re:canola. Apparently, canola contributes more than twice the GDP to Canada as automobiles do ($43b vs $19b, going off the news reports I've seen from the last year). It's interesting just how much hang-wringing is done over automobiles, but tariffs on canola doesn't warrant anywhere near as much coverage.
Justin Trudeau's comment about the Americans voting against Kamala Harris because of anti-feminism or whatever really didn't get enough lookback. Did no journalist want to ask him about those comments again after Mark Carney gave Chrystia Freeland an 86% - 8% drubbing? I'd like to hear his thoughts on the apparently women-hating Liberal party members.
Per bail reforms, there was a headline just today that the person who murdered his sister and stabbed seven others in a stabbing spree in Manitoba was out on bail. This is, sadly, a far too common story these days. I think one of the Canadian satirical news sites should basically copy The Onion and write a "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" headline and refresh it every time it occurs. Being compared to the Americans in an embarrassing way sometimes appears the only way to cajole a lot of Canadians out of their fugue state.
When I voted in 2020 in AZ there were almost 80 choices in the ballot. There were only 3 US presidential choices. The rest were for state governor, assorted state executives, federal and state senator and federal and state representatives, county sheriff, retention of state judge, and a whole bunch of voter initiated propositions including borrowing etc. Trump vs Harris was only a minor part. Our state elected a gay female democrat governor but the state chamber narrowly went Republican. All this to say is that the Harris Trump choice was only a small part of the process and the male female issue even less. Party policies are a much stronger part of the equation. You can even vote a straight ticket in some states where you choose all the candidates from one or the other party. And all the candidates at some time had to win a primary among their party membership to even be candidates. Unlike say Ontario where the premier appointed a whole bunch of candidates.
To be fair, I don't think that Freeland is more obviously qualified than Carney in the same way that Harris was much, much more qualified than Trump for their contested political positions. What's arguably unique in the American case is that no amount of qualification was good enough for a woman to beat an unqualified man, not that a man merely beat a woman in a contest.
That is not to say that I agree that sexism was the dominant factor. Although the Republican base expressed ugly sexism towards Harris, swing voters decided less on the basis of her gender than just on the fact of her being an unknown and unfamiliar figure. And for diplomatic reasons of course, it is not the job of the Prime Minister of Canada to weigh in on all this.
In the 1980s I was living in suburban Ottawa with a wife and two small children. I heard from a man I had known when I was young and who had become a hardened criminal, with multiple long jail sentences. He was quite violent, and I still bear a scar. Out of the blue, I heard from him, he was now in Ottawa, and he wanted to see me. I didn't want to see him, and I worried about my family. So I convinced my wife that this was a perfect time to visit with her relatives, and packed her and the children off for two weeks, Those two weeks, I slept with a loaded .303 beside the bed. Luckily he didn't show up, and after the two weeks, I felt comfortable enough to resume a normal, albeit watchful, life.
The thought of alerting the police briefly entered my mind, but I dismissed it. My faith in the police was not that high, after having experienced their reaction to two burglaries. I would have shot Mike in the legs if I had had to. Luckily it never came to that.
The truth is that there are two different standards of justice in Canada when it comes to self defence. The general public will have the book thrown at them if they defy elite opinion and use deadly force to defend their family at home. Those who live in the right places, have the means to hire top legal talent without a sweat and those well connected need not worry. Canada's elite are nothing if not "do as I say, not as I do."
This is the problem with ambiguous (up to interpretation) law that is all too common in Canada, such as with self defence. Our "may issue" and not "shall issue" rights in fact are a big problem in our society, and again predicated as most cultural things in Canada are, on avoiding confrontation and hard decisions. Even areas such as investment arr impacted by the lack of hard lines and predictability. Our Charter in fact enshrines it.
Canada will have a lot of work to do in modernizing our country from the cultural foundation on up once the boomers finally step out of the way.
As for Conservatives going "all in" on self defence, I don't believe it. Until self defence is recognized as a legitimate reason to own a firearms and tools such as mace and tasers are not prohibited it's all the usual populist "trick the rubes" claptrap from the Poilievre Conservatives.
Canadian gun owners gave up a lot when they abandoned self defence as a legitimate reason to own firearms, and are now relegated to defending a "hobby" as they lose firearm after firearm to disingenuous Liberals pandering to demographics who couldn't tell a machine gun from a Nerf gun spray painted black.
"Yes, strictly speaking I don't need an AR-15 with a 50-round drum mag to hunt, but I do need it to make sure I respond with appropriately overwhelming force if a group of drugged out losers try to break into my house and mess with my things and family, so kindly fuck off."
Jen, you called these Project 2025 guys “black hats”… I thought I heard “blackheads” and I’ll now forever think of them as pimples. This works for me. 👏
The Chinese EV tariff issue is more complicated than just an auto industry protection action (though I am sure that was a big part of it) or because the Americans told us to do it (but again, also a significant factor. I know The Line has access to notable experts in national security and technology so I would be interested to read or listen to more on some of those aspects of the issue
Good stuff, as usual. On the crime beat, I have come around to a "3 strikes and you're out" approach. Not saying that a resume of, for example, shoplifting, mischief and tweeting that no mass graves have been found in Kelowna yet, should get you locked up forever. We're talking about violent crime - three convictions for violent offences (we can come up with our precise definition of "violent" at a later time) and you're put away for life. End of discussion. Maybe we let you out when you are 75 years old and have no testosterone left but maybe we don't. (For now, let's ignore the fact the SCC as presently constituted would never allow this.)
The fact is, there are "bad seeds" out there who will never change - we all KNOW this. And there's a famous study from, I think, Sweden, from, I think, 10 years ago or so, showing that 1% of the population is responsible for 63% of all violent crime. You wanna' significantly reduce violent crime, lock up that 1% FOR GOOD.
When I voted in 2024 in AZ there were almost 80 choices in the ballot. There were only 3 US presidential choices. The rest were for state governor, assorted state executives, federal and state senator and federal and state representatives, county sheriff, retention of state judge, and a whole bunch of voter initiated propositions including borrowing etc. Trump vs Harris was only a minor part. Our state elected a gay female democrat governor but the state chamber narrowly went Republican. All this to say is that the Harris Trump choice was only a small part of the process and the male female issue even less. Party policies are a much stronger part of the equation. You can even vote a straight ticket in some states where you choose all the candidates from one or the other party. And all the candidates at some time had to win a primary among their party membership to even be candidates. Unlike say Ontario where the premier appointed a whole bunch of candidates.
Jen continues to believe Canada is now post-woke. Woke's precursor label was cancel culture. Its premise was/is that there is one truth and anything else is heresy.
Just last month an American Christian singer had Canadian shows cancelled because Trump voters like him. The Liberal Party sees itself as progressive. It must retain its cultural purity so cancelling a Project 2025 person is de rigour. Carney the outsider is still learning who's onside and who's not.
re:canola. Apparently, canola contributes more than twice the GDP to Canada as automobiles do ($43b vs $19b, going off the news reports I've seen from the last year). It's interesting just how much hang-wringing is done over automobiles, but tariffs on canola doesn't warrant anywhere near as much coverage.
Justin Trudeau's comment about the Americans voting against Kamala Harris because of anti-feminism or whatever really didn't get enough lookback. Did no journalist want to ask him about those comments again after Mark Carney gave Chrystia Freeland an 86% - 8% drubbing? I'd like to hear his thoughts on the apparently women-hating Liberal party members.
Per bail reforms, there was a headline just today that the person who murdered his sister and stabbed seven others in a stabbing spree in Manitoba was out on bail. This is, sadly, a far too common story these days. I think one of the Canadian satirical news sites should basically copy The Onion and write a "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" headline and refresh it every time it occurs. Being compared to the Americans in an embarrassing way sometimes appears the only way to cajole a lot of Canadians out of their fugue state.
When I voted in 2020 in AZ there were almost 80 choices in the ballot. There were only 3 US presidential choices. The rest were for state governor, assorted state executives, federal and state senator and federal and state representatives, county sheriff, retention of state judge, and a whole bunch of voter initiated propositions including borrowing etc. Trump vs Harris was only a minor part. Our state elected a gay female democrat governor but the state chamber narrowly went Republican. All this to say is that the Harris Trump choice was only a small part of the process and the male female issue even less. Party policies are a much stronger part of the equation. You can even vote a straight ticket in some states where you choose all the candidates from one or the other party. And all the candidates at some time had to win a primary among their party membership to even be candidates. Unlike say Ontario where the premier appointed a whole bunch of candidates.
To be fair, I don't think that Freeland is more obviously qualified than Carney in the same way that Harris was much, much more qualified than Trump for their contested political positions. What's arguably unique in the American case is that no amount of qualification was good enough for a woman to beat an unqualified man, not that a man merely beat a woman in a contest.
That is not to say that I agree that sexism was the dominant factor. Although the Republican base expressed ugly sexism towards Harris, swing voters decided less on the basis of her gender than just on the fact of her being an unknown and unfamiliar figure. And for diplomatic reasons of course, it is not the job of the Prime Minister of Canada to weigh in on all this.
In the 1980s I was living in suburban Ottawa with a wife and two small children. I heard from a man I had known when I was young and who had become a hardened criminal, with multiple long jail sentences. He was quite violent, and I still bear a scar. Out of the blue, I heard from him, he was now in Ottawa, and he wanted to see me. I didn't want to see him, and I worried about my family. So I convinced my wife that this was a perfect time to visit with her relatives, and packed her and the children off for two weeks, Those two weeks, I slept with a loaded .303 beside the bed. Luckily he didn't show up, and after the two weeks, I felt comfortable enough to resume a normal, albeit watchful, life.
The thought of alerting the police briefly entered my mind, but I dismissed it. My faith in the police was not that high, after having experienced their reaction to two burglaries. I would have shot Mike in the legs if I had had to. Luckily it never came to that.
Dead criminals can't sue you for "injury and damages" and they can't testify against you. Just sayin'
Cheers to you. I hope you still have that .303 .
The truth is that there are two different standards of justice in Canada when it comes to self defence. The general public will have the book thrown at them if they defy elite opinion and use deadly force to defend their family at home. Those who live in the right places, have the means to hire top legal talent without a sweat and those well connected need not worry. Canada's elite are nothing if not "do as I say, not as I do."
This is the problem with ambiguous (up to interpretation) law that is all too common in Canada, such as with self defence. Our "may issue" and not "shall issue" rights in fact are a big problem in our society, and again predicated as most cultural things in Canada are, on avoiding confrontation and hard decisions. Even areas such as investment arr impacted by the lack of hard lines and predictability. Our Charter in fact enshrines it.
Canada will have a lot of work to do in modernizing our country from the cultural foundation on up once the boomers finally step out of the way.
As for Conservatives going "all in" on self defence, I don't believe it. Until self defence is recognized as a legitimate reason to own a firearms and tools such as mace and tasers are not prohibited it's all the usual populist "trick the rubes" claptrap from the Poilievre Conservatives.
Canadian gun owners gave up a lot when they abandoned self defence as a legitimate reason to own firearms, and are now relegated to defending a "hobby" as they lose firearm after firearm to disingenuous Liberals pandering to demographics who couldn't tell a machine gun from a Nerf gun spray painted black.
"Yes, strictly speaking I don't need an AR-15 with a 50-round drum mag to hunt, but I do need it to make sure I respond with appropriately overwhelming force if a group of drugged out losers try to break into my house and mess with my things and family, so kindly fuck off."
Jen, you called these Project 2025 guys “black hats”… I thought I heard “blackheads” and I’ll now forever think of them as pimples. This works for me. 👏
Lie back and think of Rosedale.
The Chinese EV tariff issue is more complicated than just an auto industry protection action (though I am sure that was a big part of it) or because the Americans told us to do it (but again, also a significant factor. I know The Line has access to notable experts in national security and technology so I would be interested to read or listen to more on some of those aspects of the issue
Good stuff, as usual. On the crime beat, I have come around to a "3 strikes and you're out" approach. Not saying that a resume of, for example, shoplifting, mischief and tweeting that no mass graves have been found in Kelowna yet, should get you locked up forever. We're talking about violent crime - three convictions for violent offences (we can come up with our precise definition of "violent" at a later time) and you're put away for life. End of discussion. Maybe we let you out when you are 75 years old and have no testosterone left but maybe we don't. (For now, let's ignore the fact the SCC as presently constituted would never allow this.)
The fact is, there are "bad seeds" out there who will never change - we all KNOW this. And there's a famous study from, I think, Sweden, from, I think, 10 years ago or so, showing that 1% of the population is responsible for 63% of all violent crime. You wanna' significantly reduce violent crime, lock up that 1% FOR GOOD.
When I voted in 2024 in AZ there were almost 80 choices in the ballot. There were only 3 US presidential choices. The rest were for state governor, assorted state executives, federal and state senator and federal and state representatives, county sheriff, retention of state judge, and a whole bunch of voter initiated propositions including borrowing etc. Trump vs Harris was only a minor part. Our state elected a gay female democrat governor but the state chamber narrowly went Republican. All this to say is that the Harris Trump choice was only a small part of the process and the male female issue even less. Party policies are a much stronger part of the equation. You can even vote a straight ticket in some states where you choose all the candidates from one or the other party. And all the candidates at some time had to win a primary among their party membership to even be candidates. Unlike say Ontario where the premier appointed a whole bunch of candidates.
Jen continues to believe Canada is now post-woke. Woke's precursor label was cancel culture. Its premise was/is that there is one truth and anything else is heresy.
Just last month an American Christian singer had Canadian shows cancelled because Trump voters like him. The Liberal Party sees itself as progressive. It must retain its cultural purity so cancelling a Project 2025 person is de rigour. Carney the outsider is still learning who's onside and who's not.
Carney the "Liberal" INSIDER - for at least 15 years.