the company alike have already shown a proclivity to discussing solutions in secret on this file. Talks between Champagne and the telcos’ CEOs were in private. Undertakings by Rogers were widely redacted. And there’s been little to assure the public or parliamentarians they’ll get a full public airing of all of the details in the future, let alone a government that wants to tangle with telcos.

The past may be an indicator of future performance. 

While the Liberals’ record on regulating the internet and its players hasn’t led to the fireworks of its dealings with SNC-Lavalin, it does have a history. Rogers had a large outage of its wireless services in April 2021, with little regulatory followup.  

Too big to touch? 

As for the government's apparently too-close relationship with the RCMP, which is supposed to be free from political interference, Scoffield has this to say: 

And just across the street, we had a minister and the head of the RCMP protesting hard that neither they nor their surrogates had overstepped.

 The subtext of the hearing on the Nova Scotia shooting was whether the Liberals put their thumb on the scale of the legal system in an attempt to bend the outcome in favour of their political agenda  [i.e, their firearms legislation].

That the Liberals are trust-challenged is the final point the writer makes: 

The common thread is their collective challenge of maintaining the trust of the public in their ability to keep a reasonable eye on things when there’s trouble, and ensure the public interest is respected in the midst of turmoil and competing interests.

Ultimately, it is up to a vigilant public to hold the Liberal Party to a higher standard than they are used to. In that, we must not fail.

 

The (Once) Mighty Oz

Until he was bitten by the fame bug, Mehmet Oz apparently had a reputation as a respected cardiac surgeon. However, once he got the nod from Oprah and was given the Doctor Oz show, his ego swelled and his credibility and integrity oozed away. He reached his nadir when he embraced that narcissitic psychopath, disgraced ex-president, Donald Trump, along with all of his wacky protestations about rigged elections.

It was hardly a surprise that Oz's sycophancy won him Trump's endorsement and he now stands as Pennsylvania's Republic nominee for the 2022 Senate mid-term election. 

Want to know more about this sad, debased example of  humanity? How about a peek behind the curtain?

Laceratingly Accurate

Given Mr. Poilievre's refusal to debate his opponents, Michael de Adder's assessment of the putative front-runner in the Conservative leadership race seems spot-on.

 

Some also think Mr. Poilievre bears an uncanny resemblance to this young fellow:

How To Tell The Players Apart

This should clarify things:

H/t Roy Zimmerman

Freedom's Just Another Word...

 ... for demagoguery, at least if you are Pierre Poilievre. The leading contender for the helm of the Conservative Party of Canada is, of course, making a concerted effort at preaching the virtues of freedom while conspicuously eschewing its yoked counterpart, responsibility. And as he exalts the individual and their pursuit of this 'vision', he is giving the middle finger to any notion of the collective good.

Rick Salutin scrutinizes these notions, writing that even right-wing 'institutes' like the Cato and Frasier give Canada high rankings on their Freedom Index, landing at #8 our of 165,

a mere .36 of a point behind Switzerland, which is surely a statistical tie.

So by Poilievre’s own right-wing standards, Canada’s already ahead of almost everyone — including the U.K. and U.S., ranked 14 and 15. So what’ll he devote his effort to as PM — housing? Climate? Health? No: making us even freester (since we’re already freest). How gloriously pointless.

 It essentially comes down to freedom for me (“personal freedom” à la the indexes) or freedom through commonality, as in ... FDR’s New Deal.

And it is clear that Mr. Poilievre is championing the former while disdaining the latter, as reflected in his embrace of the truckers' convoy that paralyzed Ottawa for three long weeks.

The freedom demanded there was almost all “personal”: snarling traffic, blaring horns till residents felt deranged. And an ultimatum to end COVID mandates — which BTW never forced anyone to get vaxxed, but did prohibit participation in public situations to protect others’ freedom not to get sick.

During the civil rights years in the U.S., there was an anthem called “Oh Freedom!” When the singer sang, Over me, others echoed, Over me — because we were fighting for freedom over us all. 

I feel as if Pierre Poilievre responds, Over you, to calls for freedom, especially from those he favours. He’s a personal freedom kind of guy who doesn’t view freedom as a necessarily shared activity. Nor does he have the excuse of being endearingly nuts. It’s just the way he thinks.

As in the United States, the ideological lines are clearly drawn. And because we still live in a country in which we can engage in that collective, democratic activity known as voting, it falls to all of us to determine what vision ultimately prevails.

 

  

 

 

Sounds Reasonable, But...

... it is said that even the devil can quote scripture. In more down-to-earth terms, the Governor of Kentucky does in a much more polished form what ardent gun-rights advocates often say with spittle. My own analysis follows the video. 

Typically, this man does the same thing all defenders of unrestricted weaponry do. While no one could disagree with his articulate analysis of some of society's ills, the governor presents a bifurcated, black-and-white approach to the problem of gun violence, saying, in essence, that because gun violence has so many societal roots, it is pointless to put restrictions on gun access and ownership, never once allowing for the fact that restrictions would cut down on the number of shootings (356 mass shootings this year in the U.S, as of July 18th), no matter what the root causes of the violence are.

Fact: guns kill people. People denied gun access may still kill if given the opportunity, but hardly in the numbers and with the same frequency currently plaguing America.

Scenes From Newfoundland

While I am not one to foist vacation photos on others, I thought I would break that rule to share a few highlights of our recent trip to Newfoundland to see our son and daughter-in-law. Our second visit to the province reinforced the notion, as my wife expressed it, that life seems to be conducted on a more human scale than here at home. And given the bleak, perilous future the world faces, I have a feeling that our most eastern province will fare better than other jurisdictions.

One of the highlights of our visit was a whale-watching tour, in which we were very fortunate to see humpback whales. I wonder how much longer they will be with us, given how quickly we are destroying their environment and their food supply.

The following video was shot by my son:

Another highlight was meeting this young man, who was filming a scene for his series close to where we were staying and graciously allowed me to take his picture.

As I said, life seems to be on a more human scale in Newfoundland.

Not to suggest, however, that citizens are insular and shy away from the larger world:

                                                                                            

And last but not least, the craft brewing industry is alive and well in Newfoundland. 

And the winner is Come from Away, produced at YellowbellyBrewery and restaurant, our favourite eatery on Water Street.

Always Look On The Bright Side Of Death

One likely doesn't have to read about it to realize that GB News is 'right-leaning.'

Ben Phillips

@benphillips76

A clip from Don’t Look Up, and then a real TV interview that just happened.

 

According to BBC News, it is the first channel set up with an explicit political orientation in the United Kingdom.^[86] The channel is described as right-leaning,^{[3][4][5][6][7]} having been forecast to be so by the Financial Times,^[87] and by The Guardian and City A.M. to be similar to Fox News.^[84][13] In The New York Times, Neil was quoted as saying "In terms of formatting and style, I think MSNBC and Fox are the two templates we're following".^[88] He also told the Evening Standard that Fox News was "an easy, inaccurate shorthand for what we are trying to do. In terms of format we are like Fox but we won't be like Fox in that they come from a hard right disinformation fake news conspiracy agenda. I have worked too long and hard to build up a journalistic reputation to consider going down that route."^[89] BBC media editor Amol Rajan said that "it is not the first channel to be set up in Britain with a strong worldview ... But GB News is the first to be set up with an explicit political leaning".^[21] Rajan also stated that "the validity of [the Fox News] comparison is limited".^[21] GB News has not explicitly indicated a political allegiance, and UK news broadcasters are required by Ofcom to maintain "due impartiality".^[90][22]

In a March 2021 episode of BBC Radio 4's The Media Show, Neil stated that his nightly news programme would contain segments such as "Wokewatch" and "Mediawatch".^[91][92] The channel's breakfast show, The Great British Breakfast, initially had three co-anchors, in a similar style to Fox News' Fox & Friends,^[33] but the format changed to two co-anchors from the second week of broadcasting. Free Speech Nation, a current affairs show hosted by Andrew Doyle, airs once a week.^[30]

 

To State The Obvious

 ... in a way only Theo Moudakis can.

A Bit Of A Holiday

We are currently on a trip to Newfoundland, where our son and daughter-in-law moved in the fall, after living and working in Alberta for several years. It is our first trip since Covid, and the first time we have seen them in about two-and-a-half years. I probably won't be posting much, except perhaps for a few pictures. 

From our Airbnb, I took the trail up to St. John's Signal Hill yesterday, and it was a more arduous than I had anticipated, but I made it to the top. Guess I didn't do too badly for an old guy, eh? 

Here is a picture of me and Chief, an eight-year-old Newfoundland dog who is kind of a fixture on Signal Hill. I met him three years ago when we were attending our son's wedding in St. John's, and he appears to be still going strong but apparently is battling illness.

Below is a picture of some houses nestled alongside St. John's Harbour, where I began my ascent to Signal Hill.

That's all for now, folks.

It's A Great Time To Be Bad People

A friend of mine sent me this, and it is spot-on and self-explanatory.

UPDATED: This Left Me Feeling Queasy

I confess, making it to the 3:27 mark was a real effort, one fortified by a pre-dinner libation(s) last evening. However, eventually I steeled myself to watch the remaining minute, the entire video experience leaving me feeling a tad bruised.

The following production is unbelievably cheesy but at the same time somewhat unsettling. For example, Pierre Poilievre's opening in which he lovingly fondles wood inevitably leads one into all kinds of Freudian speculations, but I'll leave those to more learned minds. However, as you will see, his very strained wood metaphor(?) eventually leads into a revisionist, completely false, history of the signing of Magna Carta.

The Great Charter was 

agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.^[b] First drafted by Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. 

To hear unlucky Pierre's version, the commoners forced King John to sign the Great Charter, thereby reclaiming their freedom, the central theme and fiction of this risible production. And if you have the intestinal wherewithal to watch the entire video, you will likely note that this historical falsehood is consistent with the false narrative he draws about the awful Liberals, who, he claims, want to take away our few remaining freedoms in a fruitless quest for a socialist utopia.  He astutely reminds his listeners that utopia means no place.

No doubt some will be impressed by Poilievre's apparent respect for the intelligence of his followers and would-be acolytes. By using an extended and laboured metaphor, by seeming to be referring to historical fact, he is trying to flatter their intellectual vanity, while at the same time shamelessly and ruthlessly exploiting their credulity.

But of course, that really is what propaganda is all about, isn't it?

In times of war, it is said that truth is the first casualty. Obviously, the same is true of CPC leadership battles.

UPDATE:  I see I am not the only one who noticed Pierre's relationship with wood. Heather Mallick writes,

Do you like wood? Sure. I like wood as much as the next guy. But not as much as Conservative Party leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre, who has dropped another unhinged video and it’s all about wood because wood is what this strange man really likes.

Plaid-shirted Poilievre greets us inside his wooden house caressing a vertical exposed wooden beam with his fingertips and enthusing, with theatrical pauses and little bursts.

 Is that erotic? Someone thinks it is.

Twitter certainly did. “Find someone who looks at you the way Pierre Poilievre looks at an antivaxxer or a piece of wood,” it advised. “Poilievre seems to be trying to take a piece of wood on a date.”

She goes on, but I think you get the picture. The unsavoury picture, that is.

 

Freedom's Cost

Americans are a strange and contradictory lot, to put it mildly. They claim (not unlike a certain candidate running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada) to love freedom, yet that love of freedom clearly has its limits. For example, many of them exult in the recent decision of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, claiming a victory for the unborn and the sanctity of life. Yet that same reverence for life apparently ends at birth, if you consider even one of several metrics, not the least being the fact that they have the highest incarceration rate in the world. If that isn't an indictment of an uncaring society, I don't know what is. And don't get me started about gun rights vs. the killing of school children.

But instances of their hypocrisy/contradictions abound. Another is the the crazed right-wing, of which America seems to have an unusual concentration, and its hatred of regulations or, as they view it, government intrusion in their lives (see the above for a glaring exception). The latest example is reflected in the Supreme Court decision to neuter the Environmental Protection Agency.

... the court released a ruling in West Virginia v EPA limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, in a major environmental case with far-reaching impacts. This has been classified a “devastating” outcome by environmental lawyers, climate scientists and activists alike. One with far-reaching implications for the future of the country, and world.

Despite Americans' professed reverence for life, this ruling will have the opposite effect:

“At this point, for those in positions of high power to deny the urgency and the stakes of the climate crisis is to condemn everyone alive today and generations to come to life in a sick and impoverished world,” said Ginger Cassady, executive director of Rainforest Action Network.

Distilled to its essence, the Court decision removes much of the EPA's regulatory power to limit pollution, the argument being that only Congress has such power. Given the partisan dysfunction of Congress, this means a major brake on greenhouse gas emissions has been removed. leaving it up to states to determine their own rules. It would therefore appear that any national climate goals Joe Biden has are now impossible to achieve.

Regulating emissions from power plants is a vital piece of climate mitigation, as the power sector is the second largest planet-warming polluter in the US, making up about 25% of national emissions. 

In the meantime, experts noted the domino effect of not rapidly eliminating national greenhouse-gas emissions will disproportionately fall to Black, brown and Indigenous communities, as worsening climate crisis deepens racial and social divides.

“There are so many paths to climate justice still, but what we’re seeing is a supreme court that is, I would call them ‘Supreme Climate Deniers’, that are trying to put themselves in a decision-making position,” said US Climate Action Network’s executive director, Keya Chatterjee. “That sends a signal that they will want to make it hard for the federal government to protect people in communities where right now the fossil fuel industry is running the show.”

“Decisions like WV v EPA make it clear just how much the system is rigged against us. A supreme court that sides with the fossil fuel industry over the health and safety of its people is anti-life and illegitimate,” wrote the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate organization.

I sometimes think that the Ugly American would be far more tolerable were they to cast aside their cloak of self-righteousness, false piety, hubris, over-the-top patriotism and jingoism and admit to themselves and the world exactly what they really are.

But a capacity for self-reflection and honesty really isn't the American way, is it?

 

 

Happy Canada Day

 As factious as we can be, I hope most of us can at least agree on this:

H/t Theo Moudakis