Best of the Week

Marc Bergevin's Worst Nightmare

Best Rant of the Week from enraged pizza manager in Africa, furious that somebody desecrated his new revolving door.  PRICELESS!





Most impressive accomplishment. Two-handed bowler scores perfect game in a minute and a half.  No Photoshop!

Ironic product FAIL

Absolutely Best Quote of the Week.

Walmart Idiot of the Week 

Interesting Fact of the Week.

FAIL of the Week

A Conservative Voice For a $15 Hour Minimum Wage

In the early sixties the Big Four automakers fought tooth and nail against building safety into their cars, claiming that the added expense would make cars un-affordable for the average family. Today it seems absurd that these companies resisted seat belts and airbags and all their forceful arguments turned out to be nonsense as the public embraced these innovations with open arms and an open wallet. It turns out that safety was something consumers were happy to pay for and so it is  that companies make more money selling consumers a better, yet somewhat more expensive product.
It took years of lobbying by the likes of consumer advocates led by Ralph Nader to overcome the ferocious corporate resistance and it took nothing short of government regulation to force the automakers into making their cars safer. 
So let me put aside the arguments of those free-market advocates who will tell us that government should never interfere in business. The reality is that only government regulation can get companies to make monumental changes, like lower emission standards or the elimination of leaded gas. 
Still companies fight these advances on the basis of profit and the only thing that keeps companies from cheating is the threat of sanctions, a case in point is the outrageous cheating by the greedy and dishonest Volkswagon automaker which manipulated data to fool regulators over its car emissions. And this happened not in the sixties or seventies, but quite recently.
So I'm not confident companies will do the right thing without government oversight.

And so we are being treated to an onslaught of corporate propaganda that warns us that a $15 an hour salary will cripple the economy and ultimately cost jobs. Those warnings should be taken with a grain of salt.
I don't know about you, but paying attention to Wallmart's threat that jobs will be lost is as earnest as the Hells Angels arguing against the legalization of marijuana.
Both these organizations don't exactly have the public's best interest at heart and it should be noted Wallmart's low salaries cost the US taxpayer over $6 billion dollars in food stamps as employees battle to stay afloat and feed their families. How is it that a company  that makes $15 billion in profit, expects the public to augment their employee's salaries because they pay so little?
Outrageous.

I wonder what the public's reaction would be if a Chinese company offered to set up a manufacturing facility in Canada as long as they could use Chinese environmental and safety standards.
The company would demand a waiver whereby they could dump effluent into the local river and pollute the air using coal as a fuel. As for employees, they would not be provided with safety equipment and would be forced to handle dangerous and toxic materials without protection.
Even with the promise of jobs, would you be in favour of granting the company a permit under these circumstances?
 I'm sure your answer would be an emphatic NO, that the jobs are not worth it.

So how is that we accept the argument of local companies that paying a lower than living wage is the only way to insure that their company will operate.
I do not buy it.

There is a belief that an increase in minimum wage will cost jobs, but companies are already racing to eliminate any job that can be eliminated through automation.
Mechanization and robotization are a fact of modern life and it is a trend that is here to stay. It will continue to be responsible for the elimination of jobs, regardless of a minimum wage increases. The banks introduced ATMs years ago in order to eliminate tens of thousands of bank teller jobs. Already self-service checkouts exist in food stores and food ordering kiosks are becoming common in fast food outlets. The robots that are taking over manufacturing are more responsible for job loss than any competition from overseas. That trend will not be accelerated with a $15 minimum wage, we are already hellbent on getting rid of employees.

The majority of McJobs are in the fast food industry and retail. The impact of an increase in minimum wage at these restaurants is debatable but researchers at Purdue found that raising pay for fast food restaurant workers to $15 an hour would result in an estimated 4.3% increase in prices at those restaurants. That means the price of a $3.99 Big Mac in the USA would jump to $4.16.
Big deal.....`

So stop being frightened by gloom and doom predictions, becuase companies will adjust and society will be better for higher wages.
Some jobs will be lost and  some will be gained as minimum wage employees gain more disposable income.  Perhaps corporate profits will go down slightly, but I won't complain about that.

The predictions of mass layoffs is rubbish, just ask the CEO of COSTCO, a company that that thrives on employee retention and satisfaction, where employees will go the extra mile to make the company successful.

Every time you hear somebody argue against a $15 minimum wage ask them point blank how much they make. Hmmm....
If you care about the environment, if you care about discrimination and if you care for the welfare of your fellow citizens,  you should stand up for a decent minimum wage.
The sacrifices we must make to pay everyone a living wage is minuscule and we should have an active discussion as to what those small sacrifices would be rather than listen to the gloom and doom predictions of the corporate class. I'd gladly pay a tiny bit more for a Big Mac or a Starbucks latte. If the tiny increase is too much of a burden for you, give up one out of twenty-five purchases, that's all it takes to  help your fellow citizen make a decent wage.

As for me, I won't use the self service aisle at the supermarket, nor return my cart to the receptacle in the parking, nor will I buss my table at the fast food restaurant, despite being entreated by companies and society that it is the socially acceptable thing to do.
I'm not interested in doing somebody else's job if it means sacrificing their livelihood.

Why is Quebec So Dishonest?

If anything the aftermath of the Charbonneau Commission which focused on Quebec's culture of corruption is teaching us, it's that it's going to take a long time to reverse the climate of dishonesty that seems to pervade all aspects of Quebec society.
I'm not sure as a society we can.

This week saw a culmination of some very sad revelations and events, casting doubt on whether we are making any progress at all.

Now before we go on, let me stress that this dishonesty trait is not a 'French' thing, it's a 'Quebec' thing and spreads across all cultures and communities in Quebec.
Let me remind you that the two largest English school boards are both under  criminal investigation by UPAQ, the corruption police. The Jewish General Hospital also had its own corruption scandal, and let us not forget the infamous Arthur Porter payola scandal over the new English super-hospital.
Two weeks ago former Montreal mayor Michael Applebaum was convicted of fraud and has received a jail sentence.
So please, no holier than thou sentiments.

This week the trial began for three ex high-ranking Sureté du Quebec officers including one ex chief, who all are accused of dipping into the police force's secret slush fund used for undercover operations and for paying informants off the books.
The fund has little oversight other than the honesty of the high-ranking officers who are the caretakers and in this case, it seems that trust was sadly misplaced.

Also this week the election race for the 'Battonier' or head of the Barreau du Quebec (Quebec Bar Assoc.) took an ugly turn with accusations that board members illegally over-paid themselves for appearances to the tune of $500,000.
The person making the accusation is lawyer Lu Chan Khuong, the ex-battonier who is trying to win back her old job, a job from which she was forced to resign when it was revealed that she was arrested for shoplifting and allegedly received a preferential and secret non-judicial sentence. She kept the affair secret and only resigned after a newspaper published the facts.
I couldn't make up a story like that if I tried.

The government recently appointed an ex-deputy minister of Transport Quebec to look into the traffic disaster on Autoroute 13 where hundreds of motorists were stranded overnight in a blizzard due to organizational incompetence at that same Ministry of Transport and the utter failure of the police to handle the situation.
It turns out that the high-ranking police officer in Sureté du Quebec who was supposed to be in charge was goldbricking. Instead of manning his desk and overseeing operations, the officer was at a notary's office closing a real estate transaction for his moonlighting job.
Again I'm not making this up.
By the way, that man chosen to look into the matter Florent Gagné, doesn't exactly come with clean hands, having been accused of turning a blind eye to snow-removal collusion by the Charbonneau Commission when he ran Transport Quebec. His testimony at the Charbonneau Commission had the familiar ring of the unflappable Sgt. Schultz character of Hogan's Heroes fame. "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing!"
When offering his ludicrous defence at that commission, the judge asked him pointedly "Did people know that you didn't want to know?"

Dishonesty at the Montreal Police force is rocking the organization with revelations that the Internal affairs department fabricated evidence to punish whistle blowers who were trying to denounce corruption on the force. The Montreal police were under fire for spying on journalists in order to discover whistle-blowers as well. Many high-ranking officers are implicated and so the two largest police forces in Quebec operate under a corruption cloud.  And to add insult to injury, it is the Sureté du Quebec which is investigating corruption at the Montreal Police. It should have been the RCMP who operate in Quebec with relatively clean hands, but the political fallout of the RCMP investigating the Montreal police would be too much of a humiliation.

Montreal mayor Denis Coderre is under fire for failing to disclose a $25,000 donation made to him in order to defray legal costs in a  defamation case. When first questioned about the undeclared gift, he outright lied, denying he had received it, and then when presented with proof, declared that he was under medication when he made the statement. Of course he remains un-scarred by the incident because in essence, it is 'small potatoes' in the Quebec context. 

Now last year, the Minster of Transport Robert Poëti hired an investigator, Annie Trudel, to uncover the shenanigans going on in his ministry. She quit in disgust as her work was being systematically sabotaged by high-ranking Transport Quebec employees, which included somebody falsifying information on a USB key that was to be submitted to the government detailing the collusion and corruption. UPAQ is now undertaking at least ten separate investigations of the department. The deputy minister, Dominique Savoie in charge took the fall and was relieved of her duties, but incredibly Poëti lost his cabinet job in revenge for Savoie's downfall, as she was a pet of Premier Couillard.
What happened to the disgraced Savoie? She now works in the premier’s executive council.
Again, I swear I'm not making this up. Link

The former Quebec lieutenant governor Lise Thibault has been sent to jail for cheating on her expenses to the tune of $700,000. She fought the charges for years and years, going so far as to claim immunity from prosecution because she represented the infallible Queen.
Now being the lieutenant governor is one of the cushiest jobs I can imagine and the honour of being chosen immeasurable. The lieutenant governor's job is to kiss babies and greet citizens, representing everything good in our society and it turns out that Thibault was just a nasty little thief.
Maybe we should let ex-mayor of Laval Gilles Vaillancourt, have a turn at the job when he gets out of jail. At least we'd have a big crook doing the job and someone who knows a thing or two about stealing public money big time.

And the political finance scandals that over these last few years have rocked each and every major political party lend credence that the political order is corrupt and dishonest.

I could go on and on, but what intrigues me is the WHY.
Why is Quebec so rampantly dishonest?

I thought about it a lot and tossed around the idea that perhaps turbulent political atmosphere due to the wrenching sovereignty debate might have something to do with it or perhaps the social upheaval  of the 60's and 70's but alas, none of that is true because Quebec has been corrupt for a very long time.

In 1909 another corruption commission held a hearing for five months and concluded that 25% of government revenues were stolen. Over the last 100 years, Quebec has convened five commissions looking into corruption and organized crime and so it is a tradition.

The editorial cartoon seen here appeared in 1909 depicts Judge Cannon who presided over that commission looking into dishonesty in Montreal. The caption on the bottom says that the judge never smelled a cheese that stank so much. The stinking wafting out over the cheese  includes the words "BRIBERY - INCOMPETENCE- PATRONAGE - FAVOURTISM.

The news even made the New York Times;

In over a hundred years things have not gotten any better.

So what makes Quebec so dishonest?
I can only come up with one final culprit.....PRIDE and RESPECT or the lack thereof.

The lack of pride and respect that Quebecers show towards their collective society is manifested in dishonesty.
Look around.
Police, fire, ambulance drivers disrespecting their own uniforms as a punishment for imposed contracts and the public who couldn't care less about the camouflage pants.
What self-respecting organization would humiliate themselves by dis-respecting their own uniform?
These same police who are not only corrupt, but terrorize minorities, all with the benign consent of the public who don't really care about human rights, only their own selfish situations.

Montreal has the sad history of the riot capital of North America. from the Maurice Richard riot to the Stanley Cup playoff riots to the Maple Spring riots  and the annual anarchist riots. All these destructive riots are based on trivialities and in Montreal a good riot is just another event where idiots enjoy destroying other peoples property.

All of this coupled with a lazy and ineffective justice system, that is loathe to enforce the law and uninterested in jailing criminals, especially white collar criminals.
I once went on scene in the aftermath of a burglary at one of the stores which I owned and met the police who recovered the jacket of the burglar who fled in haste. Unbelievably, the jacket actually contained his wallet and ID. I asked one of the policemen sarcastically if they thought they could catch him and was stunned by the reply that the wallet and jacket couldn't really be used as evidence, as no direct link could be made. In fact, in a followup phone call, the police informed me that no further action was undertaken in the case due to budget constraints.
Such is justice in Quebec, where this same lazy attitude, indifference and incompetence is repeated tens of thousands of times each year, encouraging people to be dishonest and keeping criminals out of jail and the street where they can ply their trade with virtual impunity.
I'll have more to say about Quebec's pitiful criminal justice in a further post.

All the while, Quebec remains the province where its citizens donate the least to charity and do the fewest volunteer hours. Clearly we care less about the society we live in than those in the rest of Canada.
In a poll, only 13% of Quebecers said they would report corruption if they witnessed it first hand.

As for family, Quebecers are the kings of packing off parents to government-run senior citizen homes, placing parents more than double the national average. And with all the bitching and moaning about university fees, parents also contribute the least towards their children's education, about half of what British Columbians do.

It isn't a rosy picture and I can't really say it's getting better.

To me, it comes down to pride and respect for one's own society and it is here where Quebecers fail miserably, their collective behaviour bordering on the self-loathing.

There are those of you who will pooh-pooh the idea that it is this lack of respect and pride that makes Quebec so dishonest..... Fair enough.
But like a defence lawyer trying to cast doubt on the prosecutions case, an alternate theory for this collective dishonesty must be offered and for that, all I can say is....GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

Pit Bulls Owners not the Problem...Pit Bulls Are

It's good news that the Quebec government is taking steps to ban new ownership of pit bull type dogs and to control those dogs presently owned and to be grandfathered.

“Public Safety Minister Martin Coiteux announced the government’s intention after tabling legislation Thursday to better control dogs in the province, particularly dangerous canines that have bit or attacked other people or animals or those that have been deemed to be “potentially dangerous” based on their actions or by reputation.

He said that the number and severity of the attacks involving pit bulls, as well as an incident last summer in which a woman, Christiane Vadnais, was killed by such a dog, convinced him of the need to take the disputed step.

“In case there were still doubts about it, now there are none,” he told reporters in Quebec City.

“People have fears about pit bulls, and with good reason.”

The official order to enact the ban will come once the bill is passed into law, likely in the coming months.”

It is the common refrain of pit bull activists and defenders that pit bull attacks can be directly attributed to bad owners and not bad dogs, the same argument that the NRA makes in saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If you believe one of those premises than I assume you believe the other.
Blaming dog owners for pit bull attacks is a convenient excuse and at any rate, until they have a test for responsible dog ownership as a prerequisite to acquiring a pit bull, it is entirely beside the point.
Unfortunately, there will always be bad dog owners as well as irresponsible gun owners and a prudent societal constraint is to take these potential deadly weapons out of circulation... period.

Pit bulls are sweet, wonderful animals and make a great family pet. There are enough YouTube videos to attest to that.
I would venture to guess that as a breed, pit bulls attack less than most others dogs, especially those little yappy laps dogs who have a propensity towards nipping anything or anybody that approaches.
But pit bulls are powerful and on the rare occasion that they attack, they are deadly, therein lies the problem.
I'd rather suffer 50 Chihuahua attacks than be set upon by one enraged Pitbull.

Last Monday a 64-year-old woman in  Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, was attacked by her own dogs, a Boston terrier and a Pit bull. She was badly mauled and even had her two ears bitten off.
Now I can't say that the pit bull initiated the attack, it is more likely that the Boston terrier was the culprit. But dogs attack in packs and even if the pit bull did nothing more than join in the mayhem, it certainly was the dog that inflicted the dangerous injuries, trauma that the terrier just couldn't produce. The police shot and killed the pit bull and sent the terrier to a shelter, so it's obvious which dog did the damage.  Link 
Despite the obvious prima facie case that pit bulls represent an unacceptable threat to society, there is a concerted effort by pit bull owners, activists  and apologists to portray pit bulls as lovingly harmless. The internet is rife with images like these below.

Wilful deception and selective facts, that is the pit bull lobby.

So let me offer up some rebuttal with these images of the impact of real pit bull attacks. I dedicate the following picture to the idiots at the Montreal SPCA and their dangerously fanatical director Alana Devine, who battles relentlessly against any pit bull ban. 
I've heard her spout her idiocy on the radio and television and just like a dedicated anti-vaxxer, her spiel sounds convincing, but is dangerous nonsense.

I wonder how  Ms. Devine woulld feel if if a family member suffered one of these injuries.

In the 12-year period of 2005 through 2016, canines killed 392 Americans. Pit bulls (who represent 5% of the population) contributed to 65% (254) of these deaths.  Link

Living in a city means making allowances for other people as they make allowances for you. 
Keeping a pit bull is cruel and selfish, because aside from being potentially dangerous, they also scare the crap out of your neighbours.
The reality is that any of the 700 dog breeds can provide love and companionship, almost all of which pose little risk to humans.
It's a no-brainer, but sadly those advocating for pit bulls have no brains.

Pit bull activists make idiotic claims, employ selective facts and spout nonsense that can best be described as alternative facts. Whenever you hear a pit bull activist get on their high horse, ignore them, they are as dangerous as those arguing against childhood vaccinations.
One of the lies propagated by them is that it's impossible to determine if a dog is truly a pit bull.
It is utter nonsense. I can spot one a block away and I'm sure you can too. But repeating this bullshit is just another fake fact that pit bull advocates use.
 Read:Pit Bulls Are Identifiable

Here is more deception;

“The thing that disturbs me the most,” Bruce said over the phone from Calgary, “is that in every city I’ve looked at (that has introduced a breed ban), they have not reduced the overall number of bites in the community.” - Bill Bruce, the former director of animal services for the city of Calgary

Well, I'll tell you what Mr. Bruce, the bans do reduce the number of PIT BULL bites.
All dogs bite and when owners replace pit bulls with other dogs, it doesn't change the number of bites. What changes is the severity of the injuries caused by the bites.
These are the type of deceptive arguments made by those against breed specific bans.

Fan website pedals alternate 'truth'

The ultimate chutzpah of pit bull activists is the fantasy that this pit bull fan website peddles, the idea that pit bull owners are smarter than average.
In one of the very few studies that compared dangerous dog owners with regular dog owners found;

A total of 166 owners of high risk dogs were compared with 189 owners of low risk dogs. The high risk dog owners had nearly 10 times more criminal convictions than other dog owners. Breaking the data down by categories of criminal behavior they found that high risk dog owners were 6.8 times more likely to be convicted of an aggressive crime, 2.8 times more likely to have carried out a crime involving children, 2.4 times more likely to have perpetrated domestic violence, and 5.4 times more likely to have an alcohol related conviction when compared to low risk dog owners.. -Psychology Today

Still unconvinced? Read Barbara Kay's excellent takedown in the National Post 

United Airlines Bashing Underscores America's Mean Streak

Business as usual... Beating up  a paying passenger

Americans generally believe that Canadians pronounce the word "about" as "a-boot" and that as a people Canadians are generally mild-mannered and nice. 
While "a-boot" is laughably false, the idea that Canadians are generally nicer than Americans is absolutely truer than true, because pretty much every western democratic society is kinder and gentler than America.
In which western democracy would a paying airline passenger be violently ripped from his seat by thugs in uniform, for no reason other than it is in the airline's economic interest?
Could it happen in Canada, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia???

Nope, as the saying goes...... Only in America.

If you wonder why America has such a highly developed legal tort system, it is because corporate America generally lives by the tenet that screwing and mistreating customers is better for the bottom line than treating customers with respect and dignity and that the occasional fine or court debacle is just the cost of doing business and cheaper in the long run.
And so despite what everyone says, United will pay dearly for beating up a paying customer, the American court system geared towards appeasing the public with the occasional multi-million dollar award that while satisfying, does nothing to change predatory or otherwise shameful business practices of corporate America.

Don't listen to TV talking heads who agree with United in maintaining that the company had every right to do what they did in accordance with it's own contract, the infamous Contract of Carriage, which can best be described as the corporate version of "Manifest Destiny"

Not many commentators have read the infamous document (as I have), assuming that the company lawyers have covered United's corporate ass completely. You'd think they had, but the unique circumstances of the incident show otherwise and leaves the company open to a whopping lawsuit. According to the rules that United itself wrote, a passenger can be denied boarding for just about any reason that the airline deems fit. But the contract words are clear and the lawyers left a big loophole in defining the terms 'Denied Boarding' and 'Refusal of Transport.'

Plainly speaking, under Rule 21, the airline may refuse to board you on the aircraft for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to overbooking and is required to offer limited compensation, sometimes none.
But the rules change once you have boarded and "Rule 25- Refusal of Service"  kicks in, which provides that the company may deny you service and even remove you from the aircraft for a variety of reasons including force majeur, safety, security, but clearly not for business purposes.

Denied Boarding or Refusal of Transport. A distinction without difference?   Not at all. 

Any litigation will focus on whether the beat up passenger Dr. David Dao was denied boarding or refused transport under the terms of the Contract of Carriage and here United is utterly screwed..
It is a legal principle that the drafters of a contract are responsible for its content and that any ambiguity works in the opponent's favour.
If you were a judge or on a jury hearing the case which way would you rule, for the company or for the beat-up passenger?
United, it's sub-contractor and indeed the Chicago Airport security force, will all certainly be found to have acted outside the terms of service and will likely be ordered to pay millions.
My voice is not unique in holding that United will pay big time. Although the corporate line that United is in the clear is being parroted across mainstream media, defence lawyers across America are starting to voice their opinion that the opposite is true.
The only choice United has is to settle quietly and try to put the debacle behind them.

There are those that say that it will be a return to business as usual when the media and the public turn to the next story, but I'm not so sure.
The airline industry has a business model that is just incompatible with good customer service whereby they allow customers to book tickets and not pay for them when they don't show up. To compensate the airline takes more reservations than capacity dictates leading to the occasional but fully to be expected fiasco when too many passengers do show up.

Imagine if your favourite sports teams, concert artist or restaurant adopted the same policy?
Could you imagine sitting down to a Broadway play, having paid for your ticket weeks in advance, and then just before the curtain rises being told  that you have to get up and leave because the theatre has sold more tickets than it anticipated and that uniformed thugs will beat you up if you refuse to vacate?
What society tolerates such a cruel business model?

Welcome to America.