The Government is Handling Covid-19 All Wrong...

All the experts and all the health professionals know that we cannot stop Covid-19 dead in its tracks, that ship has sailed or never even was in port.
Restricting foreigners at airports may stall the propagation somewhat, but the virus is already here and will work its way through the population, no matter what.
The shutdown of public gatherings is useful only because it will slow (but not eliminate) the spread, giving our limited medical resources more room to react.

But the government is not facing the elephant in the room and the simple measure that would have the greatest mitigating effect.
A frank and measured response can keep the epidemic manageable if only the government made some hard and perhaps unpopular decisions.

Let us consider the facts.

Covid-19 is deadly to older folks and the immunocompromised, those with underlying health situations. The virus poses only a slight risk to healthy adults and is not at all dangerous to children.

These are the COVID-19 mortality rates by age calculated by the Chinese CDC:

• ages 10-19:  .02% deaths
• ages 20-29   .02% deaths
• ages 30-39:  .02 % deaths
• ages 40-49:  .04 % deaths
• ages 50-59:  1.3 % deaths
• ages 60-69:  3.6 % deaths
• ages 70-79:.   8 % deaths
• ages 80 and over: 14.8% deaths

Of the 5,000 Covid-19 deaths so far, attributed by age

• ages 10-19:             3 deaths
• ages 20-29             3 deaths
• ages 30-39:            3 deaths
• ages 40-49:        235 deaths
• ages 60-69:        654 deaths
• ages 70-79:      1,437 deaths
• 80 and over:  2,662 deaths

Simply stated, 95% of all deaths due to Covid-19 occur in those over 60 years old.

Clearly, we can see the real problem.

If we were to remove the highest at-risk group mentioned above,  Covid-19 would be dangerous, but completely manageable.

The fact is that the average age of those who have died from the virus so far is 80 years old and the average age of hospitalization due to the virus is 60 years old.
Hospitals in Italy and around the world  are jammed with so many elderly patients that the system cannot cope, leading to diminished outcomes and contributing to deaths that would perhaps be avoided had the system enough resources.

Governments around the world are trying to contain the virus by restricting public movement, a losing battle that won't be won because no western government could ever impose the draconian all-encompassing quarantine that saw tens of millions of citizens in China in lock down for about two months.

But there is another path, one that would allow us to manage the outbreak and preserve our  hospitals to reasonably cope with the outbreak.

We must immediately impose a self-quarantine on everybody over 65 years old and those in vulnerable health categories.

Seniors would be obliged to go into home self-quarantine where they would be forced to ride out the storm. Senior residences would be put on lock down with no visitors and employees would be restricted to working in just one senior residence, reducing contamination from one home to another.

Not all seniors live alone in their own abode or a group home or residence, but for the majority in this category, such is the case.
Locking down these people will not only save many of their own lives but liberate our hospitals from being jammed up with serious and resource-hungry cases that will overwhelm our ability to fight the epidemic.

A support group of volunteers and mobilized government workers can see to those who need food delivery, medication and sundries and for those still working, immediate employment insurance.
While we cannot lock down our entire population as in China, we can take the most vulnerable and at-risk segment of our population and take them out of the firing line.
Taking care of seniors at home who require support is vastly cheaper than allowing them to get sick and cannibalize medical resources.

Nobody likes to discriminate over age, but in this case it is in everybody's interest.

As for the rest of the population, slowing down the progression is what the government should concentrate on so that our health resources are not overwhelmed. With the senior population safely quarantined and public restrictions in place, we can manage the situation.

As for myself, I'm going to be taking my own advice. I've laid in enough supplies for two months, both food and disinfecting materials and plan on placing myself in self-quarantine in my home.

The severity of the outbreak is squarely on the shoulders of seniors like myself, a group that will make or break our response to the outbreak.
It is time for the government to take real measures that can beat this epidemic and it can be done.
 

How Liberals Killed the CBC

The CBC was conceived in an era where our vast country was largely unconnected, not so much transportation-wise, but rather whereby Canadians across the country lived their lives locally, largely unconnected to those outside their region or province.

And so the CBC was created to foster a national persona that all Canadians could embrace, strengthening the dominion and leading to a more cohesive country rather than a collection on separate societies.
It was a noble attempt to unify the country but much as the National Film Board was created to tell Canadian stories fostering an identity separate from the overpowering cultural tug of our American neighbours to the south, the CBC is largely a spent force.

As the twentieth century closed, the relevance of the CBC faded and with the advent of the Internet its fate was largely sealed, viewed by Canadians as out of touch, uninteresting and an institution that is still attempting to form Canadians into the Liberal mould that remains its undying philosophy and raison d'etre.

I'll not discuss the French version of the CBC here, it is equally Liberal and dysfunctional, but serves largely to overfund Francophone 'culture' and provide much-needed jobs to Quebec artists who could never make it in the real world.
I'm not even going to get into the funding where the CBC proudly tells us that polling reveals that Canadians are fine with the billion-dollar subsidy.
The 45% of those who say they want to continue the CBC's funding are never put to the test by being asked how much of their own cash they'd actually pay each month to be personally connected to the CBC, like Netflix.
Having the government pay for the CBC is one thing, but how many of us would pay $15 a month to have access to the CBC?
Would you?

Like all government bureaucracies, the CBC's hallmark is waste, featherbedding,  low productivity and inferior products, with employees enjoying a leisurely pace because ratings and revenue don't matter.

Let's start with the CBC news division which is arguably the only thing worth saving as it provides a Canadian take on news events nationally and internationally or at least it's supposed to without journalistic bias.
 For many years Canada nightly news was presented by Lloyd Robertson over at CTV and his worthy counterpart, Peter Mansbridge at the CBC both who both performed the news anchorman anchorperson duty admirably. However, at today's CBC neither man would ever be considered for the job, because they represent the most reviled demographic of all, being white, heterosexual and old.

In presenting only one nightly news anchorperson, the CBC could not satisfy its woke representation of Canada, so it made the light-bulb decision to install four anchorpersons based on diversity and inclusion.
Of course, this experiment was an utter failure as the tried and true formula of one news anchor that has been successful ever since the time of Walter Cronkite was ignored.
The big three American networks continue to staff the premiere nightly news with one person, a white man at ABC, a black man at NBC and a white woman at CBS. Canada's privately-run CTV network is anchored by a woman. At these networks, quality and relatability are the standards and who the anchorperson is, is more important than what the anchorperson is.
Of course, the CBC news experiment is a failure, as ratings plummetted, another liberal experiment that has CBC producers comforting themselves in the fact that at least they tried.
In fact, that should be the motto of the CBC... "AT LEAST THEY TRIED"

As for CBC Radio, it is a vast wasteland of utterly uninteresting and politically left-wing programming that nobody listens to.
CBC radio is, of course, a paradigm of left-wing political correctness, where on its website it promotes rap artists with the warning that some of the lyrics contain explicit language. You know what music I'm talking about, the urban trash I like to call bitches'n hoes" music.
This while the CBC announces that it will no longer play the Christmas classic "Baby it's Cold Outside" because it is too sexist.
CBC radio hasn't had an interesting on-air personality since the infamous Jian Ghomeshi whose sex escapades and harassment were tolerated by CBC managers because he was their only bone fide star.
This despite the myriad of insanely expensive layers of anti-harassment and human resource tools that all woke enterprises employ.

Typically CBC Radio's two main stations pull in about 10% of the listening audience, an audience that is small and diminishing each year.
If the CBC radio was privatized and charged $2 a month to subscribe, you could count the subscribers on your fingers and toes.
There was a story about one station that mysteriously went off the air for several hours and not one listener complained.
All this for $200 million in subsidies a year.

CBC television drama suffers from the left-wing delusion in portraying historical Canada as it wished it was rather than how it really was.

Murdoch mysteries is a long-running show about the adventures of a catholic Toronto detective and is chuck full of diverse characters including a gay/Jewish detective, a woman doctor, a black female medical examiner, a female newspaper reporter and a black policeman.
All this at the dawn of the twentieth century when Toronto was as racist and sexist as one can imagine.
The idea that these characters could exist in these contexts is a liberal fantasy and a dangerous portrayal of a Canada that did not exist.
It is in fact, insulting to the groups represented by these characters, groups that were invisible back then and ones who did not exist in the fantasy world portrayed

Now I understand that many of you will argue that the show is a gentle tongue-in-cheek affair, not meant to harm or misinform but I'd ask you how would you react if German television portrayed life in Hitler's 1930's as an idyllic setting for minorities like Jews, Blacks and Gypsys.
How would we appreciate an American network portraying a police department in 1900 Atlanta with Black and Jewish detectives working hand in hand with whites?
All of a sudden the dramatic license isn't so forgivable.

The same goes for Frankie Drake Mysteries, a show set in the 1930s and cut from the same cloth as Murdoch Mysteries where all the lead characters are female, being a private detective, her black sidekick, a cop and a medical examiner. The absurdity of creating shows that falsely portray Canada as liberals wish it had been is the hallmark of woke liberalism, creating a fantasy and demanding that we accept it.
Most of the historical dramas would be better presented on the Syfy channel. 

As for the documentary and science side of the CBC we have the insufferable liberal David Suzuki hectoring us for years on how badly we treat our environment and what a disaster we are, all the while enjoying a wealthy lifestyle and carbon footprint that probably amount to what 20 average Canadians consume.
The rest of the documentaries focus on how bad white people are and how badly we impose ourselves on minorities, especially native Canadians who blame us for all their failings.
The refrain goes on and on at the CBC.

The biggest error that the CBC makes is assuming that its liberal agenda can and should be imposed on Canadians via its programming.
Despite the barrage of liberal propaganda, a good many Canadian hold conservative opinions that the CBC rages against.
For a good 40% of Canadians, the CBC is trash and for another 40%, it is irrelevant, leaving the ultra-left wing minority to support and promote the institution.

At any rate, I'm glad that the CBC is failing.
I'm happier that the billion dollars of taxpayer money is just being flushed down the toilet wastefully rather than successfully being employed by the CBC as an effective tool for the imposition of its liberal agenda.

What heartens me is that the liberal fantasy that the CBC weaves and the false reality of what and who we are is utterly rejected by Canadians who are turning off the CBC drivel at an unprecedented level.

Harry and Meghan Won't Make it In Canada

For the most part, Canadians are indifferent to the Royal family with almost half believing that the institution is passé. As for hard-core royalists, the number stands at less than 20%.

This is what we expect of royals. Who knows what we will get?

To characterize the Canadian view, ambivalence might be the best word to describe our attitude and even in Quebec where the monarchy is least popular, the level of opposition is minor, where most believe that the Royals are not that important and not an issue to fuss over.

That being said, those who love the monarchy represent an interesting minority whereby the romantic pomp and circumstance is the stuff that feeds dreams and something which has done so long before stories like Cinderella that set young girls' hearts aflutter with dreams of bagging their very own Prince Charming.
Supporting the monarchy costs each Canadian less than the cost of half a paperback romance novel, so complaining about the cost is rather cruel and cheap. The government pays for all sorts of cultural things that only a minority of Canadians enjoy, like museums, festivals, Canadian content on television, subsidies for artists and writers and a plethora of stuff that only a few of us enjoy.

So supporting the monarchy is value for our tax money, whereby those who enjoy following the royals, while a minority, are still a significant number.

But in that implicit bargain is that the royals conduct themselves in a manner that will maintain that interest, in other words acting royally and providing the mystery and pomp and circumstance that those who follow expect and enjoy.

For Meghan and Harry to propose a hybrid change in that compact whereby they will sometimes act royally and sometimes act like private citizens will wear thin on those who do support the monarchy.

We already have royals who act as private citizens in Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, daughters of the now-disgraced Prince Andrew. These princesses have real jobs and earn their own money, unsupported by taxpayers. They do show up to royal functions as members of the family but are not required, nor do they publicly represent the monarchy.

Good on them, but the reality is that these princesses are of little or no interest to us, having forsaken the glamorous and mysterious life of Royals.
A visit by either of these princesses to Canada wouldn't raise an eyebrow or create any sort of stir.

Those are the waters that Harry and Meghan are now testing, waters that are dangerous and cruel.
Not to put too crude a point on it but they'd both be advised of the old adage that it's not possible to suck and blow at the same time.

As for the cost of their security, at $10 million it may be peanuts in the great scheme of things, but regardless of the cost, taxpayers will have none of it.

The idea that RCMP protection officers will accompany Meghan on a paid acting gig or provide security for Harry while he gives a speech for which he is paid $150,000 is outrageous.

We've already seen portents of this future with the candid video of Prince Harry begging Disney president Bob Iger for a voice-over job for Meghan who pretended not to be aware of what was going on while chatting with Beyoncé
It was an unseemly and decidedly un-royal spectacle. LINK

Canadians are a kind and generous people, but they also have an inane sense of fair play and decency. While we have a lot of varied opinions, when you see 73% agreeing that we shouldn't pay for Meghan and Harry's security, you've reached a consensus.

The erstwhile in-and-out royals should take heed, Canadians aren't going to support their private/public lifestyle, it just will not fly.

Up till now, even amongst non-royalists, Harry and Meghan have enjoyed a decent amount of respect, but that will all change if they believe they can foist their re-invented royal/non-royal life on our dime.

If our government does provide security in the face of overwhelming public opposition there will be Hell to pay, not only for our Prime Minister but Harry and Meghan as well.

For the first time in his life, Harry will face a certain public rebuke and an outspoken opposition that will not remain silent, something that he will be shocked to endure

For Meghan, not really one made of sterner stuff, the criticism will be as painful as what chased her out of Britain.
 
Canadians are willing to accept Meghan and Harry with open arms, free to live the lifestyle they prefer but on condition that taxpayers aren't on the hook for a dime.

I'm betting they haven't really understood that their choice to step away from royal duties has consequences and that once the royal cachet is gone, they are nothing more than celebrities, subject to the whim of popularity.
As the couple ages and their glamour and good looks fade, the royal family with all its trappings will look better and better.

Faced with this unexpected criticism the royal/un-royal couple will likely decamp to Los Angeles, where they will probably fare even worse.

Assassination Exposes Iran as a Paper Tiger

If Donald Trump went back in time and assassinated Adolph Hitler in 1939, the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the liberal media would be condemning the gambit as a reckless escalation.
On the other hand, if  Donald Trump went back in time and murdered Mother Teresa, the conservative press would label her a threat.
Such is the state of American media today where the hatred or adoration of Donald Trump precludes any fair and impartial analysis. Issues are no longer judged on their merits and for Americans, Trump is always wrong or always right.

Even the so-called expert commentators are chosen by the respective networks for their political stripe and so it's fair to say that everything we hear about the assassination operation on General Qasem Soleimani on CNN is negative and positive of FOX News.

Let us step away from the partial and politicized media bias and take an allegorical journey to simplify what seems to be a complicated situation.

Think of Iran as a large and powerful drug cartel wishing to expand its influence into neighbouring countries. The cartel uses stealth, subterfuge and violence to eliminate and supplant any local competition or leadership in order to install its own members. However the drug cartel doesn't have a free hand and while the countries it is trying to overtake are relatively weak, they are however under the benevolent protection of the all-powerful Sheriff Donald and his super-powerful police force

The Sheriff has a trusty deputy named Moishe Israel who lives in a neighbouring country not yet under attack by the cartel but determined to check its advance by taking the fight across its border.
Moishe Israel is ruthless and unafraid. Moishe has superb weapons and a highly trained force that over matches the cartel.
And so Moishe Israel with the Sheriff's blessing, attacks the drug gang at every turn, bombing its bases and attacking its drug conveys, even going so far as to sabotage its installation back in its home base.
The drug cartel hates Moishe Israel even more than it hates the Sheriff and constantly threatens retaliation. But after three years of taking it on the chin, the cartel is unable or just plain afraid to confront Moishe Israel.
Instead, the drug gang accepts operational losses and shrugs off the setbacks in the same way they accept that a certain percentage of the drugs they are smuggling into a country will be intercepted by authorities, not unexpected or unanticipated, just the cost of doing business and so like an allied World War II convoy sailing the Atlantic, a certain level of acceptable losses to u-boats is the battle plan.

Despite the serious losses, the gang is loathe to directly confront either the Sheriff or his deputy Moishe, understanding clearly that to directly challenge and confront them is a losing proposition because, despite its power, the gang is vastly outgunned.
And so the battle lines remain static, the cartel attempting to expand its base to its neighbours, while the Sheriff and his deputy fend off these advances, a situation not unlike the stalemate of enemies in the World War I trenches.

But the Sheriff decides to up the ante and launches an operation to take out one of the highest-ranking members of the cartel, a ruthless gangster who has wreaked havoc and death throughout the region, but who is nonetheless a hero to the cartel.
The motivation for such an attack is questioned by some in the Sheriff's department and others in the media and of course by the Sheriff's political foes who claim that an assassination of the deputy cartel leader is a political distraction meant to deflect criticism of the Sheriff. They warn that the assassination would probably lead to a dangerous escalation and would likely lead to retaliation that might well lead to an all-out war.
Others in the Sheriff's department argue that the cartel will not escalate and summon as proof the failure of the cartel to actually engage Deputy Moishe, even after countless and countless losses over the years where the deputy has pounded and pounded cartel installations with impunity.
While the cartel howled and swore retribution, it proved to be mostly bluster.

And so the Sheriff launches a successful and masterful assassination, killing the deputy gang leader in a powerful display of intelligence and capability.

The gang is outraged and screams bloody murder, swearing that retaliation will be swift and powerful.
The world is frightened that an escalation is in order and as such holds its breath in fearful anticipation.
But the Sheriff is serene and promises more deadly attacks if the cartel replies, a threat that the cartel takes seriously believing the sheriff to be reckless and insane.
Back at gang headquarters the pain and humiliation are agonizing. The blatant hit on its number 2 is a message of utter contempt and a challenge to the gang leadership.

The cartel meets to decide a response because such an attack cannot go unanswered, or else they will lose serious face. While the cartel has plenty of firepowers, it is not nearly enough to take on the Sheriff and his deputy.
The cartel realizes it cannot go to war, because although it can inflict a lot of damage to the neighbourhood, it would end badly for them in the end.
The cartel, unlike its terrorist minions who have no problem attacking the Sheriff or his deputy, has a lot to lose.
Some members suggest using these proxy-agents to do the dirty work and attack the Sheriff or his deputy in its stead, but the Sheriff has already warned them that any attack will be considered a direct attack by the cartel.
What to do? What to do?

The cartel decides that there's no other option but a face-saving attack that will satisfy the rank and file, but  one that will not spur the Sheriff or deputy to action.
And so the gang lets it be known to the Sheriff that they will stage an attack that will be full of sound and fury but will, in essence, be nothing but a show.
The gang's leaders explain to their minions that they have too much to lose and too little to gain in confronting the Sheriff and his deputy head-on.

And so those who love the Sheriff and even those who hate the Sheriff are forced to face the reality that the Sheriff has won this round decisively and has exposed the Cartel as a paper tiger.
Nobody is more thrilled than Deputy Moishe who cannot resist telling the naysayers"I told you so."

The cartel is diminished and will soon be forced to rethink its expansion plans because (using a mixed metaphor) ....when push came to shove, the cartel blinked.

French Language Hysteria Hits Hilarious New Lows

Every time you think that the French language debate in Quebec couldn't get stupider it invariably hits a new low.
Two stories in the French press went largely unreported in the English media but bear repeating for those of us interested in the language debate.

Let's start with an absurd story written in the spirit of 'pastagate' and then move on to what I can only categorize as fake news.

Not many of us read the insufferable snobbish bore that is Denise Bombardier of Le Journal du Montreal, a hoity-toity self-proclaimed defender of classic French which she sadly reminds us is becoming more and more bastardized and debased because as she tells us, it's just plain too hard for the young and modern generation of doofuses to master.

In an article entitled  "Le pouvoir du lobby LGBTQ+"  (The Power of the LGBT+ Lobby) she rages against the LGBT+ activist community for trying to rid French from its natural Male/Female structure and its attempt to create gender-neutral pronouns.

The Quebec LGBT Chamber of Commerce, financially supported by the OQLF, has found a niche in the organization and has managed to instrumentalize it by imposing a progressive transformation of the French language, which as we know, use the masculine and the feminine....
...Thus the OQLF  somehow approves bi-gender words by proposing the use of terms that combine the masculine and the feminine form. For example, to replace the words brother and sister, it proposes 'frouer"and 'tancle'** to designate aunt or uncle. Not shying away from any obstacle or absurdity, the OQLF also suggests that the pronouns 'him' and 'her' should also be replaced....

....Taxpayers are subsidizing linguists who are debasing the French language, which amounts to destroying its genius, its beauty and its ability to define reality.

.... The Trudeau government is exemplary in showing unreserved tolerance for transgender demands. The Canadian passport now offers three options: male, female or other.

 ...Faced with these attempts which seek to impose upon the vast majority of citizens delusional diktats that have the sole purpose of accommodating a tiny percentage of the population, what are we to do? 
We simply must refuse to allow French in Quebec to be hacked by a lobby....

* -a combination of 'Frere' and 'souer' ed.
** a combination of 'Tante' and 'Oncle' ed.

Hmmm.... That was something unexpected!
I think she made a legitimate argument about defending classical French but totally descended into bashing transgenders when she couldn't resist the passport issue and thus reveals her  'vrai nature'
...Ha! Ha!

The second item is about another whining diatribe in the Journal du Montreal over a poll that purports to indicate how francophones view their perilous language situation.

The reason I classify this story as fake news is because it is based on a poll, one that is totally contrived and without any real scientific merit.

As an old-time political organizer who used polling to determine where my candidate stood, I quickly learned how easily polls can be manipulated as well as how unreliable they can be.
Without getting into a long discussion on polling, suffice it to say that today, for a variety of reasons polling is more inaccurate than ever.
At its best, when voters are asked whom they are voting for, polls should generally get it right, but even then, none predicted a Donald Trump win and none predicted the size of the Boris Johnson majority.
Polling descends into the ridiculous when opinions are sought in relation to loaded questions which invariably deliver the results the pollster looked for.
Asking francophones if they believe that their language is in peril is like asking supermarket shoppers if food prices are too high. A question meant to elicit a contrived result that supports a foregone conclusion.
Like Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' which posits that observation changes outcomes, in polling terms, asking a loaded question delivers a loaded result.

Here's a portion of what was asked;

In your opinion, is the situation of French in Quebec currently better, the same or worse than it was ten years ago?

• Better:                               1%
• Same:                               29%
• Worse:                             56%
• DK / Refusal:                   4%

In your opinion, in 10 years will the situation of French in Quebec will be;

• Better:                             8%
• The same:                     29%
• Worse:                          56%
• DK / Refusal:                7%

Do you feel concerned about the use of French in public space?

• Very concerned:        26%
• Fairly concerned:      36%
• Not very concerned: 21%
• Not at all concerned:  1%
• DK / Refusal:             2%

Who should act to protect French to act?

• It’s everyone’s business to protect French :
• Citizens 58%
• Government: 32%
• DK / Refusal: 10%

These questions almost descend to the level of a "Push Poll," one designed not to test opinion, but rather to shape it.

At any rate....

But here is where it gets interesting because the poll went on to asked respondents what they themselves were prepared to do to protect the French language.

What is interesting about the poll is not that the majority feel that French is in peril, but rather how little those who were asked actually cared.

What gesture (s) or action (s) would you be ready to take to ensure better protection and promotion of French?

• Boycott a company or business that does not respect the French language:      37%
• Vote for a political party that makes the French language one of its priorities: 37%
• Sign a petition asking for better protection of the French language: 31%
• Report a situation to the Office québécois de la langue française: 28%
• Denounce, on social media, a situation where the French language is not respected: 22%
• Participate in a demonstration  demanding better protection of the French language:  9% 
• None of these gestures /actions:  30%

So while 58% of respondents tell pollsters that it is the responsibility of citizens to protect the French language, only 9% would participate in a demonstration and only 22% would report a lack of respect for French on their social media., a big difference in what they say they should do and what they would actually do.
And please note that even the small number who say that they'll take action is over-stated. 
In actuality, it's easy to say that you'll take action, but few will.
What's more telling is how many are unabashedly admitting that they won't lift a finger.

Ha!Ha! ...  Good luck protecting your language!! 


Dear readers.
I hope you enjoyed a Merry Christmas and a Happy Channukka and please accept my best wishes for the New Year!

See ya next decade!