Delusional London Mayor Downplays Terrorism

"There’s no reason to be alarmed....
I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.

--London Mayor Sadiq Khan,.

Really?
Delusional London Mayor Sadiq Khan is playing with words in claiming that London is the safest 'global' city in the world.
I don't know where he gets his stats, but a brief internet search shows that London doesn't even make the list of the top 15 safest large cities. Both Montreal and Toronto made the list and surprisingly even New York City, but no London.  Link

At any rate with two deadly terrorist attacks in London this year that have killed 13 and injured scores, when it comes to terrorist victims London rates worse than Tel Aviv or Jerusalem this year.

Who of us doesn't believe that London, like Paris are the two most dangerous western cities vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism.
Both cities are hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism.

"Two very different responses from the Mayor of London and the the Prime Minister. London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim to hold that office, did manage to acknowledge the damage which had been done, but immediately fell back on a well practiced line indicating perhaps a bit more optimism than is warranted. This segment from Fox News includes the Mayor’s comments." Link

President Trump  couldn't resist.

So what response will our fearless Prime Minister Trudeau offer?
Methinks he will ask parrot the nonsense of Sadiq Khan.

Poutine and Cultural Appropriation

McDonald's Poutine?? A Pale Imitation!!

By now you've no doubt heard that there's been a complaint made by a Quebec academic that Canada has wrongfully claimed 'poutine' as part of its Canadian food culture to the detriment of the originators, the people of Quebec, the francophone population of Quebec. Link
This latest alt-Liberal nonsense crusade is another gratuitous pot-shot at white North American society for 'stealing' essential cultural elements from minorities and incorporating them into mainstream society.
The idea that blending good ideas, foods, concepts, music, fashion or culture from minorities into mainstream society is a bad thing, can spring only from the minds of the eternally done-me-wrong whingers.
It makes logical sense that you can't be for 'inclusion' if you are  against 'cultural appropriation'

"Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. Cultural appropriation, often framed as cultural misappropriation, is sometimes portrayed as harmful and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating culture."

And so our society is attacked by the holier-than-thous when white people wear dreadlocks or perform rap music to the detriment of the originating Black community.
But if cultural appropriation is unfair to the Blacks then it is unfair to the Italians when pizza is declared a national American dish.
So too then must there be a slight to the Jewish community for the mainstream use of Yiddish vernacular such as 'shlock,''yenteh,' 'putz,' or shmooze'. Don't forget the Irish who must certainly be outraged at the appropriation of their St. Patricks Day holiday by mainstream interlopers who celebrate alongside the real McCoys by wearing green, attending the parade and partying like...well, you know.
The latest joke about 'cultural appropriation' is that ISIS, is complaining that Kathy Griffith wrongfully stole their culture by holding up a mock severed head of Donald Trump. Haha! 

But I do support the crusade against cultural appropriation when a beautiful and perfect item like poutine is appropriated and bastardized by mainstream society. It is a little sad and distressing that something so simple and tasty has morphed into a fad product or worse still, a poorly copied pale imitation of the original.
Let's face it, poutine isn't gourmet food, nor was it ever meant to be. It is one of those dishes best eaten hung-over or depressed. While it isn't fancy, it is however tasty and fulfilling.
For most of us, eating poutine is one of life's guilty little pleasures. There are those who don't have to worry about the obscene amount of calories and grease that poutine provides, but in today's society of the decidedly overweight or otherwise health conscious, poutine is a dish best left as a very occasional treat.

For those of you from Mars, poutine is a simple dish of fresh cheese curds, fries and gravy, but as all great things, the devil is in the details and producing this simple dish is not quite so simple. The potatoes have to be blanched and aged overnight, before being deep-fried again before serving. The cheese curds have to be authentic to get that squeaky texture and traditional mild taste. The gravy has to be made from scratch and have exactly the right viscosity.
Any added ingredients or deviation is blasphemy.

Cheesy-Avocado-Bacon-Poutine...Arghhhh!!!

And so it is that as poutine goes mainstream, across Canada and now into the United States, most restaurants can't or won't reproduce the fantastic original, because remaining faithful is either too difficult or time-consuming, with curd cheese perhaps too hard to source. Conversely there is a movement by upscale restaurants to make a 'gourmet'  version with fancy and expensive add-ons like foie gras,  meant only to goose up the price.  Nothing is more obscene than a US$12 poutine.

This is cultural appropriation at its worst.

A disgusting layer of pizza cheese+crab= dreck

How bad is it getting?
Well last night I watched a food channel show about carnival dishes from the States and lo and behold, of the five dishes presented, two were absolutely dreadful poutines. The first a Chesapeake Bay crab poutine from a Virginia fair, a recipe of melted pizza cheese with a crab topping sans brown gravy. The other poutine presented was an equally garish recipe that featured a 'pogo' hot dog.
In an annoying and insulting display of chutzpah, the host of the show warned viewers that Canada should watch out as America is coming after them in the preparation of poutine. Ughhhhhh!!
Even in Canada, poutine is being systematically debased, especially by the fast food chains who plop gravy and cheese on their completely inappropriate French fries. 
Every time poutine is presented on English language cooking shows, the chefs (and I use the term lightly) breathily advise us that this is their 'take' on poutine. Nobody, it seems outside Quebec can make the original and that is cultural appropriation at its worst.
Now I get it, poutine is a regional dish that for most North Americans isn't that tasty. Quebec fries are thick and soft, while North America is familiar with those thin crispy fries featured in McDonalds and other fast food restaurants.
But changing the essence of poutine and calling it by the same name is like advertising ice cream and serving customers frozen yogourt, telling them that this is their version.
Not kosher my friends, not kosher at all.

And by the way, since I am of the tribe,  I feel absolutely fine using the word 'kosher' and 'chutzpah.'

The Farce of Quebec Democracy

It's a bit sad to see the that the pernicious attack on democracy vis-a-vis the re-redistricting of electoral ridings in Quebec has gone sadly uncontested by our elected officials who it seems have gotten an 'independent' commission to do the dirty work that which they themselves would never dare to try.
The so-called independent agency (Commission de la représentation électorale (CRE)) that draws up the Quebec electoral map is supposed to act fairly and impartially in dividing up the ridings according to these rules and principles.

"Il importe d'assurer l'égalité relative du vote, c'est-à-dire que le poids du vote d'un électeur ne doit pas être disproportionné par rapport au poids du vote d'un autre électeur, à moins d'une situation exceptionnelle. Pour ce faire, il faut regrouper un nombre d'électeurs à peu près égal au sein de chaque circonscription du Québec." 

"It is important to ensure the relative equality of voting, that is, the weight of an elector's vote should not be disproportionate to the weight of another voter's vote, except in an exceptional situation. To do this, we must have a roughly equal number of voters within each riding of Quebec. (ed. note my translation from the French)

It's not that complicated if one remains fair and impartial, but it becomes problematic when the commission invokes political motives. There are so many voters and so many ridings, divide one from the other and you get a number that represents the number of electors that each riding should represent.
Number of voters in Quebec ......6,012,440
Ideal number of voters per riding....48,100

It's pretty cut and dried, but democracy in our fair province takes a decidedly undemocratic turn when 'Quebec Rules' are applied.
The CRE allow that the orderly division of ridings be modified in consideration of subjective criteria  allowing itself a margin whereby ridings can have 25% more or less voters than the average.

It means that ridings can vary by an astonishing 80%.
Lowest threshold ............................36,075
Highest threshold .......................... 60,075
Unfortunately, this disgraceful attack on democracy is practised in just about every electoral district in North America.
Even in the United States presidential election, some voters had more voting power than others, leading to Donald Trump's victory with less votes than Hillary.
How bad is this descrepency?
Well voters in Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota get to cast one electoral college vote  with 143,000 voters, while it takes some 500,000 New York voters to do the same, a margin of over three and a half to one.
Some democracy.....

In Ontario, it takes two and a half as many voters in Brampton to send a MPP to the Ontario legislature as it does in Timiskaming—Cochrane.
Some democracy....

But as usual Quebec takes the cake.
Not content to use the formula that allows the CEQ to modify ridings by the 25% plus or minus rules, the commision used its discretionary power in invoking  the 'special circumstances' rule to create two Montreal ridings with 62,000 voters compared to the 11,800 voters that elect a MNA in Iles des Madeleines, an obscene difference of almost six to one.
That's right it takes about six voters in D'Arcy McGee and Mont-Royal-Outremont to mimic the voting power of one Madelinot!

Imagine if votes were divided by race instead of geography and we told Anglos, Jews, Blacks and immigrants that it would take six of their votes to equal one Francophone vote.
Too much?  I think not. Fairness is fairness.

So what are these special circumstances that make it so compelling to bastardize the election ideal of one person/one vote?
The old chestnut trotted out is that outlying ridings are so geographically large that MPs are disadvantaged by travel and deserve smaller ridings despite population.

But this is not the case with the Magdalen Islands... far from it.
The Magdalen Islands are an isolated two island community in the  middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, accessible only by air or sea.
While this is true, if the riding was twinned with the closet geographical neighbour, Gaspe, the total electors would number about 42,000, still under the provincial average.
As for hardship, there are at least two flights a day between the two districts , flights that take less than hour. Once arrived in the Islands, travel is very simple as the population is very concentrated.

As for special economic circumstances that makes it compelling to  have an MP with such a sparse population, there is none.
Islanders are Canada's biggest layabouts, with the season of its biggest industry, lobster fishing, lasting just ten weeks a year, with fishers and employees in the processing living on employment insurance the rest of the year.
Islanders are renowned for their indolence and dependence on Canadians for permanent welfare. Here is what controversial radio host Andre Arthur had to say about them, much to the consternation of locals.

The Magdalen Islands is a place where residents spend the year on the BS (employment insurance,) or on either auto insurance benefits or on workman's accident insurance, where in the summer they exploit tourists in a shameful way. Every time I was in the Magdalen Islands, I felt like I was visiting an Indian reservation, that is, a place where all those who actually work, come from the outside. The people of the Islands are at home with both feet propped up in front of the stove, saying: "When will my check arrive?

 Here is an audio of the screed in French

By the way, that employment insurance is paid by Ottawa, so there is really no compelling business for a Quebec MNA other than to insure that the Ottawa welfare pipeline is maintained.

Democracy is fragile, its biggest enemy are those who chip away at its fundamental tenets quietly through bureaucracy and regulation.  It remains our civic duty to defend the principles of democracy, because if we leave it up to politicians and bureaucrats, we will find ourselves stripped of our rights......  and by the way, we are already half way there.

Quebec Separatist Forces Melt Down

It's fair to say that those militating for Quebec sovereignty come in all sorts of political stripes, supporting a diverse range of political ideologies running the gamut of the alt-left of Quebec Solidaire, to the centrist Parti Quebecois and even the conservative element, the barely alive Option nationale of ex-leader Jean-Martin Aussant.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that unless these forces agree to work together, or 'converge' as is the term used by sovereigntist forces determined to unite the movement that the chances of success, already slim to none, are effectively out the window.

With this in mind separatist forces created an action committee to facilitate an agreement whereby cooperation would lead to some sort of a breakthrough through cooperation.

But this didn't happen, Quebec Solidaire signed the deal, but asked that it be kept secret until a party congress and then welshed on the deal rather abruptly.
And so we are witness to what can be charitably called a 'Mexican Standoff' whereby separatists are pointing guns at each other, unable to withdraw or advance.

The Liberals and the CAQ can not believe their good fortune and so it is to be that different separatist forces will battle it out for the small sliver of the sovereigntist slice of the electoral pie next October in the next provincial election.

The seemingly bizarre position of Quebec Solidaire actually makes sense when one considers what they are...idiots who never really want power anyways because they would be forced to implement their childish agenda. For them the peanut gallery is the place where they want to be, pitching nonsense ideas with no consequences.

For PQ leader Jean-François Lisée the utter stupidity of QS quitting the alliance is particularly hard to swallow, his deception apparent as he labelled the leadership of QS leadership 'members of a politburo' an nasty jab labeling them as commies.

For those who think we have a bad government in Philippe Couillard's Liberals, could you imagine a independent Quebec run by a coalition government where the likes of fools like  Manon Massé actually had power.

There is a sad reality that hangs over the Quebec independence movement, that is there are too many divergent opinions, opinions that are impossible to square.

So perhaps Quebecers may see a real option next year's election, a battle between realistic political philosophies, the conservative  CAQ versus the center of the road Liberals.
Usually it would be a no brainer, with the Liberals winning once again, but the taint of scandal and corruption isn't going away and perhaps with the sovereignty vote split and irrelevant, the CAQ might just slip in.
I'm actually hoping so.

We are All Sitting Ducks for Terrorists

Watching the sad drama unfold over the terrorist attack in Manchester we can only pass on our condolences to the families of the dead and wounded and wax reflective that there by the grace of God we go.

Terrorism can happen anywhere and there is little we are able or perhaps better said, willing to do  about it.

The Manchester attack underscores that front-line security has its limits and that a determined terrorist can usually succeed, because the soft underbelly of society can never be protected.

Look at this picture of fans streaming into the Bell Centre in Montreal which is typical of every major sports facility in North America.
While fans need to pass through a metal detector and perhaps a search in order to get in, the bottleneck outside the building created by this security check is a target waiting to be attacked. How hard would it be for a terrorist to wade into this crowd and blow up a suicide vest.?
How many would die and how many fans would be injured?
It's not something we like to think about and so we try to block it out of our mind.

Paradoxically the panicked fans fleeing the Manchester Arena in the wake of the bomb were safer inside the building than outside and therein lies the problem, you can't have security everywhere and it's pretty easy to figure out where and when the public is vulnerable.

The authorities are quick to label that these attacks are committed by lone wolves, impossible to trace, but the reality is that nobody lives in a vacuum and those around the terrorist are usually pretty aware of the danger he poses.
The Manchester bomber has already been identified as a radicalized Muslim and had displayed dangerous behavior that had those around him concerned. The imam of the mosque where the terrorist attended was fearful for his life after giving a sermon condemning ISIS.
Why didn't anyone drop a dime?

At any rate western society is doomed to repeat this cycle of terrorism because we are not willing to sacrifice civil liberties in order to root out potential terrorists.

In Canada we haven't had a real terrorist attack, just a couple of nut jobs that inflicted very limited damage in the name of Allah. I say 'limited damage' with respect to the dead, whose families don't see the attack as something minor.
So we are all for liberty and civil rights and for personal freedom from surveillance, that is until a serious terrorist attack happens here.
I wonder what a similar attack on a major Canadian arena with multiple deaths of children would have on that perception.  

Here is a hypothetical story of counter-terrorism that is a test of one's real values.

A group of three terrorists are caught but others in the cell got away and have planted a massive car bomb somewhere in the city.
The interrogator fruitlessly tries to get the terrorists to confess but with time running out and torture not an option because of the time constraint, the police officer pulls his gun out of his holster and tells the terrorists that if they don't reveal the location, he will shoot them one by one and bury the remains in a pig sty, thus blocking any perceived ascent to Heaven.
The terrorists remain silent and so the officer places the gun to the temple of the first terrorist and counts down from three, shooting dead the terrorist in front of the others
He then moves on to the second  and tells the trembling terrorist he is next. The terrorist hesitates and the policeman pulls the trigger.
The third terrorist confesses and the police clear the square where the bomb would have certainly killed and maimed hundreds.

And so gentle reader, my question to you. Did the ends justify the means?

Here is a clip from the Untouchables where Sean Connery's character takes matters into his own hands in interrogating a crook.
And yes, unbeknownst to all, the 'victim' was already dead.
BTW...Gotta love the Mountie's reaction.