100 Things the USA Should Be Ashamed Of...

It's coming up to Christmas and New Year's and as such a holiday time where we put our negativism and critical energy away for a few weeks.

In keeping with the spirit I shall remain irreverant to the end of the year.

Here's a lighthearted and not-so-lighthearted view of what's wrong with the United States.
By the way, no politicians included because they'd take up all 100 places!
...and don't worry, I'll be getting around to Canada next.

1. US citizens arrogantly anointing themselves 'Americans'
2. Omitting the 'U' from words like 'colour' or 'valour.'
3. Stupid uni-coloured green money and referring coloured currency as "Monopoly Money'
4. The useless penny and one dollar bill
5. Using 'Entreé' to describe the main course in a restaurant.
6. Constantly weather complaining about that annoying 'Canadian Cold Front'
7. Elections every week.
8. Unable to count votes properly or in a timely fashion
9. Hysterical partisan news coverage
10. Pronouncing "Montreal as 'Mohn-Tree-All' or Toronto as 'Tor-on-Toe'
11. Black Friday hysteria
12. Fahrenheit, ounces, pounds and feet.
13. The Electoral College
14. Gigantic doughy and tasteless New York-style bagels.
15. Flagpoles and flags in front of private residences.
16. Pronouncing 'Zee' instead of the proper 'Zed'
17. The 'First Lady,' as a pitiful substitution for the Queen.
18. Righteous indignation over Russian election interference while the CIA remains the biggest foreign election interferer.
19. Constant complaining about illegal immigrants while shamelessly exploiting them as cheap labour.
20. 'Stand your Ground' laws
21. Too many natural disasters like hurricanes, droughts, mudslides, floods, tornados and wildfires. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!
22. Taxes on lottery winnings
23. 'Venti-mocha-cookie-Frappuccino with 6 shots of expresso'...aaahhhh!
24. Appropriating 'Poutine' and describing its origins as Canadian instead of Quebecois.
25. ...and its pale imitation, the ever-disgusting 'Disco Fries' and 'Waffle Fries'
26. 'Tonite' instead of 'Tonight'....Really?
27. Bullet-proof school knapsacks.
28. Super-sized portions for a super-sized nation
29. No mustard on burgers and no vinegar or mayonnaise for fries.
30. Horrible Mexican fast-food that look the same going in and going out.
31. No steamed-hot dogs or thick-cut fries in fast-food chains and strangely, outside of upstate New York, no Michigan Hotdogs.
32. Thinking they know something about hockey. Commentators using the terms 'Dasher' and 'Cycle'
33. Cheerleading as a competitive sport.
34. Massive homeless population
35. Ambulance-chasing lawyers and prescription medicine advertisements 
36. Using the word 'Soda' or 'Pop.'
37. Cheese-filled crust pizza
38. 'Mac'n Cheese' instead of the proper 'Kraft Dinner.'
39. Drive-through banks
40. Trigger-happy cops
41. Obsession with the Bible and fundamentalist bible thumpers
42. Clueless winter-weather drivers who can't drive in snowstorms, plus 18 wheel drivers who immediately jackknife in the face of a dusting of snow.
43. Using the term 'ice hockey' but not 'tackle football'
44. Unsingable national anthem
45. Anti-vaxers.
46. Creationists and intelligent design
47. 70% of Americans now describe themselves as 'VICTIMS' while others describe 70% of Americans as 'PRIVILEGED'
48. Asians punished in university admissions for being too smart and dedicated.
49. No 'Smarties' Caramilk, Coffee Crisp, Aero or Mae Wests
50. 'Kinder Surprise" banned as a danger to society but rapid-fire assault rifles are okay.
51. Obsessional reverence of 200-year-old obsolete Constitution.
52. Right to bear arms
53. 21 years age minimum to drink....18 to buy a gun.
54. Pronouncing 'Iraq and Iran as 'Eye-Raq' and 'Eye-Ran'
55. Promoting the fantasy that Canadians pronounce 'ABOUT as 'A-BOOT.'
56. Interminable chutzpah of Americans who never travel abroad believing that the USA is by far the greatest country in the world and the best place to live.
57. Televised beauty pageants, cooking and dance competitions for children.
58. Left-lane highway hoggers
59. Emotional support animals
60. Referring to Back Bacon" as 'Canadian Bacon..'
61. Unhealthy portions
62. Hipsters
63. A technologically advanced society that hasn't yet embraced chipped credit cards.
64. Christian TV evangelists
65. Amazon package thieves
66. Mass shootings
67. Brainless politicians who ask the public to pray every time there's a mass shooting.
68. The NRA, bump stocks, assault rifles and open carry
69. Fat people yoga pants
70. Weirdos in Walmart
71. Hot-dog eating contests
72. Ambulance chasing lawyers
73. The Western Baptist Church
74. The Kardashians
75. Referring to American baseball championship as the 'World Series'
76. 2-year, billion dollar Presidential election campaigns featuring endless primaries
77. Idiot elections for judges, district attorneys and sheriffs resulting in crooked judges and cops
78. For-profit jails
79. Political Action Committees (PACS) and nasty negative political ads on TV- "I approve this message!
80. Health insurance and co-pays
81. Personal bankruptcies caused by medical bills.
82. Nation of litigious idiots suing over nothing and gazillion-dollar jury awards.
83. Ridiculously expensive college tuition resulting in....forever student loans.
84. Violent anti-abortion, Antifa and White Supremacists activists.
85. Annoying Robocalls
86. Crackers and Rednecks and Bible Thumpers
87. Ambulance chasing lawyers
88. Confederate flag
89. Civil forfeiture
90. Childhood obesity
91. Corporate political donations
92. Unnecessary and costly mid-term elections
93. TSA pat-downs of children, old people and invalids
94. Astronomical prescription medicine cost
95. Helicopter and Lawnmower parents
96. Inner city ghettos and gangs speaking in Ebonics.  'AXED" instead of 'ASKED'
97. Misogynist Rap music lyrics
98. Snowflakes and Safe spaces for fragile millennials
99. Huge prison population serving incredibly long sentences
100. and general rank stupidity of Americans where.....

• 51%  don't believe in Evolution. 
• 55%  believe that the Constitution established America as a Christian nation. 
• 51% don’t trust the Big Bang theory.
• 56% believe that vaccines cause autism.
• Only 38% believe the Civil War was fought over slavery
• 77% believe in Angels
• 18% believe the Sun revolves around the Earth
• 33% believe in ghosts
• 20% are counting on winning a lottery as their retirement plan
• 33% believe Bigfoot exists 
• 60% believe dreams predict future
• 26% believe in witchcraft
• 42% believe that homosexuals choose their orientation
• 75% have at least one paranormal belief
• 7% think chocolate milk comes brown cows
• 25% believe God has a role to play in who wins the Super Bowl
• 41% believe in psychics
• 40% believe that spiritual powers lie in objects like trees and crystals
• 62% say you have to believe in God to be a moral person

aaahhhhh!!!!!......... 

BTW... Care to add something??

Quebec's Humiliating Reaction to Equalization

"Legault promises zero equalization"  "Go ahead we're listening!" credit Ygrek

Quebec Premier Francois Legault was widely panned in the West for referring to Alberta crude as 'dirty oil' and for saying that he didn't want a pipeline crossing Quebec to ferry it to refineries in the Maritimes.

He said this just before it was announced that Quebec would be receiving a whopping $13.1 billion in equalization payments from Ottawa, a portion of which is paid for by this same dirty oil.

The political cartoon by Ygreck mocks Legault for promises made in the National Assembly

"What I want to say to Quebeckers is that a CAQ government will target zero equalization," said Mr. Legault. A CAQ government will eliminate the wealth gap with the rest of Canada. A CAQ government will have ambition and plan  big for Quebec. "

Ha!Ha!
Today Legault reminds me of the mythical broke-ass, unemployed brother-in-law who freeloads on your couch and complains about the free food.
Yup...
Like Rob Ford, Legault is off to a maladroit start, both gaffing rather publicly, displaying a lack of sophistication and deficient political skills.

Legault's jab at Alberta's 'dirty oil' had his own cabinet members wincing at the lack of manners, unbefitting of a Premier. It fell to Sonia Lebel to try and mitigate the damage to Alberta/Quebec relations via a statement wherein she clarified that both provinces enjoy good relations. This after Alberta Premier Rachel Notely furiously scolded Quebec telling reporters that Alberta's oil pays for Quebec schools.

What is interesting and a bit amusing is the reaction in the French press to the equalization payment and its relation to 'dirty oil.'
Even more interesting is the hysterical reaction in the comments section below these stories, both of which I'd like to offer you a glimpse of.

There is of course fact and then there is opinion, but in Quebec, it seems that opinion is considered fact by some journalists and a considerable portion of their readership.

(my translation) They try to embarrass us with the $13 billion figure, omitting to mention that $5 billion comes from Quebec. Net, it is $8 billion that remains which insures that equal services are available as compared to other provinces. Rejean Parent-Journal du Montreal

Mr. Parent must be mathematically or factually challenged or both. 

Of the $13 billion that Ottawa sends to Quebec, he claims that Quebec contributes $5 billion of the amount or about 39%.  Really????

Where and how can Quebec possibly do so? It would mean that Quebec contributes 39% of Ottawa's revenues with 23% of the Canadian population.

By the way, a recurring theme in the comments sections is that Quebec pays 23% of Ottawa's revenues because it has 23% of the Canadian population. 

This, of course, is nonsense. With its 23% of Canada's population, Quebec actually contributes just 18%.

Of the $13 billion in equalization that Quebec is to get this year, the truth is that Quebec contributes just $2.4 billion to it.

Mr. Parent goes on with more nonsense.....,.

(my translation)" It would be easy to believe in a conspiracy theory imagining that equalization was invented so that Quebecers would feel lousy and dependent on the generosity of other provinces, however, I am convinced that the federalists did not even think that."

If you don't believe it's true, why mention it, other than to plant the seed of doubt.

More dishonesty.

(my translation) "In the meantime, there is no reason to say thank you to the other provinces because we are just receiving what we contribute in taxes in Ottawa."

Really?? This is the irrational mindset of the idiot element of the nationalist movement.

As for separatist resident apologist Josée Legault's take on the equalization story, it's just a case of the same old/same old Quebec-bashing, using the comparison of a husband humiliating his wife by reminding her that without his income, she'd be up shit's creek. Link{fr}

Not all French journalists were inventing facts to mitigate the shame of the equalization payment and in an article entitled "Quebec wins the big prize of $13 billion" in the Journal du Montreal, Michel Girard, lays out the naked truth, fact by fact. If you have French I highly recommend reading it. Link

Some of his points;

• In terms of disposable income (after taxes and social contributions), Quebec is at the tail end, with its meagre income of $28,785 per capita, $4,548 less than in the rest of Canada. 
• As for GDP per capita, Quebec ranks 7th out of 10, with an amount of $ 50,276. 
• Our productivity shows a deficit of $ 10,638 in per capita GDP compared to the rest of the country.
• "Last week when François Legault put a stop to the construction of a new pipeline that would cross Quebec's territory to transport oil from the west to New Brunswick, the frustration of the premiers of Western Canada climbed up another notch. They feel largely cheated by the Equalization program. They are all the more frustrated when the Legault government tries to sell its "clean energy" to the provinces while pocketing $ 13 billion thanks to their oil that he describes as 'dirty energy."

At any rate, it was a bit amusing to read the comments under these various stories, some offering feeble excuses meant to belie the apparent humiliation and shame.

• "First of all, it is not the western provinces that pay equalization, it is the federal government; therefore more or less 23% of our equalization received is paid by ourselves. On the other hand, the western provinces would only have to tax their citizens more: this would increase their fiscal capacity and could lead them to receive it. 
• In fact, equalization is a federal program paid for by taxpayers .... The provinces do not send a cent to Quebec, contrary to what these provinces tell the people.
• We are far from being beggars! Through taxes, we send Ottawa $ 53 billion each year. Through equalization, it only gives us $13 billion, of which we contributed about 23%. What is Trudeau doing with the rest of our money? Ottawa is not giving us a present!
• François Legault has been on the job for two months and has nothing to do with this federal grand prize. If Quebec is in the Canadian welfare club it is rather thanks to the good work of the undermining Quebec Liberal party which has continued to applaud each sale of flagship Quebec companies. And when Hydro-Québec is finally sold, we will be all be forced to speak English ...
• Oil is subsidized by the federal government. Hydro-electricity was financed by Quebec with the help of American banks while Alberta burned its wheat because it was unable to sell it and so received equalization to survive ...
• They must regret the famous Love-In of 1995? Should have thought about it before.
• Do English schools in Quebec not also benefit from this money?

• If English Canada is angry with the cost of the Occupation of Quebec, it has only to end it by withdrawing. It won't be the first time that a foreign occupation declares defeat.

But surprisingly, there were more realistic and well thought out comments, showing that ordinary Quebecers are no longer led by the nose by bullshitting journalists and politicians

• The hatred of some is such that one prefers to do business with Saudi Arabia than Alberta. It's really sad and pathetic.
• Whether we like it or not, we receive a lot more than we give to the Canadian federation because equalization means that the rich provinces pay for the poor. We are poor because of our low productivity (the highest level of unionization in North America) and we live on the arm of Albertans and spit on our benefactors
• You have to be honest with yourself. Say tomorrow morning Petro-Canada comes knocking on your door to pass an oil pipeline on your property in exchange of $1 million, be honest with your answer. Would you say yes or no? If you say yes, your reasoning in writing the earlier comment does not hold water. If you say no and hold out for $2 million,  does the answer become yes? If it's still no, which I doubt, we'll end up finding the amount where you're going to say yes. Which leads us to conclude that humans are green only when it suits them.
• To believe that Albertan oil money does not entitle us to benefits in Quebec is utopian. Raise your hand and swear that you are ready to give up the  $13 billion we get which will be spent on important services in exchange for a stop in Albertan oil production. Go ahead, get your hand on the Bible and swear it!
• I must admit that the logic behind the calculation of equalization frightens me. ''The more that I prevent the person who gives me charity to become rich, the more that this person must give me charity ' 
• Here we prefer to receive the BS check (welfare) and cry rather than exploit what we have to potentially give up being beggars.
• And yes, when we come down to Earth and get off our high horse, we pick up the spoils, without saying thank you or offering our help ... that's our reputation.
• I see that you do not understand the Canadian tax system. All the money we send to Ottawa comes back in different forms to Quebec plus the bonus of equalization. We should work hand in hand with Western Canada. Quebec takes but is too selfish to help.

and my favourite comment of all.....

• Why does Legault criticize Albertan oil? Alberta pollutes its own territory and Quebec picks up the cash!

Legault Decision to Cut Immigrants Dooms Quebec

Watching Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May's painful struggle over an impossible successful Brexit strategy, I am reminded that sometimes there is just no good outcome to be had.

And so it seems that Premier Francois Legault's hasty decision to cut immigration to Quebec is a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' scenario, as well.
There will also be no good outcome.

It is painfully obvious that Quebec needs immigrants but doesn't seem to want any, at least according to the CAQ, lest they pollute and further dilute the linguistic, cultural and historical makeup of Quebec.
But clearly the decision to curtail immigration will have ramifications, both on Quebec's shrinking workforce and its demographic weight in Canada.
For once, regardless of which side of the fence on immigration you sit, the underlying numbers are clear to all.
In 1960 Quebecers gave birth to 144,000 babies a year, a number which has steadily declined to just 84,000 births this last year, a precipitous drop.

Quebec (as well as all successful western democracies) does not produce enough babies to maintain its population base. It takes a reproduction rate of 2.1 births per woman to maintain a stable population, but Quebec's rate has fallen to 1.56.

When it comes to political decisions, voters are clearly incapable of judging the effects of policy over the long term, but raising taxes, cutting benefits or raising tuition or sales tax in the immediate almost certainly results in a visceral negative public reaction. Look what happened to the Liberals over proposed university tuition rises where student demonstrations became violent.
In contrast, Justin Trudeau's decision to goose the deficit through obscene over spending is garnering not a whiff of protest because its effects are in the future, and for voters, out of sight is definitely out of mind. Paradoxically the federal Liberal government's decision to add a hundred or two billion to the federal deficit will cost those same students, the ones who went apeshit over tuition hikes much more in the long run  because of the increased future taxes that they will pay, needed to service that new debt.

The same can be said of Legault's decision to cut immigration to Quebec where the effect will take years to materialize and so its effect on voters today is minimal.

But if Premier Legault believes he can cure Quebec's immigration conundrum with the wave of his hand and with a quick ill-thought out policy, he is as clueless as Doug Ford in believing his rash decision to cut spending on Ontario francophones would pass unchallenged.

First some facts that Premier Legault should understand.
Quebec needs to shore up its population....period.
If the decision to cut immigration stands, then Quebec's population will start to diminish while the rest of Canada's will increase.
That's right, this decision will undermine Quebec's demographic weight in Canada, which is already declining year to year.
I'm not sure that voters who understand this fact will be pleased.

Premier's Legault's decision can be seen as playing to his base, voters outside the greater Montreal region, in the boonies where immigrants seen from afar, are considered a clear and present danger.

The view from the hinterland is that the Quebec that they grew up in, the one they live in, is under attack from barbarians at the gate, bent on imposing Islam upon them and their children.
And let us be honest, all this angst over immigration is based on the fear of Muslims and Muslims alone. If immigration was exclusive of Muslims, the opposition to immigration would collapse.

Paradoxically, the lack of potential workers is sharpest in the boonies, because the immigrants who do come to Quebec, choose to settle almost exclusively in the greater Montreal region.
The lack of manpower is starting to hurt quite a bit and some towns are creating job fairs and bussing in potential workers from the immigrant community in Montreal, perhaps accepting that a small community of immigrants amongst the lily-white pseudo-Catholic Francophone towns is preferable to losing industries wholesale due to labour shortages.

Cutting immigration will only exacerbate the problem and while Legault's immigration edict may be a feel-good policy for his base in the short-term, the effects will be palpable much sooner than later.

As Quebec shrinks and Canada expands, voices in Quebec will shriek that its all unfair.
That Canada chooses to allow sufficient immigration in order to maintain its population while Quebec does not, will be portrayed as a plot to drown out Quebec's demographic weight in Canada.
Perhaps it is.....

What can be done?
I've always been puzzled by the absolute silence over the birthrate in Quebec by politicians and nationalist pundits and spokesman.
Clearly the easiest way out of the demographic problem is for Quebecers to have more babies. If one out of three francophone women had three children and the other two, there would be no need for any immigrants!

Why hasn't one government or any nationalist organization proposed this obvious home-grown solution? Why doesn't the government offer incentives and why don't nationalist organizations militate for loyal Quebecers to accept their national obligation to save their society?

Instead the government and the nationalist media  rail on and on about immigrants not fulfilling their obligation to join native francophone society, giving up their religious faith and embracing poutine and maple syrup.
For Quebecers it is easier to blame the Anglos for the encroachment of English in Quebec society. Bill 101 was in fact designed not only to keep immigrants out of English schools, but Francophones as well.

For Quebecers, the obligation to preserve Quebec society as French falls on the shoulders of the English and immigrants communities with nothing, no effort at all being asked of the native francophone community.

All this to bring me to the point that Quebecers really don't care. They aren't willing to lift a finger to save their own skins.
No politican or nationalist pundit is brave enough to demand action on birth because they understand they will be laughed at.
Even the extremists in the Bloq Quebecois or the PQ fail to call on Quebecers to save themselves through birth. It is taboo.

Is it because the idea that the responsibility to save one's French own culture falls on Quebec francophones themselves is so outrageous and unrealistic?

The sad truth is that francophone Quebecers want to preserve their language and culture, but want 'les autres' to be responsible for doing so.
As for francophones lifting a finger to do so, it is out of the question, they are too selfish to sacrifice and that is the painful truth.
As for an independent Quebec, what a joke.
Should Quebec ever separate and the true personal cost of sovereignty would be felt, Quebec society would implode.
I think most francophones have realized the personal sacrifice sovereignty would entail and decided to take a pass.
The same goes for immigration where francophone Quebecers  aren't willing to accept any responsibility for their own welfare.

Doug Ford's French Language Disaster

Doug, say it ain't so.....

I want to express my deep disappointment with Ontario Premier Doug Ford's decision to eliminate the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner by consolidating services elsewhere and the decision to shelve plans to build a French-language university in Toronto.

I'm even more disappointed because this decision seems to have the Premier's nasty fingerprints all over it. It is a petty provocation that surly must have been opposed in cabinet by those who understand that the reputational damage to the Ontario Conservative brand will be considerable.

As for cost-cutting, like any program, the money-savings have to be measured by the value of the loss of the program as well as the political implications if any.

I'm sure Doug Ford thought that the decision would be well-received by his constituency but it is indeed a misstep that may lead to a one and done government.
Most Ontarians didn't vote for Ford but rather against Kathleen Weil.  Many of those who voted for him understood his limitations but judged him the better of two evils.
So far he hasn't impressed.

But whether Doug Ford succeeds or not, one thing is for sure, that is that Caroline Mulroney's political career will be permanently wedded to Ford's. As the responsible cabinet member for Francophone affairs, being forced to defend the Ford cuts is the kiss of death politically. Her dreams of perhaps succeeding Ford as leader are dashed and any idea of federal politics is out of the question. She has overnight become as toxic as a Chernobyl three-headed fish, a quisling who chose expediency over her cabinet responsibilities..
Privately, Mulroney should have threatened to resign from cabinet if Ford went ahead with the cuts, and should have done so if Ford called her bluff.
Doing so would have been painful in the short term, but it would have propelled her to superstar status nationally, a politician with backbone and principles, something all Canadians would appreciate.
She'd be a shoo-in to replace Andrew Scheer, if and when he loses to Trudeau in the next election.
Fighting the good fight and accepting the consequences would win her eternal love in Quebec, as well as with Ontario progressives (of which there are millions,) while garnering grudging respect in the rest of Canada.
She missed a golden opportunity to do the right thing and I'm disappointed.

At any rate, the decision to reduce francophone services was wrong not only on a political level but on a moral one as well.
Shelving the creation of a French-language university can also be seen as payback to the progressive city of Toronto which largely voted against Ford. Perhaps he saw the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Ontario has as many francophones as Quebec has anglophones, yet not one dedicated French-language university. All this while Quebec has two and a half English universities, McGill, Concordia and the tiny Bishop's.
Those who argue that Ontario francophones don't deserve their own French-language university, by extension, must believe Quebec anglophones don't deserve theirs either.

Building such an institution in Toronto which actually has a small francophone community may seem paradoxical, but because the institution would become a shining beacon for all Ontario francophones, attracting them from all over the province, it is the logical location.
As they say...build it and they will come.

Such an institution could grow according to need, but if it developed an expertise in certain categories it could become an important Canadian institution.
Today while bilingualism is not an absolute must in the top echelons of government and the civil service, it is an important element and those who possess both languages have a giant advantage. Ambitious anglophones could use the university to develop their language skills if the right program would be offered.
That is just one idea, I'm sure there are other exciting options that would attract a wide base of students.
A French-language university would polish Toronto's already stellar reputation as a university centre, offering an alternative to Montreal for international francophones.

Those neanderthals that tell us that French is just a minority amongst minorities in Ontario do not understand the beautiful reality of Canada's two founding nations, proof to the world that two-language nations can work and flourish when mutual respect abounds.

Yes, the minority English in Quebec are a privileged lot, and so too should the minority French in Ontario.
Respected, protected and nurtured.

Doug Ford needs lessons in civics and history.
He badly misunderstands what Canada is.

Instead of reducing Ontario francophones opportunity to flourish, he should get up in Queen's Park and apologize to Ontario francophones à la Justin Trudeau, for past wrongs.

"Regulation 17, which was enforced from 1912 to 1927, was a shameful chapter in the province’s history that banned elementary schools from using French as a language of instruction beyond grade two. It also capped the amount of teaching time in French for elementary school students to one hour per day, and permitted French-language education only at the specific request of parents. The measure helped permanently weaken the presence of French in southwestern Ontario." Link

That regulation wiped out the francophone culture in southwestern Ontario. It was a shameful act that back then was perceived as reasonable, but by today's standards, cultural and linguistic genocide.

In all this, I am comforted that the large majority of Ontarians feel differently. They value bilingualism and they cherish and respect the Francophone community that enriches Ontario's culture.

Doug Ford is wrong and if Anglophone activists in Quebec don't call him out, we cannot ask for support ourselves.

I call on our community to publically rebuke and reject Doug Ford's regressive and mean-spirited policy.

Canada's Climate Barbie Dumber than Wood

Climate fanatics promoting hysterical predictions of an imminent climate apocalypse remain dumbfounded that there are those like me, who put little stock into their dire predictions of impending gloom and doom.
And so in order to frighten the unbelievers, these climate doomsayers and their political allies ramp up the pressure by making more and more outlandish predictions.

The latest prediction is that the world has but a scant ten or twelve years to turn things around before it is too late and we face an irreversible climate disaster.

This prediction which is meant to frighten disbelievers into action has quite the opposite effect on myself because I know we cannot possibly do what the climate-doomsayers tell us what we must in order to avert disaster.
It is like a hockey coach telling his team which is losing 5-1 with a minute left in the game that they should just push harder in order to win. It isn't going to happen.

I remember that just before the great housing crash of 2006-7 all the experts were pooh-poohing the one investor, Peter Schiff, who predicted with dead accuracy the upcoming financial meltdown. The experts told all who would listen (and we all listened) that the good times would continue to roll along.
Financial experts like Arthur Laffer and Mike Norman went on television citing statistics and fundamentals proving beyond a shadow of a doubt why Schiff was dead wrong. Watch a hilarious video of the idiots and their predictions.
The investment world believed this so-called 'expert consensus ' and subsequently lost gazillions in the crash.
What's the point? Many of these same idiots who were dead wrong then, are back on TV today telling us what to do with our money and predicting how the market will perform tomorrow.
So much for consensus.
As they say..... “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

And so it brings us to the granddaddy of climate-hoaxers, Al Gore, who started the panic, telling us like Chicken Little, that the sky is falling.
His predictions, amongst others, that by today we would all be underwater due to the melting of the polar ice caps has proven to be wrong, or worse a hoax.
At least Gore has the humility to shut up today and say no more.

Then there is the famous 'hockey stick' graph in which scientists presented a dramatic increase in the rise of CO2.
Turns out that British climate scientists deliberately fudged the numbers as was discovered when incriminating emails were publicized by way of a whistle-blower.

The so-called 97% scientist consensus around global-warming is widely cited as irrefutable proof that science is overwhelmingly on the side of man-made global warming.
But the statistic is largely based on papers published. Ask yourself what scientist in his or her right mind would dare to publish a paper decrying the myth of man-made global warming. It would be career suicide and by the way, what university or government would dare fund research debunking the popular theory? None.

Canada's Fraser Institute shot down the 97% myth rather handily;

Not only is there no 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

“Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it...

...In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.”

None of this matters, pesky facts don't mean a whit to Climate keeners the world over who believe what they want to believe because climate change isn't science, but rather religion.

Canada's Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has an impressive resume of feel-good jobs, but absolutely zero background in science and less in economics. One would hope that she would bone up on the science of climate change and the effect of a carbon tax before lecturing Canadians on the subject.
Apparently, she hasn't.

“Environment Minister McKenna cited the deaths in promoting a 12¢-a litre carbon tax under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. “We are all paying the cost of extreme weather events like floods, like droughts, like forest fires, and 90 people died in Québec this summer because of extreme heat,” McKenna told the Commons on October 26.”

HaHa!! What an idiot. Full of degrees and credentials but no brains.
There are lots of people like her in the Trudeau cabinet.

While there is ample room to debate the negative effects of climate change, there is no room to debate whether a warming planet will lead to more deaths.

Last summer Quebec had a heatwave for about two weeks. I wouldn't call it disastrous, it was actually rather nice. This heatwave of about 30 degrees average would be laughed at in Africa, which incidentally has little air-conditioning and suffers precious few deaths due to heat alone.
But the Quebec newspapers started pedalling the nonsense that Quebecers were dropping like flies because of the heat. The stories were so moronic they should have been recognized as fake news

And so our Climate Barbie Environment Minister (yes its a well-deserved pejorative) repeated this nonsense as a dire consequence of climate change.
Someone who purports to lead Canadians in the subject of the environment should do a modicum of fact-checking before speaking. McKenna is so used to espousing bullshit that she sounds like a vapid beauty pageant contestant offering her view on world peace.

Not surprisingly the Quebec government agency that monitors births and deaths recently revealed that there was no increase in deaths in July during the heatwave as compared to years before.

While there may or may not be debate over the effects of global warming, not so over the issue of heat versus cold in relation to premature deaths.

"The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat."

So worldwide, fifteen times as many humans die from cold temperatures as compared to warm temperatures, yet Climate Barbie tells us the opposite.
It isn't a leap to say that as the Earth warms, deaths from cold will decrease and deaths from heat will increase, but the net effect will be a vast overall decrease in deaths due to hot or cold weather.
Climate Barbie should learn arithmetic as well as basic science before lecturing us.
It is sad that idiots like her actually have a say in something like a carbon tax which cannot possibly have any effect on global warming.
How do I know the carbon tax will fail?
Well first its just a plain bad idea, but more importantly, it will fail because the grossly incompetent government of Canada will administer the plan, a government that cannot even pay its own employees properly and this going on for years.
What large company in Canada could get away with not paying employees for weeks or months because of a computer snafu?

At any rate, Canada contributes about one half of one percent of the world's CO2 output, so even a successful carbon tax program that would cut those emissions by say 10% would have almost zero effect, this while China and third world countries ramp up their CO2 emissions as they modernize.

By the way, a carbon tax is useless as long as other trading partners don't install the same tax. The other alternative is to impose trade sanctions against those foreign producers not subject to a carbon tax. None of that could possibly happen.

All these considerations- taxes, science, economics are beyond the scope of Catherine McKenna's expertise, schooling and experience.
She is the perfect example of the Peter Principle, which tells us that employees rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence.

I'll not be lectured on climate (or anything else) by McKenna or Justin, who are just politicians expert at trolling for issues they can exploit.

The world is always getting hotter or colder, this with or without mankind's interference.
At any rate, I'll take hotter over colder any day of the week....