Elite meshing

And Veronica Mars strikes again, too. One of its subplots is a weird but not prescient echo of an article I was just reading about Elite dislike of flyover country people which suggests a reason for that is that they're just not "comfortable" meshing or schmoozing with them ("Grey-matter deficient Americans" by Victor Hanson in the NR). In the latest Mars series, a charismatic, up and coming, liberal Arab-American congressman and his mother are definitely uncomfortable that his brother is involved with a "white trash" (the mother's words) woman whose Hillbilly brothers and mother seem to be drawn right from Hilary Clinton's Bucket of Deplorables. What's even more interesting, VM could just as easily have made an old socialist Archie Bunker like Sanders be the congressman, too. If there is one thing our elite increasingly seem to have in common regardless of overt political label it's contempt for those who just don't go to their parties.

Like Trump?

A recent column title reads,"Like Trump, Bernie won't back down." Now, wait a minute. What the writer is talking about is Sanders' doubling down on defending the Castro regime and his enabling the USSR and Nicaragua, too, while he was at it. My memory may be faulty but when did Trump EVER say something like the following:

"Gee, you know I have to say that we do tend to exaggerate about how bad the Jim Crow South was. Stats for blacks socially and economically then were much better than they are now." or,

"I know Hitler was an authoritarian (and BTW I'm NOT an authoritarian, I'm a Democrat) but he did give us Volkswagen and the Autobahn. We can learn from that, you know." or,

"That Mussolini he sure made the trains run on time."

Indeed, contemporaneously, everyone from Shaw to Astor to Lloyd-George to Lindbergh to Miller to, well, Sanders and nearly our entire elite once praised dictatorships when they were in their full flower. The difference between Sanders and the rest of those apologists is that they stopped doing it when they realized they were wrong or it wasn't popular anymore to talk that way. Sanders keeps going like some sort of louche Red Energizer bunny who, in a strange communist impression of the Bourbons, remembers everything but learns nothing. 

Meanwhile, Trump, whose only activity that is anything like Sanders' comments is embarrassing praise from time to time for Putin (a terrible dictator but nothing like in the League of Hitler, Stalin, Castro or Mao)0 and pointing out that the violence at Charlottesville was on both sides, Antifa and the KKK, is therefore defamed when he is compared in any way to what Sanders does and thinks, apparently with impunity. Open ended praise of Putin meanwhile was interpreted to mean Trump is a Russian agent. The Double Standard strikes again.

Demportrait - Land of Confusion

Joe Biden is the single most failed Front Runner of all time. This seems like a cliche now. But, in reality it was a cliche before Biden announced his run. It is only a raw consolation to those of us who believe in some sort of poetic if not formal justice even in affairs as low as politics that that failure may well be the result of American voters not being as stupid as pols like Biden think they are and unwilling to listen to the lame explanations of him and his retainers in the Media that he had "done nothing wrong". A silent verdict is being given then against him much like the one finally given against Hilary Clinton in 2016. (Oh, and let's not forget that even Hilary does not count amongst her many crimes, plagiarism, although she might be POTUS now if she had tried to steal from her husband.)

But, even if it were not for the fact that he, Joseph Biden, is in the words of Political Corruption chronicler, Peter Scheizer, "The most corrupt VP in US History", there would still be plenty of reason for wondering how in God's name this cheap ward heeler became the "Front Runner" for anything let alone a POTUS nomination. First, there is the fact that, aside from being born in PA, his base is the vanishingly small combo of DE and the Naval Observatory. Past VP's that ran at least came from major states like MN (Mondale) or CA (Nixon) or TX (Bush). His track record, beside piggybacking on Obama's victories was to win 6 elections in one of the smallest states in the Union against mainly no-hopers while entering and badly losing a grand total of one presidential primary, the Iowa Caucus in 2008. His bad vote-getting thus should not have been a surprise.

Then there is his senility, first manifested I believe (although I do not claim to make a medical diagnosis as I am not a GP) by his status as a Gaffe Machine. I believe now that his comments like "Chains", "Clean African American" or "Stand up! (to a crippled supporter)" were manifestations as much of creeping dementia as of carelessness or bumptiousness (this also goes for his Me Too moments of tactility). People see that Mr. Biden is simply not all there. They note that he has already (along with his farcical claim that Obama did not endorse him publicly on Biden's request) desperately promised only to serve one term in office. They wonder why and note he will be about 82 then as well.

But, even if he were not going senile, even if he were Father O'Malley when it came to political cupidity, he will still be a monarch if not a president: the King of Confusion. He made all of the moves he thought he had to make to denounce pretty well all of his admittedly meager accomplishments such as the Crime Bill and voting for the Iraq War (oh, did I mention that he is also broadly a jellyfiish to forces he is inferior to and a bully to those beneath him?). But then he refused to disown and disavow his friendships with the many Klansmen who ran the Dem Party when he first got into the Senate. Why throw your precious rep for being "moderate" (that is not being wildly liberal all the time) if you are not going to give it all up? No one was convinced and not only did Biden seem confused, so did anyone considering supporting him. He seems to understand that one person he cannot throw under the bus is Obama yet seems at the same time to buy his Party's far Left narrative that Obama was like Reagan the Second.

His intellectual and ideological confusion seemed to reach its height when, in the NH debate, he refused to put up his hand to show he was bothered by being categorized as a "socialist". The big problem with that is that no one believes anymore than Biden that the once-called "Senator from Visa" is a Bolshie. It looked cynical because it was. It satisfied no one - if you wanted to vote for him because you thought that he was a moderate, you were shocked and appalled. If you were someone who likes your pols to be Socialist, you were both unconvinced and sickened while you read about his shameless efforts to serially enrich literally his whole family with his public offices.

If he is a king then it is that of Cynicism. As the rise of Trump and Sanders shows, it is not a title to be sought in this age. The Bushes and the Clintons, the most keen practitioners of the art and their followers are in bad odour on both sides. For what he has done in the Soft Graft Department, he should be SWAT'ed, perpwalked and jailed like others have for doing far less. It will suffice that, if he loses, that he will be condemned to the political obscurity and oblivion he has earned if biological processes do not make that also a personal darkness.

Sanders Picking

Part of the BS of someone like Sanders is his cherrypicking. Like his organizer saying the Gulag was not as bad as it is cracked up to be (which sounds exactly like his Boss saying the chandeliers were great at Soviet subways and food lineups there were a good thing) or that Castro was authoritarian but he did "give" people literacy (as if the only way to deliver efficient infrastructure and social progress is via murderous totalitarianisms). Meanwhile, what would we think or Sanders say if Trump suddenly said that there were "good things" about the Nazi Regime or the Crow Law South or Slavery? The reality is that a man who is more forgiving of Cuba than the sitting president and even America, herself, is about to bag the Democratic Party nomination for POTUS!

DemPortrait the Next: Doomberg

Mike Bloomberg's biggest problem as a candidate is he hasn't been a candidate for anything in a long time (2009 to be exact), he is gutless and money can't buy everything but especially time, character and love. Oh yeah, he's unlikable and he is a Control Freak. BTW, he and his advisors just threw the 450 million he spent on ads and a smart "below the radar" strategy before Super Tuesday down the drain after negligently getting him involved in the Las Vegas debate for a caucus he was not even taking part in. Ah, but don't forget, he also abandoned the very reasons and premises that made him a candidate for president in many people's eyes in the first place. Other than that, no problem.

But, wait, a word about the gutlessness and the Mission Fail that occurred as a result here. A lot of people thought that the reason MB was the one who could get rid of Trump was that he was politically incorrect enough on some issues to make independents come back to the Democratic Party. He would relobotomize the Party on race, law and order and education rather than kowtow to the Party's leftwing fringe monitors who insist on strict adherence to their Marxist-Leninist standard of ideological hygiene. Instead, not just in the debate but from the start he has done just that, kowtowed. He has, incredibly for a person who is known as being nothing if not tough and smart, renounced his own Legacy.

If Bloomberg does not want to stoutly defend his policies as Mayor, including "Stop and Frisk", then what's the point of MB except to indulge in the usually Climate Change inspired Will to Power and Doom and Gloom that all the other candidates are already foolishly committed to and hamstrung by? If there's no difference between him and the other "moderates" and even on a certain level, Sanders, then no amount of money is going to make people come out and vote for him.

It is a just and good result, for, if Bloomberg can't defend himself, how is he going to defend America and Americans?

Mom v. The World

It took my dear Wife to remind me of that wonderful aphorism about activists first put forward by P.J. O'Rourke way back in the 90's: "Everybody wants to save the World but no one wants to help Mom wash the dishes." Like the song says in "Hair", it's "Easy to be hard", it's so easy, especially for people who care about evil and social injustice to be proud and say no to caring for the ones in your life that really matter.

But my Wife came up with a delightful macro-economic take on this moral. It is best expressed in another of her favourite metaphors: "Take care of the First downs and the Touchdowns take care of themselves." In other words, the biggest problems in the World - war, abortion, crime - could be solved if we just do some simple things to make them less needful, likely or rampant. It is incrementalism at its best.

Instead of grand schemes or transformative programs or pervasive laws, why not just try simple things like trading more freely with each other, creating good ongoing conditions for education and work, being as vigilant in snuffing out petty crime as serious and so on. We just take care of the little things daily, bit by bit, and do some hard work along the way.  We'll be happy and better off in the end. Give people real choices in life and let them take charge of their lives and the big problems will start to look far less daunting, indeed.

What I love about this take the most is that it urgently calls for the government to leave people alone so that they can realize their potential to the maximum. We all then become stronger, better, happier and less dependent on the State so that we are citizens better able to combat the big problems that remain, too. It's not sexy to many who count their success in how many new laws they have deeded to us but I happen to find its emphasis on self reliance, human genius and common sense a real turn on!

Ford Lemon

Thinking of Ford, almost exactly two years after his ascension to the Leadership of the PCO, I am minded of Churchill's comment on the ill-fated Anzio invasion. "I thought we were throwing a Tiger on to the beach but we got a Whale instead!" I thought we were getting a real fiscal conservative who understood that ours was "the most indebted subordinate jurisdiction in the World" TM and that we needed to get control of that or we were all toast. Plus, it might be nice if we make it finally not an indictable offence to do business in this province again. Oh, and BTW, I'm even gonna "consider" ridding you of those larcenous hydro bills we have needlessly stuck you with. Hell, he was not only the Brother of "Stop the Gravy Train", he would be a mix of Ronald Reagan, Max Bernier and Conan the Barbarian with a little bit of Hitler around the edges so how could we political marks, otherwise known as conservative voters lose, right?

Well, despite being told that our Hero was "unelectable", stupid and uncouth Trump Lite, he won the Leadership and then the Election humiliating his only real opposition into the worst result it had of all time. A foolproof 30 seat majority was obtained with an obtuse feckless NDP opposition leftover. All was in front of us. We could do whatever we wanted.  It was Then that the troubles began.

The "consideration" of killing the big Hydro bills was the first to quickly disappear. Then the commitment to a balanced budget faded away. Then the taxes that were to be cut were to be cut...once the budget was balanced. Besieged business owners were delighted to hear that Ontario was indeed "open for business". Doug Ford's signs on Ontario's borders told us so. Aside from an early, no doubt a "pour encourager les autres" award of optimism more than anything for being a "Regulation Buster", all pretence to any real fiscal conservatism was out the door. (it would be interesting to find out if Ford really has promulgated any fewer regs than Wynne did in the equivalent period)

Oh, but you say,"The Star tells me that the Ford government is a vicious fiscal hawk gutting our social safety net to help all of our, er, I mean, their rich friends on Bay Street"? Well, good for you if you think that but none of us who can do the math can see it. What we do see are a bunch of lily livered scuzzbag Albany Club types who have got a hold of our man and told him that it's too early to do anything really tough or "bold" to save our economy. Then, when the term's almost up, they'll say,"Wait until we're re-elected". The same people who did the same thing to Harper. But, I'm not naive. Just like Stephen, I believe Doug is an adult, the most powerful man in the biggest province for God's sake, who really believes that not going too hard will win him re-election while he blames others for his achieving zip. 

Which reminds me of the latest disaster. The question of the day is: would he have won that election if he had said that he was going to enable a province wide teacher strike by paying us $60 a day for daycare? I think not. Just as he surely would have lost if he had said,"I have no better clue how to get us out of this fiscal and economic mess than the others do!" (although he might have got some points for honesty)

Then again Someone might have told him then that Harris (who dealt with the last province wide teachers' strike very differently as I recall) balanced the budget and saw the economy grow like topsy in his first term after being handed a deficit and other disasters that were far larger and seemingly intractable than the ones he's facing. It just takes courage, a real plan and the barest of competence (Harris was a golf pro and a teacher). Sadly, fear seems to actuate Ford and his cabinet and caucus and that makes everything seem more hard than it really is. So soon you are bargaining with yourself, as in the Teachers' mess, giving things away and still not getting even the meagre goals you've set for yourself remotely done while still being called a "Nazi" by the Sainted Press and John Tory for your trouble.

It is perhaps not a surprise that what with being saddled with the "People's Compromise" or whatever that bloody encyclopedic platform of ours was called, that Doug felt constrained from being a Ralph Klein (who actually was initially less fiscally sound than his Liberal opponent). But, how hard was it to articulate a simple truth that all of us, even our professional martyr schoolteachers and taxpayer-to-be charges, should be concerned with the province's finances? It certainly could not have been as hard as suggesting other deep, complex propositions like that we are overtaxed or that we pay too much for that rare, newfangled thing called electric power. Right? Hey, right?! Hello? Are you still listening...

The losers in all this will eventually be the Tories who the People will correctly blame for this, for not doing what they were hired by us to do. The People of Ontario will not get to wait until 2022 to lose. A Martian looking down on Whale Land from 20,000 feet will not have even noticed there was a change in government.

More Demportraits

Recently, Mona Charen, resident chair for Never Trump in the NR, hailed Sen. Amy Klobuchar as the Dems only hope as she is a "solid midwestern senator" who can win in double digit margins in her home state of Minnesota. Well, I'm sure that last will come as a relief to Dems who in 2016 almost lost a state they have won solidly since 1972 and could still lose to Trump this time. But, after that, her "midwesternness" did nothing to get her a better than 5th place finish in next door Iowa. 

Solid? She certainly is solid for Chuck Schumer. She may occasionally make "moderate"-sounding noises but she votes for what Schumer wants all the time. Most importantly, she voted against Kavanaugh. For a reputed conservative like Charen that should make Amy a solid member of the liberal Mob not what I am sure she hopes she can be, a PC vanquisher to settle for to get rid of that ogre Trump. 

Worse, she is just a torchbearer for the mob. She does not lead it. It leads her. On top of that, with the way she treats her staff (which I think the formal disclosure of which by independent and protected interview and survey should be just as much a requirement for a candidate as financial disclosure) , it can only be a matter of time before she is forced to get an NDA from them to keep them quiet. I say, nominate her. You'll probably keep Minnesota but you'll lose everywhere else.

Der Kommissar!

My wife reminded me of just what pop cultural reference watching some fora of politics reminds me of. You know, that's the whole Show Trial atmosphere we increasingly and sadly witness daily in the City Council (reference re: the Social Media Code being proposed by one councillor in Ottawa), the House of Commons (Islamaphobia anyone?), the Police Station (Free Ezra!), the editorial board ("Yes, Mistah Bloomberg!") the faculty lounge ("It's 'They', Dr. Peterson!") and of course, our vapid political debates (witness the political purging of Mike Bloomberg and hizzoner's sheeplike docility).

Perhaps the most chilling demonstration of this dread phenomenon was an interview by the sadly still active Craig Oliver lecturing the redoubtable Preston Manning on Climate Change as he (who did more in his short political career to help people in this country than Oliver ever did in his 150 years as a reporter) tried gamely to point out that, whatever our views on cowfarts, no one has any business stopping interprovincial pipelines being built. As he tried to straiten Manning into a good Soldier for Thunberg, Oliver looked and sounded like the Kommissar in Dr. Zhivago who keeps bleating "Your attitude has been noted!" every time anyone crosses him about anything in a politically incorrect way. And you knew as the recipient knew that his admonition carried with it, however absurd and fetishy, real mortal danger. We are all feeling this way at some point now in our lives because They all sound so much like that Kommissar.

Another Demportrait

And now a bipartisan moment - I like Pete Buttigieg. That is to say, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are right to say that he is the only "likable" candidate. His smile seems genuine, unforced and uncoached. He is nice, which I am told by John Tesh is a property valued above all else not just by the all-important Suburban Educated Woman but by all women. He makes jokes unforced although, like his "Why don't we nominate a Democrat!" joke, are almost certainly scripted...but still are funny. Of course, that is the first of his weaknesses which the delightful former prosecutor now Schumer water-carrier, Klobuchar, was too happy to point out: EVERYTHING is scripted. If you did have a beer with him at a BBQ, he would ask you first what beer you wanted him to drink or whether you wanted him to drink pop instead.

His second weakness is that he has been the Mayor of Nothing for 8 years recently. But in a World where the last three Presidents were in order a complete political novice, a community organizer and political placeholder and a governor who made little impression in a state where that's the idea, that does not seem a relevant problem if it ever was. After all, just what did his opponents do for anyone before their mirrors told them they should be president?

But the most worrying problem beside his inability to gain traction after two remarkable come from no where performances in the two most important primaries on the presidential calendar, is he is spineless. The best example: his renouncing his once saying that "All Lives Matter". Mayor Pete, in other words, demonstrates as well as anyone the strange fact that even the apparent Underdogs in this edition of "Pin the Nomination on the Head Donkey" are as deeply cynical, conniving and ruthless as the front runners, truly a new height of political turpitude. This lack of courage is especially surprising in a man who decided to boldly run for president with absolutely no national profile except the trademark sticker "First Openly Gay Man to Run for President in US History".

If I was a Democrat, I would nominate him but insist that, if he has a chance with the Democratic traditional base of homosceptic hardhats and minorities and thus to win in November, he should explain exactly what he actually did to help people like that in his depressed, more black than average, shrinking and working class city for eight years. Then  I would advise him to spend a lot of time campaigning in other Inner Cities and talking about how he is going to help them and pray Trump hasn't already beaten him to it.

Out in the Open

At least Democratic voters and Americans are being given fair warning. The Gang that is trying out for the role of Trump Bait this year are really a bad bunch.  Not just bad politically or ideologically but personally. Even the underdogs are cynical, pompous cretins. Elizabeth Warren typifies their nature perhaps more than anyone - a morphing, self-righteous shapeshifter who runs as Peter Schweizer put it, a "3 layer cake" of corruption for herself and her family. She tells everyone who will hear that she would never use DNA to advance her political career but shamelessly and dubiously used it to advance her academic career. She declares that no business person actually built what they have but owes it to the government while she builds a fortune on her government connections. She downcries speculation in the markets and writes banking regulations that make it harder for business to get credit while she makes money from house flipping and even writes a book about it. She has made millions advising business how to avoid the rules she wrote. If the latest outrageous show trial she orchestrated over the feckless Bloomberg's NDA's (wonder how many of those her hero, Bill Clinton has?) and his stop and frisk policy (which saved more Black Lives than Black Lives Matter ever did) actually results in the freak accident of such as her being nominated, God help the US of A as it tries to dodge another decrepit Democratic bullet. The Problem is - all the rest of them are just as bad.

Doomberg

Mike can buy journalists, wonks, pundits, networks, parties and some voters, too. But there's only one thing he cannot but: he cannot change himself into an inspiring, charismatic, man with a natural touch with people. In the infamous phrase,"I love you, now change", for Mike there is not even the first part and no amount of consultancy can bring about the second. If Trump had been as dull and instinctively contemptuous of people, he would have left the Republican race in August...2015.

Popaganda

If Canada really does rank "Number One" amongst G7 countries in unlimited data wireless plans, as Telus' paid propaganda sheet in the National Post suggested (gettin' a little tetchy about articles flying about, like that one in the Post MIllenial, that say otherwise are we?), then why don't companies like Telus welcome foreign competition here of all shapes and sizes and beg for access to all those other G7 nations' big fat markets where they obviously would kill? Just askin'...

Book of Non-Favours

Another idea for a book - "the Bill of Wrongs". It is a turn of a phrase I got from Dr. Michael Savage on his radio show. It sums up a lot that is wrong about our society today. It reminds me of two key comments. First, the lamentation of Obama that the US Constitution was too conservative and "negative". He meant that it forbade the government do too many things. Of course, anyone who has seen what the SCOTUS has done to that document since 1933 will know how ironical this plaint truly is. 

But it brings to mind another infamous comment that I gleaned from Lord Clark. He quoted in his "Civilization" series a sociologist who once opined on TV that "Whatever is not prohibited should be made mandatory". We have devolved from a point of view that put God and Man first ahead of the State, the Vested Interests, the Elite, the Collective or the People or whatever name (the Borg?) they went by depending on the era, to the reverse outlook.

Now, our so-called "leaders" "apologize" for us, echo calls for us to pay reparations for things we never did, demand we define our relationship with the State not as master to servant but as slave to whatever obligations, liabilities and wrongs it feels we have to correct, amend or indemnify. The State has become a jealous, capricious and increasingly irresponsible God indeed to us. Thus, it seems only a matter of time and imagination (a problem for many of the intellectual mediocrities involved admittedly and thankfully) before we are confronted with a new "contract" one that will be quite one-sided. One where we pay for or do things that more and more are ordered by those we have absolutely no control or direction over ( even now, the Administrative State grows apace). Meanwhile, more and more, our democratic representatives, in aggregate, represent the State to us.

This Orwellian world seems somewhat remote and even alarmist to us casually. "Don't we have a Charter Of Rights and Freedoms?", we say. But, wait a minute, we agreed that almost all of those rights, that 500 years of Enlightened philosophy had taught us came to us naturally, are really in the gift of the State in most cases. "Don't we have a House of Commons that democratically holds the State accountable?", we say. Well, what does Closure, the Harper minority or the SNC matter tell us but that the Parliament is now essentially a lazy, ill-informed and gutless Echo Chamber and Department of the Government?

Is it only a matter of time that, when the Rule of Law can be trampled with impunity in the name of a government contract or two and none of our MP's oppose our children paying more than they should for milk and a journalist can be hounded by the RCMP without nary a whimper of protest from Question Period, we should soon be presented with our Bill of Wrongs? 

What will this infamous document look like? First, the preamble would explain that we imperfect humans who have transgressed against minorities, animals, trees and the planet must atone for our sins after cataloging all of our transgressions. This section alone should take up more pages than the present Constitution Act. 

Then the operative portion will outline the things we must do to atone and to be good citizens and pay proper fealty to the State (fictionally called "the Crown" to give it some sense of dignity and plausibility to our dim sense of historicality). Here Rand's nightmare prophecy of "selflessness" for the State will finally be given flesh legally as one after the other obligation dressed up as an "entitlement" establishes its invisible chains of dependence and visible chains of slavery on the Citizen no doubt to be called,"The Social Act of Correction". Most crucially of all, human rights, privacy, traditions and even the Rule of Law will be subordinated to the "Greater Good" (although I am sure the wordsmiths of this infernal article will find a less obvious term for it).

Then the fun part: "What is Allowed". Here we will be told, as in that sociologist's dreary vision, what will be permissible and made compulsory. I like to think that morning Zen exercise will be included as well as a minimum daily intake of wheat germ. This section will happily be the least voluminous of all.

Even if our elite are not brazen enough to codify it, in practice the most important rule of this Devil's Constitution will be - Do as I say not as I do!

Clear and Present Danger

Recently a poll found that 50% of us think that Quebec is a threat to national unity. But, amazingly, having NOT elected a whole new whack of separatists to the House of Commons and NOT passed a bill alien to all of our most cherished values and NOT sucked from but in fact given 100's of billions of dollars to Confederation, 38% identified Alberta as posing the same threat! In reality, they should have included another choice on the menu for Canadians to choose from for threats to our unity - the Government of Canada.

"The Cost of being Canadian" or "Oh, Canada COLA!" or "Oh, Con-ada?"

Someone should write a book that would act us a compendium of all of the ways we are costed to live here at every level. Each item would list the product, good or service that we pay too much for, the extra cost that we pay compared to the average of American states closest to us in culture, profile and politics (border, midwestern and New England states), the  legislative authority, if at all, that props it up and, above all, the culprit or culprits behind it. (The latter should be subject to a "WARNING" note pointing out that we are the biggest culprits of all because we tolerate these prices and keep voting for politicians who keep them in place for their cronies in the industries involved.)

A partial list Federally:

Banking costs, service and selection (it's about more than just price - these last two naturally apply to most of the sectors mentioned below)

Airline tickets and charges 

Clothing

Domestic autos

Oil and Gas

Dairy

Poultry

Cellphones

Other entertainment subscription services

Provincially:

Financial Services (especially, Insurance, especially, Auto)

Maple Syrup

Electricity

Buses and other public transit

Other food controlled in distribution by the provinces (there are but four authorized food depots in all of Ontario!)

Alcohol (with Federal connivance)

Rental housing (a case of supply falling short of demand usually due to rent control)

Construction (E.G.: the gizmo that would have lowered building costs that one Canadian inventor came up with only to be forced to market it in the US after being shunned here!)

These are just the areas I can think of. Much smarter people than me who make a living from studying this can find more. And don't forget the things that we don't pay for at all because we are not allowed to buy them by our tariffs, rules and industrial policies, like good cheeses. The most obvious example is Health Care, another area where our governments connive to prevent us from buying what we need or want (or insuring for it) like the free adult citizens that we are supposed to be. (And, no, that's not the grand bargain you think it is either - we pay in taxes at least as much for health care, without any say in how it's administered, as the Americans fork out for private medicine and we still pay for non-listed services, too..)

As to the cost, a cursory estimate of what it costs just one person to live here as compared to living in, say, Ypslianti, would likely amount to well over $3000.00 annually using modest assumptions, like not having the person buying big ticket items, about the savings available. The real cost to the average family is likely double that at least. When you add that to the fact that the average American is earning about $15000.00 USD more than a Canadian, it is especially cruel and disturbing. 

The book about this will be useless if it does not propose straightforward fixes for each item. The reader will not be surprised, I hope, to find out that the simple fact that the government got involved is not the only reason that we pay high prices. It is time for Canadian governments everywhere to reintroduce our businesses to the free market. We paid the price of being Canadian in spades on Tax Day and at the till all year. What is better, giving the Canadian Consumer a break will never cost their alter ego, the Canadian Taxpayer.

We should no longer allow ourselves to be conned into believing that we need to pay anyone anything else for that glorious privilege. On top of that, when we take off our consumer chains, we will all be more productive, competitive and prosperous workers, even many businesses that thought they were clever by colluding with our governments to set these rackets up. The only losers will be the lobbyists who work 24/7 to keep imposing these costs upon us. If times got rough, I've got a job for them saving us money at Walmart.

Which Rule of Law

Andrew McCabe once said on hearing that Trump was acquitted that there was nothing to stop him now from trampling the Rule of Law. Well, now that he will not even be charged with lying to investigators as the FBI's own IG recommended after a PAINstaking report and after General Flynn faces significant time in jail for the same crime, what is to stop FUTURE McCabes from trampling the Rule of Law when it suits their fell purposes? I see a lot of deterrents sliding down the slippery slope of partisan double standards. And if it sounds like I just mixed a lot of metaphors, that's right. I apologize. It's what I do when I am really angry about something. For Canadian consumption, think SNC, Norman and Levant.

BTW - the Foreman of the Jury in the Stone case claimed that she had never heard of the Mueller Probe and was accepted. She was a former Democratic candidate for congress whose tweets show that she not only followed Mueller closely but called Trump the Klan President. The double beat goes on...

Groundhog day came late this year

Great Idea for a Cartoon that you can only imagine on my Blog:

A two panel cartoon. In one panel titled "Groundhog Day", a jovial man dressed in Victorian clothing holds a groundhog high like a trophy with the caption:

"On Groundhog Day, Americans wait to see if Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow, thus predicting that there will be 6 more weeks of winter."

The other panel titled "Iowa Democratic Party Caucus", features dejected caucus goers wearing buttons and hats for different candidates forlornly awaiting results with the caption:

"On Caucus Day, Iowan Democrats wait for Shadow to predict that there will be 'Four More Years!' of Trump.

The half loonie

In the last Federal Election campaign, we were told  by a number of members of the media that the Cost of Living would be a dominant issue. However, it did not happen. Blackfaces and insurance licenses dominated instead. The Tories seemed to understand that the price of a bag of milk would perhaps be crucial to victory with their slogan,"Get Ahead" or words to that effect. But instead of articulating this 24/7 relentlessly, they found themselves playing defence on things that did not matter to most Canadians or playing offence on things that did not matter to most Canadians. "Articulating" is an exaggeration. For, the Tories usually did  not bother talking about this issue at all let alone come close to explaining it in a way that was resonant, compelling and accessible for ordinary Canadians. 

Max Bernier should have been the chief tribune of this epicentral matter. But, for the most part, while identifying the problems and the solutions bravely and informatively, he never actually got around to bringing the issue to life for the voter and sounded and read more like a Fraser Institute Seminar or Working Paper than he did a person seeking our vote. Instead of taking his precious billboard space for the Immigration issue (which like Climate Change, SNC, PR and marihuana have little or nothing to do with how Canadians are going to eat), he should have (or any other party for that matter) displayed an enormous loonie with a red line drawn through it showing what Canadians pay for things and what they should be paying.

Even better, each billboard would depict an enormous milk bag, cellphone, chicken, sneakers, airline tickets, car - any object that we pay too much for because of federally enforced oligopolies - with this red line drawn through them to show what we pay and what we should pay with the simple slogan - "On October 21, Vote to Stop Being @#$%! - Vote..." You get your Fraser Institute, Centre for Policy Alternatives or CD Howe Foundation Wish List passed into law by winning elections. You win elections by actually showing constantly (and not just every four years) that you know and care about people's problems and have practical ways to fight them. One simple question should be asked of anyone running for the Tory Leadership - do you have any idea and, if so, how will it help put bread on a Canadian's table?

The Death of Biden

Analyst on Beck just compared all the Democratic candidates but Sanders to Nikita Khruhschev.  "They don't shake their fist at you" but they're just as left wing as Stalin. Buttigieg once wrote in college that Sanders was his political hero! Klobuchar voted against Kavanaugh. And recall that Bernie (who nobody likes according to Hilary Beria) was not even an official Democrat until maybe 2016. As the same analyst put it, they have been playing footsie with the far left of their party for thirty years and now it's not only the red camel's nose that's in the tent, it's the legs, the torso and the humps. 

Look at the Show Trial spectacle of Harris, Bloomberg and Biden renouncing their law and order legacies. Look at them all put their hand up when asked if they supported free health care for illegals. Look at the pink lighting of the Empire State Building to "celebrate" making late term abortion legal. The condemnation of the Soleamini takeout. Look at their palpable fear of admitting in public that they just might be uncomfortable with being categorized as a "socialist". People must have no illusions. Elect Khruhschev instead of Stalin, they will still have him or her banging their shoe on the desk for one loonily left position after the other. They are too beholden to their ravenous extremist tiger not to, or get devoured by it. Scary.

Moderate this!

There is no such thing as a "moderate" Democratic candidate. There are only Pelosi or Schumer Democrats. If one says they are a "moderate" they are admitting that they are liars. That is, either one, they will not implement the crazy socialist schemes of a Sanders or an AOC even as they refuse to refuse to characterize themselves as "socialists" as they did (except for Kloubachar) in the NH Debate on Friday night. Or, two, like Kloubachar, they will claim to be "moderate" in that they say they will occasionally support important Republican legislation while routinely, once in DC, voting against all GOP bills and voting for all Dem bills and refusing to confirm Kavanaugh. One way or the other, when a Democrat claims they are a moderate, the best way to know if they're lying is to watch for their lips to move. (BTW, you can be both types of moderates as well!)

On your bike

The latest disappointment I have experienced with the Kind of Ford Tories is the Teachers' strikes, job actions and general "FU" that they are extending to us all. Like the lady I spoke with who has elementary kids who is at the point where she and her boss (also a woman) have to schedule their business with regard to when the latest School Freeze that's going to happen. People are pissed. 

But people also know who to blame. Even if you are the biggest Teacher-hater of all time, you know that there is only one authority that has the power to put an end to it - the PC Government you elected that you thought would do things differently. Instead, the parents and children of Ontario have been subjected to the unions' Reign of Terrors for months with no end in sight. Worse, the Minister has backed down on three of the four issues they went to war over in the first place. 

I for one am particularly disappointed that all those Ford-haters that predicted that Ford would be the coming of the Second Apocalypse in swastikas and orange hairdos were wrong. Back to Work legislation may not be anyone's idea of an intellectual and political revolution. But I'm guessing a lot of benighted Ontarian taxpayers, students and parents would have cheered a ragged cheer or two.

 The truth is this - the most highly paid teachers' unions in Canada will never be satisfied. So it's time to send them back to work and jail the few militants that have been wrecking Ontario education if they don't go, too. Failure to do so (and preferably simply implement the changes the Tories wanted in the first place) asap will earn Minister Lecce and his Government a well deserved place in the electoral drink next time. BTW, 

Does anyone know any other political party who would be so timorous after winning a crushing majority and de-officializing their main opponent?

HUGE Blind Spot

The biggest weakness Trump faces in his otherwise brilliant strategy for re-election - talk up his long record of results, accomplishments, deeds and promises kept - is: what will he do for an encore? Now, in some cases, it is obvious what he will do - continue to appoint conservative judges or build  more of the Wall, for example. But what really comes after tax reform, deregulation or the trade deals? Simply more of all of them? Maybe. But, another terrible hole is the fiscal situation. While he did not promise to balance the budget or reform the entitlements that are destroying the American fisc (indeed, his biggest unfulfilled promise is to pass a trillion dollar plus infrastructure bill, and a good thing, too!), it may start to get old, whether or not he recovers control of Congress this year, to blame the Democrats again and/or ignore the danger.

The chief threat is that not taking control of spending will endanger the Boom he has helped to engineer. There are signs already that the momentum and returns from his initial economic and budgetary moves are diminishing or blowing out and this despite upwards of 5% deficits. Thus, first, more stimulative moves to sustain and accelerate growth will be needed but that, in and of itself, will not be enough and may in fact make things worse if there is no reform.

This means even more deregulation, yes. For example, how about getting rid of some Departments or Agencies (but don't ask Gov. Perry to ID them!)? But it should also mean more and more meaningful and wide ranging tax reform. The historical precedent is Reagan bringing in broad tax cuts in his first term but then following up in his second with tax cuts married with a bold simplification of the tax code (he also did both of his tax bills with bipartisan sponsorship, leadership and votes, sadly unlikely for Trump). It should not be enough, just from a fiscally responsible point of view, to simply cut taxes this time. The Tax Code needs to go on a diet, meaning, in return for broadly lower taxes, Americans will need to be weaned off of their addiction to tax breaks. The result will be a more efficient, hardy and vibrant economy and People.

What else needs to be on the new Trump Agenda, phase two? Probably immigration reform that rids the country of lottery and chain immigration. But all roads will likely lead back again to the Budget. Two more things will need to happen desperately if Trump is to prove his legacy can include righting the Nation's finances. First, entitlements will have to be reformed. This should mean that some of them need to be means tested in return for allowing more Americans to save and invest with some tax favour to build their own social safety net. Whether through Health Savings Accounts, Private Social Security instruments and vehicles like Education Saving Plans, the young need to be encouraged and enabled to be more independent as the Fisc strains to help the old and the sick universally with the present programs. The hope is that, once the new generations have gotten used to this approach, there will be more benefits and supports for the the truly and perennially needy and helpless.

Another part of the new agenda that Trump must look at if he is to have a chance of succeeding: the ludicrous 60 vote appropriation requirement in the Senate. The Democrats have shown themselves unwilling, too hostile and downright unfit to break the logjam over this matter just as they have on immigration. But it will not be enough to hold majorities in both Houses of Congress. If just a corporal's guard of the Senate Democrats refuses to go along with any kind of budgetary reform, it is effectively dead and/or the government is "shut down" under the 60 vote rule. Aside from being a shameful and embarrassing disgrace, it is unconstitutional and a threat to the country solving any of its major legislative problems.

Using the excuse that should be readily apparent to McConnell and the Senate Republicans that the rule is being abused, it should be possible to get rid of it and move on. After all, both his predecessor and McConnell did away with a similar "rule" for Supreme Court appointments. It is obvious that this rule is serving no one and paralyzing business and in the end hurts both sides whenever they wish to get anything done. Or McConnell may show his true colours in enjoying the Senate's "imperial" supermajoritarian status as much as the Dems. But the President must try to push his Majority Leader to do something (like actually calling the Dems bluff when they threaten to filibuster) to do better or the budgetary crisis goes on.

There are other things that Trump could add to the things he will continue from his first term. These can and should include, believe it or not, trimming the thousands of tariff and non-tariff barriers that America has that either collect no revenue at all or only protect select businesses with good lobbyists. Here, Trump gets to show that red tape, bureaucracy and taxes are his enemy even when they were originally intended to protect the American worker but in fact only hurt the same person as consumer. Reforming Defense procurement, proving that people like Colonel Vindman are a sign that even the Pentagon can screw up and misspend, is another profitable avenue. 

Together with this could be a sort of "Deep State Commission" whose blue ribbon panel's mission would be to ensure that the likes of Lerner, Comey and Strok are evicted from the ranks of America's most sensitive (and not so sensitive) government agencies. Their arrogant belief that the President is a mere interloper on their sacred fiefdoms would be abolished and hopefully forever vanish. This long overdue housecleaning in the name of democratic command, along with depoliticization of these groups, legal probes and prosecutions, is critical in deterring the Republic and the Rule of Law from being abused again. Future presidents and generations of people who believe in democracy not bureaucracy will be grateful.

There are many more "Next Steps" that one can dream up. But does Trump have the passion, imagination and courage needed to bring them forward that he has had for other ideas in the last 4 years? Maybe not. Yet, who would have predicted in 2016 Trump would become as passionate, effective and articulate as he has become about Opportunity Zones, ESP's for School Choice and the Right to Life? At the very least, it may not be enough to simply rest on his laurels to get re-elected. Reagan did it in 1984 and came to regret how it undermined his mandate to act in his second term. If Trump goes in to the election with no new and compelling ideas and proposals such as he brought forward last time, he may come up short to all our loss. Even if Trump makes it, he will have no plan of action to guide and sustain him for the next "Four more years!".

24/7

Like the old song said, I want a "Special Kind of Leader". Okay, the song actually said "love" but you understand that, when I get a good political leader, it is the secular, colloquial and platonic version of love for a wonk like me. And what do I want from this Special person? I want them to commit the moment they announce they will run, that, while they're running, when they're Leader and then PM they will work 24/7 to find ways to give us all a break and then just do it. 

That does not just mean for Dairy farmers, telecom co.'s, the Diplomatic Corps, donors, newspapers, banks, airlines, construction firms or even Moms that send their kids to ballet. It means ALL OF US. Every hour, every minute, every second of every day, including Sundays, spent by them finding savings, income, jobs, business and convenience for ALL OF US. Anything less is a waste of time and is as dead politically, meaningless and aggravating as the many ways our governments find to torment us, cost us and harass us while leaving their friends and allies with all the toast. They would say and write:

"I'm going to work my ass off to make your life easier, more prosperous and happier and, what is more, most of it won't cost you, in your other benighted role of taxpayer, a cent. In fact, it may even end up saving the Nation money. It will only cost money for the many not so special interests and their servants in the politocracy in this country who have been rooking you since Confederation. If their subsidized buddies in the Media want to call that "populism" or even "Trumpism", they can go right on ahead. 

For the latter seems to be a success for the working class and a loss for the bosses and the former appears to be popular. And if there's anything at all that I am it's a politician and thus, if there's anything I want for myself, I would like very much to be popular. But that will always rank a distant second to making you richer. However, if it makes the CBC feel any better, I will call myself, like they do,"Your Servant". Finally, If I have not achieved the humble goal of leaving all Canadians with more money in their pockets by the time my first term as PM ends, I will resign."

Now a Leader who said that would truly be a Special Kind of Leader. One that instinctively knows that the best way to get the credit for anything is to serve, to help and do their job. Will someone step up and  be my Leadership Valentine?

Imperial Measurements

There are three Empires of spending where government is concerned. First, there is the one we can see, direct government spending. In Canada, at the Federal level, that amounted to $338 billion in 2018. Taken together with the provincial governments, the spending amounts to over a trillion dollars! And this does not include municipalities and the Territories. For example, the City of Toronto spends more or as much as every province except BC, AL, PQ and ON. No wonder we celebrate "Tax Freedom" Day in July. Fed or Prov spending therefore adds up to over half of our GNP. If Canadians stood up and took notice of these numbers, they would question the sanity of politicians who said we were not spending enough.

But, if those numbers do not give you pause, there are two other opaque realms of spending that have as much impact on our people, country and economy as any program of direct spending. The second is enjoyed by all of us in one form or the other. It is called "Tax Expenditure". It simply means that, in return for indulging in a certain type of favoured activity, behaviour or identity, the government will give you a break on your taxes. These are variously called "deductions, credits, exemptions and writeoffs" and the only universal one is the so-called Basic Amount. The cost by the account of some of just the enormous Federal Income Tax Code's "Book of Favours" - about $165 billion! This spending is arbitrary and serves to impair and alter taxpayers' behaviour in a way that blunts out economy's efficiency. We are encouraged to do things we would not do because they cost too much. The signals to our economy that a free market relies on daily are muffled or garbled and resources misallocated accordingly when they could be driven by an easy, fair and low tax system that sends one clear message: "do your business as you see fit!"

The Third is particularly damaging and cruel as it actually enforces spending in Canadians, individual or local, often for marginal causes, aims and purposes that are obsolete now or were always of no use. Some of the spending it forces is worthwhile but no one has ever audited just what. It is what we call "Regulation". By at least one account, regulation in the US since the 1950's costs an American...$35000.00 per capita per year!  Obsolete? How about wool control laws from the Cold War? Complying with federal regulation is most obviously manifested for us every year by doing our tax returns. The average cost of this compliance alone per year is $500.00. But business and individuals are required to comply increasingly with rules that they do not even know exist. For instance, the cost of compliance with auto standards costs the buyer some $3000.00 for just one auto's price. But there is no line on the contract pointing that out. Dairy is regulated but you will not see the cost to you on the price tag for a bag of milk. But business, the provider of the jobs and investment we need increasingly know the burden of regulatory compliance is steep - about $32000.00 per year on average in Ontario (!)  - and make their decisions about involvement in our economy accordingly. "Compliance" with regulation is a euphemism for the confiscation of purchasing power, that is, income, from us to pay for the elite's protection and ideological predilections.

What does this mean? Despite the propaganda about our being relatively more fiscally responsible than the Americans, we are still spending too much. Worse, we are spending on two great empires of government intrusion into the economy that are both arbitrary in their effects on Canadians and distort the economy but also opaque and therefore relatively intractable to reform or change. How can you "reform" something that people do not see? On top of that, tax expenditures and regulations that benefit certain special interests are jealously guarded by them. Look at the vicious putdowns that have occurred if anyone tries to suggest that the Supply Management system needs to go? Politicians are too lazy to study these areas as they are too obscure or too hard to explain to voters and/or they are too afraid to tackle them for fear of reprisal from the interests that guard them and/or they are themselves invested in preserving these fiefdoms of rules and tax breaks.

In other words, not only do we not have a mature, sophisticated debate over the conventional direct spending we do, we are only having a third of a third of the full national debate we should be having over the hidden but massive spending that goes on regulatorily and that is making us poorer, unproductive and corrupt. We need to have a comprehensive discussion about all three areas if we are to truly get control again of public spending in this country and replace the damaged, deranged and hobbled economy it is giving us with one that allows Canadians to realize their potential and prosper without hope of government reward or fear of government punishment

Me Too?

I'm not a prig and I love all things NFL, but, when the sight of the Super Bowl halftime show makes even my 15 year old son nervous, one wonders. The game's commercials were full of admonitions to us to drop our naturally mysogynist ways and give unto women dignity, grace and respect. This seemed to cacaphonously ring with the Mistress Class of Objectivisation and crass appeal to lapdances and poles that was 54's break show. It was more like Studio 54 than Super Bowl LIV. (where's Carol Channing when you need her?)

Mix that together with the fact that the most important play of the game was a catch by Tyreek Hill. Yes, the same Tyreek Hill that bragged on audiotape about bullying and physically abusing his spouse and her child and then got...nothing from the NFL's discipline committee. Then it becomes, well, more than hypocritical and infuriating for us fans who've seen their favourite players punished for far less, but downright sinister.

The fact that the League this year managed to get through an entire season without a player kneeling except to take a break from practice is a great start. Now is it too much to hope that the League (aside from legitimate charitable causes) that brought us Rice, Peterson and Stallworth will also stop trying to tell us how to behave in anything else but live fan decorum?
--
John M. Farant

Non-Election

Maybe, Schiff was right. Maybe we can't trust elections after all, especially Democratic Party ones! Rasmussen suggested that low turnout in the Democratic would mean good news for Trump as it means that the so-called "Pivot" counties were not flipping back from Trump to the Democrats. Well, the turnout was no better than the already low 2016 turnout so hello 2nd term. 

Finally, is it only a matter of time before the Democrats blame the Russians for this fiasco? Incredibly one old Dem Hack blamed Sanders for this, saying that the new rules for the Caucus that Bernie "extorted" from the Party caused the meltdown. My belief, and someone will no doubt call me a "Conspiracy theorist" - the Party knew their favourite, Biden, was going to get a crap-kicking and sought to save him the embarrassment and rob the real winners of any momentum from it. Again, I invite CNN, WaPo and NYT to prove me wrong.

 Meanwhile, this will almost certainly mark the last time anyone cares about what Amy Klobuchar said. They believe they can run the Nation and they cannot even run a small state party klatsch. Sheesh!

Bill Carroll's Smug Snug RRSP and the Chumps of North America

Bill Carroll of CFRA sounded off about how great his RRSP has been doing. Not a bad thing to do in and of itself, and congratulations to him, but a symptom of the patient that will not heal itself that is the Canadian body economic. It cannot make itself better because its physicians, whether it be academia, politicians or, like Carroll, the Media, deny there is anything wrong with it (outside of Alberta). This is chiefly, in turn, because the physicians do not themselves ail. They've made their bones and, last time they checked their RRSP statement, the economic World looks just fine from their smug snug corner of it. 

Well, it's not fine for a lot of Canadians, and especially in comparison with the one country that matters the most to us - the US. Worse, this wilful, selfish disregard for the situation is often due, at least in the last little while, to our elite's disdain for an America led by Donald Trump. If what he was doing was being done by Obama or the PM of Sweden, all of our leadership would clamour to copy it. But, our betters' being bound and convinced that they've nothing to learn or ape from that rude, illegitimate Russian agent Trump leads them to disfunctionally deny any benefit from so doing. Instead of praising him and trying to emulate him, they instead deride his "boasting" about "unbelievable" triumphs when if they could achieve even half of what he claims he has done (much of which we were told he could not ever do), they would be the first to bumptiously and shamelessly take the credit.

But the real problem with this is that this has been brewing long before Trump was even a public celebrity, let alone a TV star or a candidate for President. What is "this"? This is the gap between us and the Americans in income compounded by our status as Marks for our greedy and overprotected Business sector and their accomplices in Government. In 1984, the US had 17000 per capita and we 14000 - a 22% advantage. In 2002 (tellingly after the FTA and NAFTA were solidly in place) the Americans were at 38000, we at 30000 - a 27% difference. Now it is 60000 to 45000 or a 33% difference (meanwhile, the Australians have caught up with us). 

The latest data show that the lower and working classes in the US are seeing faster income growth than that of the rich and management classes. Indeed, they show that literally all US groups from young to women, from hispanic to black from disabled to uneducated are seeing their pay packets rise quicker than has been seen in decades. Our limp response to the fact that our income has grown barely a third as much as theirs is to set up the Orwellian "Ministry of Middle Class Prosperity" and pledge to cut cellular bills by 25% while making them artificially high by state action and taxation. Our economic growth, unemployment rate and job creation also all lag badly behind the Yankee Colossus.

Meanwhile, throughout this period, instead of adapting to the new competitive trade world, we continue to tolerate interprovincial barriers to trade and regulations that the US have never had that make even staples of life more expensive for us than for an American. Whether it be energy, poultry, dairy, banking charges, booze, airline tickets, cellphones, clothing, books or cars, we are paying more than Americans while they earn more, a toxic combination. Everywhere, whether it be in our regionally biased employment insurance system and equalization program, our poor infrastructure or our underdeveloped post secondary sector and the myriad ways our governments penalize or discourage industry and investment, we are making ourselves artificially uncompetitive and unproductive. 

On top of this, we protect large parts of our economy from competition which not only hurts consumers but also actually hurts the businesses we try to protect by making them flabbily unproductive. This has been especially cruel to our workers and shortsighted strategy as we subject ourselves to one free trade agreement after the other with nations that are far meaner and leaner trading partners like China. (indeed, but for Trump, we would have continued to see auto and other manufacturing jobs drift to Mexico under NAFTA without any succour in sight.)

The sad fact is that our political leadership and their cheerleaders (including that 'conservative' national newspaper, the National Post) are "Alright, Jack!" and so conclude we all are and say and write things like,"The real way to win elections is to talk immigration or Gay Rights or 'foreign policy and defence'" as the economy is great. The discussion about how the Conservatives in particular might finally regain government or who they should crown as their Leader has hardly even broached the issues of the cost of living, productivity (the sure way to lower the first) and competitiveness. Above all, no one remarks how we lag especially and most importantly when compared to the country that transacts 80% of our trade and is most analogous to us. Instead of being the 24/7 national obsession of our Business, Media, Academia and Polity, this does not even merit a footnote of thought in even one pundit's column.

How to show an elite represented by people with an actual daily bully pulpit, like Carroll, that this is a problem? Well, maybe we can start by pointing out that, if Bill had had his Stock Portfolio in an IRA in the US, his total capital gain would be something like 2 or 3 times better under the evil stupid Trump. Then maybe just maybe he would see the needless pain we put ourselves through and how it hurts us all, not just those poor aspiring classes that our leadership ignore or barely feign interest about their concerns. For our relative lack of competitiveness and productivity is not just impoverishing us, as if that was not bad enough, it is seeing us fall back as a nation. 

The obsession of our elite with getting a seat on the UN Security Council is only the most recent example of how our leadership worries too much about "Saving the World" but not "helping Mom with the dishes" of COLA, productivity and competitiveness. Without an intense new laserlike, energetic, dare I say, Trumpian new obsession with closing the income and expense gap for Canadians, we will find it harder and harder to be heard or considered in the grand corridors of glamorous international power and debate and thus to give the World more Canada on issues of Trade, Aid, the Environment and Security. 

If the prospect of more money and more glamour from helping our poor benighted taxpayers, workers and consumers does not spur our elite to action, maybe we need to get a new elite.

Dershowitz We Hardly knew Ye

In making his brilliant (and viciously distorted) point that, if a politician's motives were constantly scrutinized for abuse of power for personal gain, impeachment would be used as a weapon perpetually by a House controlled by the opposite party to the POTUS, Alan Dershowitz mentioned the case of Lincoln sending Indiana troops home in the Civil War to help the Republicans win an election there. He was too politic to mention a couple of more recent examples I can think of.

That is, when Obama threatened the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that he would not extend his term if he did not bring in a QE3...in October, 2012! Or, the time he koshed the Director of the "Arms Length" CBO into suddenly changing his opinion that Obamacare would increase the deficit. Or the time Obama claimed it was a "video" that got the US Ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi and ordered his UN Ambassador to go around the Sunday chat shows lying about the circumstances of the disaster so he could run out the clock and avoid the bloody scandal mucking up his re-election. Or the time...

How ever did the "historic" President avoid the GOP House he faced for the last 6 years of his administration from impeaching him 'round the clock? Next time they run the Lower Chamber, the Republicans may not be so forgiving or gracious to a Democratic President in light of the treatment their POTUS just got at the hands of the Democrat House. Just the most practical part of Dershowitz' point if his fellow liberal Democrats would only listen instead of defaming him.