I don’t understand why we are supposed to be so concerned about whether the Conservatives have some theory of how they would do a better job on U.S. trade than Carney. Why isn’t the burden on Carney, who is the actual PM, and has produced precisely nothing?
Some of us said during the campaign that this was a dumb issue on which to decide the election, because there was zero reason to believe ANYBODY could somehow roll Trump or get a good deal out of a volatile guy with zero attention span who has despised free trade for his entire adult life.
But the Libs ran on the idea that being an Oxford-educated guy who spells “organise” with an ‘s’ and has very sharp elbows indeed makes Carney a Trump whisperer, or intimidating to him, or… well the premise was never really all that clear. Nevertheless, it was their ballot question, and he has not yet done the thing he himself set up as the reason we had to elect him. Yet somehow, weirdly, he gets a complete pass and this is the Conservatives’ problem.
During the election the idea was that we have to vote Liberal because they will be very significantly better than Conservatives on U.S. trade, and now not even a year later the test is merely that it’s a wash and Carney is solid as long as the Conservatives aren’t offering any strong reason to think they could do better than the Liberals’ abject (through understandable) failure.
The government has been a disaster, but one that LOOKS and SOUNDS better than Trudeau. Nothing has changed, nothing has gotten better, there is no trade deal.
You’re right that the liberals did a very good job of making that the ballot question. And maybe that is really what the conservatives need to be thinking about - how do they influence the ballot question in their opinion. I don’t think they have a strategy there yet.
I completely agree with this. There may or may not be a snap election, so the CPC has to balance how to survive one if there is vs. how to lay the groundwork for an election years later. But even in the short term, they would live or die on their ability to make the election about affordability or some overlapping but different issue.
They can't win on who hates Trump the most, and shouldn't try. This isn't partisan. It's just not a viable opposition play for anyone; the same thing applies to the Ontario Liberals. They had mediocre execution and were playing a very weak hand, but were strategically dead-on trying to make their election about health care instead of trying to outdo Ford on his Trump tantrum.
That election was something straight out of Bizzaro World. It's like our national immune system not only failed but turned against any attempt to administer medicine to the ailing body politic. I'm still mentally processing it to some degree and have made fairly significant ongoing (and mostly positive though difficult) changes to my life since, based on the thorough realization that 'nobody is coming to save us'.
No one is better at managing Trump, just like nobody is better at preventing volcanic eruptions or negotiating with an earthquake. We aren't even talking about compatible concepts. I'm pretty sure even the Liberals realize this and are just stalling for time which is really the only play available. But their nightmare is that he has a heart attack, or is neutered in the midterms and impeached, which is why they want an election right now. The Trump factor is essentially all they've got. How sad is that?
As others have pointed out, it looks like the main challenge for the CPC is coming up with a plan to manage the critical mass of incredibly stupid and easily manipulated voters who prioritize weird heroic Anti-American fantasy over how much materially worse off most of us are than 11 years ago.
Yes, in his actual dealings with the U.S. on trade, Carney has sometimes seemed conciliatory (as on the Digital Services Tax), sometimes provocative, and occasionally downright obsequious. One can quibble with the details, but it seems reasonable enough in broad strokes.
It's utterly at odds with what he suggested during the election he'd do (all elbows all the time, as if hugely overplaying Canada's hand would self-evidently lead to the best result). Some of the crowd that supported him has been annoyed about that, not that it will change how many of them vote.
On balance I suppose it's better for Carney to govern well by departing from his campaign position than to stick stubbornly to the absolutist rhetoric even when it was never a serious plan for an actual trade policy. If Doug Ford were PM he really might have gone in guns blazing and only then discovered the limits of that approach.
On a lot of matters it seems that Carney thinks himself a kind of Platonic guardian and has no compunction about telling noble lies to get elected, given his apparent contempt for the ability of plebs to understand even mildly difficult questions (like why a patriotic board chair with a fiduciary duty to shareholders would support moving his company's HQ to the U.S.). That's not a great trait in a leader who already has, to say the least, a robust view of his own wisdom and righteousness. But I still prefer better policy over greater rhetorical consistency.
As far as the media is concerned it’s never a measure of how well or poorly the Liberals are doing in government, but rather it’s all hypothetical speculation on how poorly the Conservatives would do if they were in charge.
There’s a place for that, but it should be an afterthought.
I really think the ballot question of 'who is best to handle Trump' was crafted by the news media whether purposeful or not. Lately I'm thinking its purposeful. Most human beings I know agree that it is pointless to negotiate with an imbecile.
There were days during the 2025 election where the entire top two thirds of the G&M and CTV news websites were nothing but stories about Trump, tariffs, and how screwed we are. The headlines often could be paraphrased as "Be Really Scared". It had to have been on purpose.
I thought the media crafting a pro-Liberal Covid and anti-vaxer narrative during the 2021 election was the peak of bullshit I would ever see in this country, but this out did it by triple at least.
You are accurate in saying that transwomen are more likely to be victims of violence in the same way that any given male is more likely to die as a victim of homicide than as the perpetrator of a murder. Transwomen retain male patterns of criminality. They only appear to have a higher rate of victimization if the comparator is females, not other males. See Dinno's 2017 paper. The problem with mis-identifying male criminals is that we are lying to the public about risk. Will this shooter's crime be classified by Stats Canada as a female crime? Are we going to ve told that women in Canada became more violent after 2019? If the shooter had survived, how long would BC have housed him in a women's jail?
pretty much can guarantee this murderer would have been in a female prison. Apparently simply saying you are trans is enough, there is no scrutiny. And if they put this under female crime statistics that will be an f-ing outrage.
We might have to change the categories. This person falls under the persons-with-a-penis heading. The asshole is absolutely not female for the purposes of statistical analysis, regardless of pronoun choice. This should not even be an issue. If it were, do we need to have statistical categories for all pronouns currently in vogue? Thanks, LGBTQ Nation for this incomplete list.
Thank you! I was coming here to ask Jen if she had actually done the most basic fact-check before parroting that line.
Likely the only situation where trans-identified males are more likely to be a victim of violence is in the Brazilian sex trade, where the gay men who dress as women do in fact face horrific levels of violence (although I do not know if they are actually worse than the levels faced by actual women in that sex trade). Everywhere else that has actually been studied has shown that trans-identified demographic is *safer* than the general population.
I hope the media are looking at the cocktail of drugs this young man was on. Who knows what the effect of that mixture would be on an obviously unwell person. That said, the victims and their families are ones who deserve sympathy. They should remain the focus of sympathy
I've listened closely to every single one of your podcasts. Nothing has registered as high on the bullshit-ometer as this episode. There isn’t anything you're really doing differently. But I am well aware that the role of the political commentator to take a position on political topics. You must pick a side the same way you expect Danielle Smith to. You bullshited your way through the entire episode when children are dead and Canada is a powerless vassal state with absolutely nothing to be proud of anymore. This isnt good enough.
I have said it before but I will say it again. Trump is loud, obnoxious and a grifter. He is also a New York real estate developer. In his decades as a real estate developer and in his lifetime as a narcissist he has learned that the way to get his way is to be loud and obnoxious and, oh yes, be a grifter. For myself I try my best to ignore his loud and obnoxious and pay attention to his activities as a grifter.
I have not liked MC whatsoever but I do believe that he handled this issue well insofar as when DJT was loud and obnoxious and using his grifter instincts, MC simply told him the deal and that the US was already set to be an owner. Done deal, DJT. See how brilliant you are, DJT?
So, my point is that we in Canada pay just entirely TOO MUCH attention to DJT. Please reduce your over coverage of his inanities and reserve coverage for serious stuff.
Jen said that she did not fully appreciate what can occur under USMCA [I use that nomenclature simply because the US and Mexico struck a deal and Canada only joined later so I use the US appellation. Under USMCA a) there is an re-opening to adjust terms after five years - so, this year; and b) any of the three parties can withdraw at their discretion on providing the other two parties a notice period of (if I recall) six months.
Jen, you mentioned that one of MC's kids is trans and that "everyone knew." I guess that I'm neither "someone" nor am I "everyone" as I didn't know. But so what? Some things - many things, in life - are just not my business and that is why I favor the Canadian approach of leaving families out of the public eye.
I realized when it was mentioned that I’d heard it before. But I agree that I don’t care to know. However I do think Barbara bulls behavior is obnoxious in this case. I was initially confused because it’s not even family day yet so couldn’t figure out why a family picture was even a big deal. Now I get it but still find it silly.
Weird. I am on X and saw BB's post. I even replied to it with a comment saying that his kids were older and so it wasn't the same thing at all. It never dawned on me that she was referring to Carney's trans kid. Not for a second. Did I miss a dog whistle? Maybe. I guess the dog whistle was heard by those it was meant for, though...
I want to comment specifically on the Venn diagram comment between convoy, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and separatist.
I think where you’re correct is that those who are separatist now largely do have a perfect overlap with the others. Where I would disagree, is that May people started out in one belief and then switched.
To be specific, I was pro-mask before it was mandatory, then looked at the data and the behavior change where people who were sick were out and about thinking it was ok because they put on a mask - and I knew the data jus didn’t support masks as being able to be protective in that way. Likewise, our vaccination policy never made sense - Europe counted natural immunity, North America pretended it didn’t exist and only vaccine immunity counted. (I participated in a clinical trial as an unvaccinated and recovered person - I had high persistent antibodies through the entire 18 month trial, with no reinfection.) I supported informed consent and choice in vaccination as I’d read the clinical trial protocols and knew they’d never been tested to stop transmission so they could only be self protection.
On the convoy, I was supportive when they were travelling across Canada. However, as soon as they declared they were staying until they got their way I immediately rebuked what they were doing and didn’t support them. I thought their actions no better than terrorists at that point.
I am a strong federalist, and will openly talk with family and others about the risks and unintended consequences of even having a separatist vote. I’ve withheld donations from the UCP and have ended my membership, but still regularly send them survey responses about the importance of staying in Canada and that I won’t vote for them as long as they’re courting the separatists. (And I won’t)
I do see rigidity and an unwillingness to evaluate current circumstances in the separatist side of things. I worry about the us and them mentality that I see being displayed by many separatists and that even shows up in the comment section here when the abbreviation ROC is used. (I finally searched it up to learn it means rest of Canada - and that really bothers me. We are just as much a part of Canada as the other provinces.)
What happened in BC is tragic. Hormone replacement therapy has real risks. Psychiatric medication has suicidal and homicidal behaviour as a risk too. The sad thing is that the shooter was likely a victim of the culture wars and eugenics that surrounds the trans movement (and it is a eugenics movement given how cross sex hormones cause sterility), and then that led to a much bigger tragedy in the whole community. It was probably preventable had the teen not set down the path of taking hormones that couldn’t change genetics but could negatively impact the brain. The adults and professionals involved failed the teen and the whole community suffered for it in the end. It’s horrible.
As for the bridge, I love Jen’s idea of naming the bridge the trump bridge. It would piss a bunch of people off, but Trump wouldn’t be able to help himself in approving the bridge opening. Especially if it was the Trump peace bridge. I hope someone takes that idea. It’s genius.
I was pro-convoy (finally someone did something) but thought they made their point and should have left sooner;
tolerated masks until I came to the same realization as you did about effectiveness and loathed that mindlessly wearing them became a symbol of "look how good a person I am!";
had to take Covid vaccines to travel but stopped at three shots and didn't think people should be compelled to take them under most circumstances, and agree there was a lot of pro-vaccine misinformation;
and oppose Alberta separatism but acknowledge the anger that makes it attractive.
This probably puts me not far from the centre of the Venn diagram despite these nuances.
For the record, I use ROC because it is easier to type. It sure would be nice to have a Royal Commission examine Canada's response to the pandemic. I could be asking for too much. I believe it should be called The Chuck Norris Bridge.
It is refreshing to read the words of a person with actual nuanced opinions who changes them in response to new information!
The only thing I’d change is: we do not know if the shooter was on any trans medical regimen. However, we do know that he had complex mental health issues and also that there is a high incidence of narcissism and narcissistic rage in autogynephilic trans-identified males (cf: the works of Anne Lawrence, a (trans-identified) sexologist who studied under Blanchard). Autogynephilia generally arises with puberty, so it is a reasonable assumption in this case given his timeline.
So, even if he was not taking exogenous hormones, the trans angle (and the extent to which it may have been affirmed) is still relevant to trying to understand the causes of his actions.
I think there should have been a bit more context on the Bridge story. It was built by a private company ... like the international railway tunnels.... and is maintained by the owners. If you look at the periodic crises that affect government owned bridges and their "deferred maintenance" that this old bridge keeps on being useful for transportation and as a business investment is a significant accomplishment. When additional capacity was needed the owners agreed to twin the bridge. The US gave the OK but Canada refused. It's not surprising they fight and lobby to keep the volume on the bridge in order to keep up the maintenance and continue to get a return on a valuable asset. No wonder they claim that there are elements of unfair competition or expropriation of asset value. Crying to Washington is to be expected. Canadians had a different view when it was Michigan changing the rules to close the privately [Canadian owned] pipeline under the river.
The situation is complex, disputes ongoing, big money involved, local and national politics....it does disservice to simply cast this as a baby tantrum.
Jen's body shaming aspersions are what I expect from a lower class of media.
My understanding is that the condition of the Ambassador Bridge isn't great, so I'm guessing that the Maroun family are also guilty of deferred maintenance :-)
Sometimes, Kaycee, you can maintain an asset endlessly and incredibly skillfully but the limitations of original construction are just that: limitations. In this case, the Ambassador Bridge is 97 years old so to say that condition "isn't great" actually - to me, at least - suggests that the owners have actually been terrifically diligent on maintenance but, age is age.
I was afraid you might take this dangerous direction. Being trans isn’t similar to an ideology or religion, it’s a condition of birth, an uncommon embodiment that simply exists. A person can obviously be trans and also be a moral monster, or also suffer from a mental or personality disorder - just as a person can be fat, or left-handed, or of a particular race and *also* be these other things. I’m sorry, but simply being trans isn’t sufficient evidence that being trans was an important factor in this horrific act, that’s circular reasoning. It also defies the fact that trans people are statistically underrepresented by a large margin as perpetrators of mass shootings, something of which you must surely be aware. The reason people don’t have a basic understanding of what it means to be trans, and are susceptible to the idea of a “gender ideology,” is the steady diet of very deliberate falsehoods they’ve been fed. You’re no more immune to these false narratives than anyone else, but I’m asking you to, please, do better than anyone else.
Actually, all males have gone through 2 “mini” Lu writes before teen puberty. Their bodies are different from females before they’re even a year old. Of the teens who identify as transgender, if they proceed through puberty without intervention, over 97% report being happy in their birth sex body after they’re through puberty. Girls who have been sexually abused are over represented in FtM trans people. Boys who are sexually aroused by being seen as a woman are over represented in MtF and the last statistic I read was that 80% of these males never take cross sex hormones because they don’t want to lose their sex drive.
Add in the social contagion factor that took place and you had many who identified as trans because it was cool - not because they were born trans. I’d encourage you to read some stories from detransitioners. Learn about what drove them to identify as trans in the first place. Learn about their horrific rejection after they detransition and the lack of medical care and mutilated bodies they’re left with. Then come back and tell me a large portion of people are born trans.
This should not be misinterpreted to read that trans people don’t exist - but to recognize that it is uncommon and interfering in puberty is damaging and exceptionally harmful to teenagers. I know a few adults who are trans so this isn’t denial - but it is a strong protection of children which I think is essential given their vulnerability to social contagion and the normalcy of trying on different identities as a teen. When I was a teen goth or headbanger were things teens trialed. They didn’t lose their fertility or genitals as a result.
Right on!👏👏👏 I would only add the - hopefully very few- grooming educators to the traps faced by teens and preteens going through puberty. Unfortunately woke policies in places like Ontario or indeed most large city school districts- including minimal legal consequences - don’t help. And rampant pill pushing by the mental health industry - allowing practitioners to maximize revenues with minimum time investment - doesn’t help either.
The above are my personal opinions. Others’ mileage may vary.
A balanced view but one that you weren't allowed to say out loud for about a 5 year period or you could lose your job and be socially ostracized.
There is a small but incredibly loud and hyper-online group on the other side of this who will not accept any challenge or criticism of their extreme views which boil down to anyone giving any signal that they might not be stereotypically the sex they were born as, no matter how young they are and no matter their mental health condition, are probably born trans and should be allowed and encouraged to immediately transition.
Quite a few of the falsehoods I mentioned are making an appearance here. It’s about as perfect an illustration of the astroturf hit parade as I could have hoped for. Keep up the great work!
Others may wish to get their information from the medical professionals who actually work with this population.
Or you could speak with some detransitioners or families who have been through this. Or teens who actually did outgrow it and see what they have to say. Pushing a born trans for all trans is an ideological false bias that is disproven by the many who’ve been harmed by trans medicine. Outcomes are not improved when people are treated with cross sex hormones when you look at survival rates. They’re actually worse. I’d also encourage you to learn about crossdressers and how they are now considered trans as well even though they’re happy with their male bodies and just cross dress. The umbrella grew and kids got caught in the crossfire. (And yes, I’m speaking from firsthand experience. So I don’t really care what an trans activist on the internet says. An honest discussion incides risks like the psychiatric side effects of cross sex hormones and the 7 year suicide rate. There are some interesting lawsuits moving through courts in the US that may settle this and make doctors afraid to practice on kids anyways. But it’s false to pretend there’s no harms.)
"...simply being trans isn’t sufficient evidence that being trans was an important factor in this horrific act, that’s circular reasoning". I totally agree.
But while I don't want to speak for G&G here, I think the point they were trying to make - and if not theirs, mine and many other people's - is that accurately reporting that the shooter was a man identifying as a trans woman is important. And the primary reason it is important is because the truth is ALWAYS important. If it was reported that the shooter was a black man when it was a white man that would also be important to correct, not for any culture war reasons but because again, the truth is always important.
While I am here (and I know you did not address this point so this is not intended as a response to you), a police spokesman seemingly being preoccupied with the shooter's preferred gender identity and pronouns in the immediate aftermath of one of the greatest atrocities in Canadian history is bad form since it suggests grossly misplaced priorities.
I think these two points are what has most annoyed the non-knucklehead portion of the population who have taken issue with the "trans component" of this horror. I concede your (and G&G's) point that a subset of the population has reacted terribly to this part of the story - Ms. Ball perhaps being Exhibit A on that count.
I don’t disagree with anything you say here, although it’s both adequate and neutral to simply say “she was a trans woman.” Initially there was no credible evidence that she was trans (and at least one innocent person was falsely identified by the mob and put in danger) so a lot of people were pushing back against that. But no one ought to be arguing that now confirmed basic demographic facts shouldn’t be reported as such. I think G&G were saying a bit more than that.
Yeah, maybe a bit more - I can see how one might have that takeaway.
But my take was that they were simply addressing the fact that a certain sub-set of questions will naturally flow depending on the shooter's background some of which, in this case, may reveal that being trans actually was an important factor in the act. YMMV as the kids say.
That’s fair, because as we see on this thread the disinformation project around this issue is working as intended, and it’s certainly possible that more information will emerge. I’ll give you the context for my reading it the way I do. Matt made a comment some time ago, that I found both deeply concerning and frankly bizarre, to the effect that clinicians and researchers who work with trans folks shouldn’t be looked to as authoritative because they are “biased.” That’s nuts. Those are exactly the people who can provide the accurate evidence based information that’s needed here. They’re not “activists,” they’re the ones in the best position to access and understand all the data. Non experts can’t be expected to know that, for example, the “97% desistance” myth that was invented over a decade ago, and is still being repeated in this thread, is based on the deliberate conflation of diagnostic criteria for trans kids and gender nonconforming kids. Clinicians are really very good at differentiating between the two, and the evidence for treatment efficacy for trans kids, as well as extremely low levels of regret, is very clear. Experts do a good job of debunking the firehose of nonsense, but lies always travel faster than the truth. Especially really well-funded strategic ones that prod emotions.
I would argue that clinicians aren't 'really very good' at differentiating the two, which is how we've ended up with such high numbers of trans-identifying youth in recent years.
Casuistry. Trans-sexuals have existed for decades and they are minuscule in number. As was clearly demonstrated at Tavistock, the problem is the trans-activists. The majority of the treated children had mental health issues, including autism. The Cass report debunked the "science" supporting non-psychological interventions, as have the 2025 meta-analyses published out of McMaster. The successful litigation, in the US, against a psychologist and surgeon who coerced an adolescent woman into "gender affirming transition" will open the flood gates. In response, the American Medical Association and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons have changed their recommendations regarding "gender affirming" surgery in minors. The American Academy of Pediatrics is conducting a more general systematic review of the literature, likely an effort at face saving before they are called to task. Always remember, our august medical associations endorsed eugenics.
This will be an election issue in Alberta and, as you rightly point out, the true trans-sexuals are at risk and need to be protected. The trans-gender movement and its activists are fair game.
Like it or not, the US democratic processes are more robust than ours. The Republicans are facing the midterms (yes, they will happen) and the reasonable are slowly creeping out from under their rocks. Those Republicans voting along with the Democrats are the thin edge of the wedge, and assuming the Democrats don't blow it, the US checks and balances will come into effect. Mr. Trump's bullying is public, unlike our party leaders calling the whip behind the scenes with our elected, clapping seals falling into line (I wish they could, at least, bounce balls on their noses). Mr. Eby is effectively a dictator in our system, with a 3 vote majority. If the reality of BC politics is even close to what was described in Mr. Kay's interview (Quillette) with Ms. Brodie, then Confederation has bigger problems than Alberta nationalists.
It is a pity the editors choose not to engage in the culture debate as they are good at it. Common sense is not. Regardless, the next provincial election in Alberta will include an examination of Ms. Smith's dealing with the transgender issues, the use of the Not-Withstanding clause and yes, Mr. Nenshi's perspective. Similarly, with the Canadian Paediatric Society's recent endorsement of transgender pseudoscience in their position paper, it will be a federal issue and Dr. Carney will need to make his position public.
Breaking news (literally) in Calgary, more snapped wires have been detected on the waterline, 500 metres from the COP exit on the Trans-Canada (what is Canada transitioning to?) highway. Can you imagine?
We seem to have memory holed the shit out of that one because it didn't fit anyone's narrative. I believe it was around the fourth highest-casualty attack-type event in modern Canadian history.
If the attacker was a manifesto-waving Incel, a blue-haired trans activist, or 100x especially if he had used an AR-15, we'd still be hearing about it now.
Oh no doubt. Any firearm would have gotten a lot of coverage. AR-15s aren’t involved in many incidents in Canada, but it would sure make the government giddy.
There are few things that make a Liberal as excited as getting another excuse to ban your guns. They always leave a few legal so they can still chase that rush every once in a while.
Regarding what it costs Trump to interfere with the bridge opening - Michigan is a swing state. It voted for Trump in 2024, Biden in 2020, and Trump in 2016, by tiny margins each time.
Michigan conservatives are not happy about Trump casually screwing with Michigan's business interests. Even if Trump gracefully bows out in 2028, his influence within the party in the interim depends on the belief amongst Republican officials and politicians that Trump is good for their careers.
Knowing G&G don't like addressing 'culture war' issues, I was REALLY hoping in this podcast they would see and discuss the effects of how gender ideology has infected and distorted not just media coverage - which is (or should be) very much up The Line's alley because it is very much a political issue - but how one of the downstream effects of NOT addressing the political aspect really does and directly impact actual public safety. This is worth talking about. These ARE worth public discussions not because they are 'transphobic' but because avoiding the topic is so destructive to public trust. This lack of responsible coverage of meaningful topics about this globally covered event was completely buried in the podcast under an avalanche of claims of emotional exhaustion from the killing yet again of children. Well, yeah... or as we used to like to say in Canada, "No guff, eh?" So let's not go there. Let's, instead, address responsibly the very real ongoing and growing negative effects of avoiding issues related to trans. Like what? Well zero concern about the police sending out a factually incorrect warning about the suspected shooter's sex and thus undermining who the public should watch out for, no quizzical inquiry about media's (CBC) introduction of the new term 'gunperson', no raised eyebrows about whether or not the long term effects of starting lifelong medicalization of a young male starting at age 12 with diagnosed and significant known mental health issues might produce a greater chance of such violence (or ask what is the prevalence of such violence from the interactions of a veritable laundry list of prescribed drugs being taken) or what reasons are there for making such 'care' legislated by various political bodies to impose such mandatory 'health care' once the trans subject is raised? On what evidence? I mean, these questions are just off the top of my head of topics that could have and I was hoping might be covered by The Line. But nope. We're going to mention the event, castigate or least suspect those who point out the trans connection simply a data point that may or may not be relevant, and then sweep it all under the rug as too much of an emotionally taxing 'culture war' issue. The Line's editors simply and disappointingly went along with the media narrative (no doubt the next podcast will go along with the whole 'It's really a gun issue') and failed to provide us with any meaningful benefits of listening to this portion. Rather, without any caveats or concerns about the political aspect of this travesty/tragedy raised, the audience was (once again) lectured by Jen to understand that the trans part of the 'story' was in truth a data point in need of recognition but better treated as requiring more muted inquiry by others, perhaps medical researchers. We were subjected yet again that we should not overblow the dangers from the larger victimized trans population who don't slaughter children, that this event should not be used as a transphobic springboard as some - let's call them - deplorable people might or have done. Well, sure, but... look at what was missed by journalistic media as an institution of which both G&G claim membership and how the public could have been much better served if more of them would stop getting so wrapped up in competing narratives and choose, instead, to double down on respecting and reporting what's true, questioning important issues of common concern raised, investigating why this isn't being done, revealing the adverse effects of avoiding all of these for political reasons and what further eroding social trust effects doing so may have, seeking and explaining not just what is factual and knowable over and above what might offend or cause more emotional angst by why asking important and relevant questions matters to the public welfare. Perhaps this tarnished silver lining could be obtained from such a terrible event. That, at least, would be something of meaning, something of benefit. The Line's audience I think would be vastly better served with a little more inquiring journalism and a little less 'culture war' podcast palavers.
Really solid episode, thank especially for being human and not overtly politicizing the tragedy in BC. And yes to the re-use of Olympic facilities. What a decadent waste if we don't. The Nordic Centre in Canmore remains as a beloved community playground and training centre, improved upon recently and hosting other world competitions (like last year's biathlon). It's important to note that part of what makes it live on is significant community engagement and volunteerism.
We should hope that the US Senate takes up the US house bill asap. One of the arguments against the tariffs at SCOTUS was that once the power was possibly available to the President it would never revert. Trump proving that by vetoing the bill would be another proof point.
My dad,may he rest in peace,once suggested to me the same Matt. He said to try and avoid,at the local hotel: “Do not discuss religion,politics or pee in the wind!” Man,now I know how deep that was,safer,and funny and true as hell.
I don’t understand why we are supposed to be so concerned about whether the Conservatives have some theory of how they would do a better job on U.S. trade than Carney. Why isn’t the burden on Carney, who is the actual PM, and has produced precisely nothing?
Some of us said during the campaign that this was a dumb issue on which to decide the election, because there was zero reason to believe ANYBODY could somehow roll Trump or get a good deal out of a volatile guy with zero attention span who has despised free trade for his entire adult life.
But the Libs ran on the idea that being an Oxford-educated guy who spells “organise” with an ‘s’ and has very sharp elbows indeed makes Carney a Trump whisperer, or intimidating to him, or… well the premise was never really all that clear. Nevertheless, it was their ballot question, and he has not yet done the thing he himself set up as the reason we had to elect him. Yet somehow, weirdly, he gets a complete pass and this is the Conservatives’ problem.
During the election the idea was that we have to vote Liberal because they will be very significantly better than Conservatives on U.S. trade, and now not even a year later the test is merely that it’s a wash and Carney is solid as long as the Conservatives aren’t offering any strong reason to think they could do better than the Liberals’ abject (through understandable) failure.
Completely correct.
The government has been a disaster, but one that LOOKS and SOUNDS better than Trudeau. Nothing has changed, nothing has gotten better, there is no trade deal.
But the aesthetics are better so...
You’re right that the liberals did a very good job of making that the ballot question. And maybe that is really what the conservatives need to be thinking about - how do they influence the ballot question in their opinion. I don’t think they have a strategy there yet.
I completely agree with this. There may or may not be a snap election, so the CPC has to balance how to survive one if there is vs. how to lay the groundwork for an election years later. But even in the short term, they would live or die on their ability to make the election about affordability or some overlapping but different issue.
They can't win on who hates Trump the most, and shouldn't try. This isn't partisan. It's just not a viable opposition play for anyone; the same thing applies to the Ontario Liberals. They had mediocre execution and were playing a very weak hand, but were strategically dead-on trying to make their election about health care instead of trying to outdo Ford on his Trump tantrum.
That election was something straight out of Bizzaro World. It's like our national immune system not only failed but turned against any attempt to administer medicine to the ailing body politic. I'm still mentally processing it to some degree and have made fairly significant ongoing (and mostly positive though difficult) changes to my life since, based on the thorough realization that 'nobody is coming to save us'.
No one is better at managing Trump, just like nobody is better at preventing volcanic eruptions or negotiating with an earthquake. We aren't even talking about compatible concepts. I'm pretty sure even the Liberals realize this and are just stalling for time which is really the only play available. But their nightmare is that he has a heart attack, or is neutered in the midterms and impeached, which is why they want an election right now. The Trump factor is essentially all they've got. How sad is that?
As others have pointed out, it looks like the main challenge for the CPC is coming up with a plan to manage the critical mass of incredibly stupid and easily manipulated voters who prioritize weird heroic Anti-American fantasy over how much materially worse off most of us are than 11 years ago.
Yes, in his actual dealings with the U.S. on trade, Carney has sometimes seemed conciliatory (as on the Digital Services Tax), sometimes provocative, and occasionally downright obsequious. One can quibble with the details, but it seems reasonable enough in broad strokes.
It's utterly at odds with what he suggested during the election he'd do (all elbows all the time, as if hugely overplaying Canada's hand would self-evidently lead to the best result). Some of the crowd that supported him has been annoyed about that, not that it will change how many of them vote.
On balance I suppose it's better for Carney to govern well by departing from his campaign position than to stick stubbornly to the absolutist rhetoric even when it was never a serious plan for an actual trade policy. If Doug Ford were PM he really might have gone in guns blazing and only then discovered the limits of that approach.
On a lot of matters it seems that Carney thinks himself a kind of Platonic guardian and has no compunction about telling noble lies to get elected, given his apparent contempt for the ability of plebs to understand even mildly difficult questions (like why a patriotic board chair with a fiduciary duty to shareholders would support moving his company's HQ to the U.S.). That's not a great trait in a leader who already has, to say the least, a robust view of his own wisdom and righteousness. But I still prefer better policy over greater rhetorical consistency.
As far as the media is concerned it’s never a measure of how well or poorly the Liberals are doing in government, but rather it’s all hypothetical speculation on how poorly the Conservatives would do if they were in charge.
There’s a place for that, but it should be an afterthought.
I really think the ballot question of 'who is best to handle Trump' was crafted by the news media whether purposeful or not. Lately I'm thinking its purposeful. Most human beings I know agree that it is pointless to negotiate with an imbecile.
There were days during the 2025 election where the entire top two thirds of the G&M and CTV news websites were nothing but stories about Trump, tariffs, and how screwed we are. The headlines often could be paraphrased as "Be Really Scared". It had to have been on purpose.
I thought the media crafting a pro-Liberal Covid and anti-vaxer narrative during the 2021 election was the peak of bullshit I would ever see in this country, but this out did it by triple at least.
You betcha.
You are accurate in saying that transwomen are more likely to be victims of violence in the same way that any given male is more likely to die as a victim of homicide than as the perpetrator of a murder. Transwomen retain male patterns of criminality. They only appear to have a higher rate of victimization if the comparator is females, not other males. See Dinno's 2017 paper. The problem with mis-identifying male criminals is that we are lying to the public about risk. Will this shooter's crime be classified by Stats Canada as a female crime? Are we going to ve told that women in Canada became more violent after 2019? If the shooter had survived, how long would BC have housed him in a women's jail?
pretty much can guarantee this murderer would have been in a female prison. Apparently simply saying you are trans is enough, there is no scrutiny. And if they put this under female crime statistics that will be an f-ing outrage.
We might have to change the categories. This person falls under the persons-with-a-penis heading. The asshole is absolutely not female for the purposes of statistical analysis, regardless of pronoun choice. This should not even be an issue. If it were, do we need to have statistical categories for all pronouns currently in vogue? Thanks, LGBTQ Nation for this incomplete list.
ce cir cir cirs cirself
co co cos cos coself
cy cyr cyr cyrs cyrself
ey em eir eirs emself
he him his his himself
hey hem heir heirs hemself
ne nem nir nirs nemself
qui quem quis quis quemself
she her her hers herself
sie hir hir hirs hirself
tey tem teir teirs temself
they them their theirs themself
xe xem xyr xyrs xemself
xie hir hir hirs hirself
yo yo yos yos yoself
ze zir zir zirs zirself
ve vis ver ver verself
Thank you! I was coming here to ask Jen if she had actually done the most basic fact-check before parroting that line.
Likely the only situation where trans-identified males are more likely to be a victim of violence is in the Brazilian sex trade, where the gay men who dress as women do in fact face horrific levels of violence (although I do not know if they are actually worse than the levels faced by actual women in that sex trade). Everywhere else that has actually been studied has shown that trans-identified demographic is *safer* than the general population.
I hope the media are looking at the cocktail of drugs this young man was on. Who knows what the effect of that mixture would be on an obviously unwell person. That said, the victims and their families are ones who deserve sympathy. They should remain the focus of sympathy
I've listened closely to every single one of your podcasts. Nothing has registered as high on the bullshit-ometer as this episode. There isn’t anything you're really doing differently. But I am well aware that the role of the political commentator to take a position on political topics. You must pick a side the same way you expect Danielle Smith to. You bullshited your way through the entire episode when children are dead and Canada is a powerless vassal state with absolutely nothing to be proud of anymore. This isnt good enough.
There are now only two topics: Trump and Alberta separation.
G & G: Enough of Trump.
I have said it before but I will say it again. Trump is loud, obnoxious and a grifter. He is also a New York real estate developer. In his decades as a real estate developer and in his lifetime as a narcissist he has learned that the way to get his way is to be loud and obnoxious and, oh yes, be a grifter. For myself I try my best to ignore his loud and obnoxious and pay attention to his activities as a grifter.
I have not liked MC whatsoever but I do believe that he handled this issue well insofar as when DJT was loud and obnoxious and using his grifter instincts, MC simply told him the deal and that the US was already set to be an owner. Done deal, DJT. See how brilliant you are, DJT?
So, my point is that we in Canada pay just entirely TOO MUCH attention to DJT. Please reduce your over coverage of his inanities and reserve coverage for serious stuff.
Jen said that she did not fully appreciate what can occur under USMCA [I use that nomenclature simply because the US and Mexico struck a deal and Canada only joined later so I use the US appellation. Under USMCA a) there is an re-opening to adjust terms after five years - so, this year; and b) any of the three parties can withdraw at their discretion on providing the other two parties a notice period of (if I recall) six months.
Jen, you mentioned that one of MC's kids is trans and that "everyone knew." I guess that I'm neither "someone" nor am I "everyone" as I didn't know. But so what? Some things - many things, in life - are just not my business and that is why I favor the Canadian approach of leaving families out of the public eye.
I realized when it was mentioned that I’d heard it before. But I agree that I don’t care to know. However I do think Barbara bulls behavior is obnoxious in this case. I was initially confused because it’s not even family day yet so couldn’t figure out why a family picture was even a big deal. Now I get it but still find it silly.
Weird. I am on X and saw BB's post. I even replied to it with a comment saying that his kids were older and so it wasn't the same thing at all. It never dawned on me that she was referring to Carney's trans kid. Not for a second. Did I miss a dog whistle? Maybe. I guess the dog whistle was heard by those it was meant for, though...
I want to comment specifically on the Venn diagram comment between convoy, anti-mask, anti-vaccine, and separatist.
I think where you’re correct is that those who are separatist now largely do have a perfect overlap with the others. Where I would disagree, is that May people started out in one belief and then switched.
To be specific, I was pro-mask before it was mandatory, then looked at the data and the behavior change where people who were sick were out and about thinking it was ok because they put on a mask - and I knew the data jus didn’t support masks as being able to be protective in that way. Likewise, our vaccination policy never made sense - Europe counted natural immunity, North America pretended it didn’t exist and only vaccine immunity counted. (I participated in a clinical trial as an unvaccinated and recovered person - I had high persistent antibodies through the entire 18 month trial, with no reinfection.) I supported informed consent and choice in vaccination as I’d read the clinical trial protocols and knew they’d never been tested to stop transmission so they could only be self protection.
On the convoy, I was supportive when they were travelling across Canada. However, as soon as they declared they were staying until they got their way I immediately rebuked what they were doing and didn’t support them. I thought their actions no better than terrorists at that point.
I am a strong federalist, and will openly talk with family and others about the risks and unintended consequences of even having a separatist vote. I’ve withheld donations from the UCP and have ended my membership, but still regularly send them survey responses about the importance of staying in Canada and that I won’t vote for them as long as they’re courting the separatists. (And I won’t)
I do see rigidity and an unwillingness to evaluate current circumstances in the separatist side of things. I worry about the us and them mentality that I see being displayed by many separatists and that even shows up in the comment section here when the abbreviation ROC is used. (I finally searched it up to learn it means rest of Canada - and that really bothers me. We are just as much a part of Canada as the other provinces.)
What happened in BC is tragic. Hormone replacement therapy has real risks. Psychiatric medication has suicidal and homicidal behaviour as a risk too. The sad thing is that the shooter was likely a victim of the culture wars and eugenics that surrounds the trans movement (and it is a eugenics movement given how cross sex hormones cause sterility), and then that led to a much bigger tragedy in the whole community. It was probably preventable had the teen not set down the path of taking hormones that couldn’t change genetics but could negatively impact the brain. The adults and professionals involved failed the teen and the whole community suffered for it in the end. It’s horrible.
As for the bridge, I love Jen’s idea of naming the bridge the trump bridge. It would piss a bunch of people off, but Trump wouldn’t be able to help himself in approving the bridge opening. Especially if it was the Trump peace bridge. I hope someone takes that idea. It’s genius.
I was pro-convoy (finally someone did something) but thought they made their point and should have left sooner;
tolerated masks until I came to the same realization as you did about effectiveness and loathed that mindlessly wearing them became a symbol of "look how good a person I am!";
had to take Covid vaccines to travel but stopped at three shots and didn't think people should be compelled to take them under most circumstances, and agree there was a lot of pro-vaccine misinformation;
and oppose Alberta separatism but acknowledge the anger that makes it attractive.
This probably puts me not far from the centre of the Venn diagram despite these nuances.
For the record, I use ROC because it is easier to type. It sure would be nice to have a Royal Commission examine Canada's response to the pandemic. I could be asking for too much. I believe it should be called The Chuck Norris Bridge.
It is refreshing to read the words of a person with actual nuanced opinions who changes them in response to new information!
The only thing I’d change is: we do not know if the shooter was on any trans medical regimen. However, we do know that he had complex mental health issues and also that there is a high incidence of narcissism and narcissistic rage in autogynephilic trans-identified males (cf: the works of Anne Lawrence, a (trans-identified) sexologist who studied under Blanchard). Autogynephilia generally arises with puberty, so it is a reasonable assumption in this case given his timeline.
So, even if he was not taking exogenous hormones, the trans angle (and the extent to which it may have been affirmed) is still relevant to trying to understand the causes of his actions.
I think there should have been a bit more context on the Bridge story. It was built by a private company ... like the international railway tunnels.... and is maintained by the owners. If you look at the periodic crises that affect government owned bridges and their "deferred maintenance" that this old bridge keeps on being useful for transportation and as a business investment is a significant accomplishment. When additional capacity was needed the owners agreed to twin the bridge. The US gave the OK but Canada refused. It's not surprising they fight and lobby to keep the volume on the bridge in order to keep up the maintenance and continue to get a return on a valuable asset. No wonder they claim that there are elements of unfair competition or expropriation of asset value. Crying to Washington is to be expected. Canadians had a different view when it was Michigan changing the rules to close the privately [Canadian owned] pipeline under the river.
The situation is complex, disputes ongoing, big money involved, local and national politics....it does disservice to simply cast this as a baby tantrum.
Jen's body shaming aspersions are what I expect from a lower class of media.
My understanding is that the condition of the Ambassador Bridge isn't great, so I'm guessing that the Maroun family are also guilty of deferred maintenance :-)
Sometimes, Kaycee, you can maintain an asset endlessly and incredibly skillfully but the limitations of original construction are just that: limitations. In this case, the Ambassador Bridge is 97 years old so to say that condition "isn't great" actually - to me, at least - suggests that the owners have actually been terrifically diligent on maintenance but, age is age.
I was afraid you might take this dangerous direction. Being trans isn’t similar to an ideology or religion, it’s a condition of birth, an uncommon embodiment that simply exists. A person can obviously be trans and also be a moral monster, or also suffer from a mental or personality disorder - just as a person can be fat, or left-handed, or of a particular race and *also* be these other things. I’m sorry, but simply being trans isn’t sufficient evidence that being trans was an important factor in this horrific act, that’s circular reasoning. It also defies the fact that trans people are statistically underrepresented by a large margin as perpetrators of mass shootings, something of which you must surely be aware. The reason people don’t have a basic understanding of what it means to be trans, and are susceptible to the idea of a “gender ideology,” is the steady diet of very deliberate falsehoods they’ve been fed. You’re no more immune to these false narratives than anyone else, but I’m asking you to, please, do better than anyone else.
Actually, all males have gone through 2 “mini” Lu writes before teen puberty. Their bodies are different from females before they’re even a year old. Of the teens who identify as transgender, if they proceed through puberty without intervention, over 97% report being happy in their birth sex body after they’re through puberty. Girls who have been sexually abused are over represented in FtM trans people. Boys who are sexually aroused by being seen as a woman are over represented in MtF and the last statistic I read was that 80% of these males never take cross sex hormones because they don’t want to lose their sex drive.
Add in the social contagion factor that took place and you had many who identified as trans because it was cool - not because they were born trans. I’d encourage you to read some stories from detransitioners. Learn about what drove them to identify as trans in the first place. Learn about their horrific rejection after they detransition and the lack of medical care and mutilated bodies they’re left with. Then come back and tell me a large portion of people are born trans.
This should not be misinterpreted to read that trans people don’t exist - but to recognize that it is uncommon and interfering in puberty is damaging and exceptionally harmful to teenagers. I know a few adults who are trans so this isn’t denial - but it is a strong protection of children which I think is essential given their vulnerability to social contagion and the normalcy of trying on different identities as a teen. When I was a teen goth or headbanger were things teens trialed. They didn’t lose their fertility or genitals as a result.
Right on!👏👏👏 I would only add the - hopefully very few- grooming educators to the traps faced by teens and preteens going through puberty. Unfortunately woke policies in places like Ontario or indeed most large city school districts- including minimal legal consequences - don’t help. And rampant pill pushing by the mental health industry - allowing practitioners to maximize revenues with minimum time investment - doesn’t help either.
The above are my personal opinions. Others’ mileage may vary.
A balanced view but one that you weren't allowed to say out loud for about a 5 year period or you could lose your job and be socially ostracized.
There is a small but incredibly loud and hyper-online group on the other side of this who will not accept any challenge or criticism of their extreme views which boil down to anyone giving any signal that they might not be stereotypically the sex they were born as, no matter how young they are and no matter their mental health condition, are probably born trans and should be allowed and encouraged to immediately transition.
Quite a few of the falsehoods I mentioned are making an appearance here. It’s about as perfect an illustration of the astroturf hit parade as I could have hoped for. Keep up the great work!
Others may wish to get their information from the medical professionals who actually work with this population.
Or you could speak with some detransitioners or families who have been through this. Or teens who actually did outgrow it and see what they have to say. Pushing a born trans for all trans is an ideological false bias that is disproven by the many who’ve been harmed by trans medicine. Outcomes are not improved when people are treated with cross sex hormones when you look at survival rates. They’re actually worse. I’d also encourage you to learn about crossdressers and how they are now considered trans as well even though they’re happy with their male bodies and just cross dress. The umbrella grew and kids got caught in the crossfire. (And yes, I’m speaking from firsthand experience. So I don’t really care what an trans activist on the internet says. An honest discussion incides risks like the psychiatric side effects of cross sex hormones and the 7 year suicide rate. There are some interesting lawsuits moving through courts in the US that may settle this and make doctors afraid to practice on kids anyways. But it’s false to pretend there’s no harms.)
If there’s quite a few falsehoods then surely it will be simple for you to flag them.
"...simply being trans isn’t sufficient evidence that being trans was an important factor in this horrific act, that’s circular reasoning". I totally agree.
But while I don't want to speak for G&G here, I think the point they were trying to make - and if not theirs, mine and many other people's - is that accurately reporting that the shooter was a man identifying as a trans woman is important. And the primary reason it is important is because the truth is ALWAYS important. If it was reported that the shooter was a black man when it was a white man that would also be important to correct, not for any culture war reasons but because again, the truth is always important.
While I am here (and I know you did not address this point so this is not intended as a response to you), a police spokesman seemingly being preoccupied with the shooter's preferred gender identity and pronouns in the immediate aftermath of one of the greatest atrocities in Canadian history is bad form since it suggests grossly misplaced priorities.
I think these two points are what has most annoyed the non-knucklehead portion of the population who have taken issue with the "trans component" of this horror. I concede your (and G&G's) point that a subset of the population has reacted terribly to this part of the story - Ms. Ball perhaps being Exhibit A on that count.
I don’t disagree with anything you say here, although it’s both adequate and neutral to simply say “she was a trans woman.” Initially there was no credible evidence that she was trans (and at least one innocent person was falsely identified by the mob and put in danger) so a lot of people were pushing back against that. But no one ought to be arguing that now confirmed basic demographic facts shouldn’t be reported as such. I think G&G were saying a bit more than that.
Yeah, maybe a bit more - I can see how one might have that takeaway.
But my take was that they were simply addressing the fact that a certain sub-set of questions will naturally flow depending on the shooter's background some of which, in this case, may reveal that being trans actually was an important factor in the act. YMMV as the kids say.
That’s fair, because as we see on this thread the disinformation project around this issue is working as intended, and it’s certainly possible that more information will emerge. I’ll give you the context for my reading it the way I do. Matt made a comment some time ago, that I found both deeply concerning and frankly bizarre, to the effect that clinicians and researchers who work with trans folks shouldn’t be looked to as authoritative because they are “biased.” That’s nuts. Those are exactly the people who can provide the accurate evidence based information that’s needed here. They’re not “activists,” they’re the ones in the best position to access and understand all the data. Non experts can’t be expected to know that, for example, the “97% desistance” myth that was invented over a decade ago, and is still being repeated in this thread, is based on the deliberate conflation of diagnostic criteria for trans kids and gender nonconforming kids. Clinicians are really very good at differentiating between the two, and the evidence for treatment efficacy for trans kids, as well as extremely low levels of regret, is very clear. Experts do a good job of debunking the firehose of nonsense, but lies always travel faster than the truth. Especially really well-funded strategic ones that prod emotions.
I would argue that clinicians aren't 'really very good' at differentiating the two, which is how we've ended up with such high numbers of trans-identifying youth in recent years.
We don’t have high numbers of trans or “trans-identifying” youth. Who told you that we do?
Casuistry. Trans-sexuals have existed for decades and they are minuscule in number. As was clearly demonstrated at Tavistock, the problem is the trans-activists. The majority of the treated children had mental health issues, including autism. The Cass report debunked the "science" supporting non-psychological interventions, as have the 2025 meta-analyses published out of McMaster. The successful litigation, in the US, against a psychologist and surgeon who coerced an adolescent woman into "gender affirming transition" will open the flood gates. In response, the American Medical Association and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons have changed their recommendations regarding "gender affirming" surgery in minors. The American Academy of Pediatrics is conducting a more general systematic review of the literature, likely an effort at face saving before they are called to task. Always remember, our august medical associations endorsed eugenics.
This will be an election issue in Alberta and, as you rightly point out, the true trans-sexuals are at risk and need to be protected. The trans-gender movement and its activists are fair game.
Like it or not, the US democratic processes are more robust than ours. The Republicans are facing the midterms (yes, they will happen) and the reasonable are slowly creeping out from under their rocks. Those Republicans voting along with the Democrats are the thin edge of the wedge, and assuming the Democrats don't blow it, the US checks and balances will come into effect. Mr. Trump's bullying is public, unlike our party leaders calling the whip behind the scenes with our elected, clapping seals falling into line (I wish they could, at least, bounce balls on their noses). Mr. Eby is effectively a dictator in our system, with a 3 vote majority. If the reality of BC politics is even close to what was described in Mr. Kay's interview (Quillette) with Ms. Brodie, then Confederation has bigger problems than Alberta nationalists.
It is a pity the editors choose not to engage in the culture debate as they are good at it. Common sense is not. Regardless, the next provincial election in Alberta will include an examination of Ms. Smith's dealing with the transgender issues, the use of the Not-Withstanding clause and yes, Mr. Nenshi's perspective. Similarly, with the Canadian Paediatric Society's recent endorsement of transgender pseudoscience in their position paper, it will be a federal issue and Dr. Carney will need to make his position public.
Breaking news (literally) in Calgary, more snapped wires have been detected on the waterline, 500 metres from the COP exit on the Trans-Canada (what is Canada transitioning to?) highway. Can you imagine?
"bounce balls on their noses"... thanks I needed that moment of lightness!
Its good to see the federal leaders all come together over this tragedy.
Two mass casualty events in BC in the space of a year, both cases multiple interventions by mental health services..
Its clear that we, as a Nation, are failing individuals and families when it comes to addressing severe mental health conditions.
I hope that leaders can earnestly and honestly work together to reflect and reform mental health supports..
What was the other mass casualty? I am drawing a blank at the moment.
Lapu Lapu Day
Right. I knew that. Thanks!
We seem to have memory holed the shit out of that one because it didn't fit anyone's narrative. I believe it was around the fourth highest-casualty attack-type event in modern Canadian history.
If the attacker was a manifesto-waving Incel, a blue-haired trans activist, or 100x especially if he had used an AR-15, we'd still be hearing about it now.
Oh no doubt. Any firearm would have gotten a lot of coverage. AR-15s aren’t involved in many incidents in Canada, but it would sure make the government giddy.
There are few things that make a Liberal as excited as getting another excuse to ban your guns. They always leave a few legal so they can still chase that rush every once in a while.
Regarding what it costs Trump to interfere with the bridge opening - Michigan is a swing state. It voted for Trump in 2024, Biden in 2020, and Trump in 2016, by tiny margins each time.
Michigan conservatives are not happy about Trump casually screwing with Michigan's business interests. Even if Trump gracefully bows out in 2028, his influence within the party in the interim depends on the belief amongst Republican officials and politicians that Trump is good for their careers.
Knowing G&G don't like addressing 'culture war' issues, I was REALLY hoping in this podcast they would see and discuss the effects of how gender ideology has infected and distorted not just media coverage - which is (or should be) very much up The Line's alley because it is very much a political issue - but how one of the downstream effects of NOT addressing the political aspect really does and directly impact actual public safety. This is worth talking about. These ARE worth public discussions not because they are 'transphobic' but because avoiding the topic is so destructive to public trust. This lack of responsible coverage of meaningful topics about this globally covered event was completely buried in the podcast under an avalanche of claims of emotional exhaustion from the killing yet again of children. Well, yeah... or as we used to like to say in Canada, "No guff, eh?" So let's not go there. Let's, instead, address responsibly the very real ongoing and growing negative effects of avoiding issues related to trans. Like what? Well zero concern about the police sending out a factually incorrect warning about the suspected shooter's sex and thus undermining who the public should watch out for, no quizzical inquiry about media's (CBC) introduction of the new term 'gunperson', no raised eyebrows about whether or not the long term effects of starting lifelong medicalization of a young male starting at age 12 with diagnosed and significant known mental health issues might produce a greater chance of such violence (or ask what is the prevalence of such violence from the interactions of a veritable laundry list of prescribed drugs being taken) or what reasons are there for making such 'care' legislated by various political bodies to impose such mandatory 'health care' once the trans subject is raised? On what evidence? I mean, these questions are just off the top of my head of topics that could have and I was hoping might be covered by The Line. But nope. We're going to mention the event, castigate or least suspect those who point out the trans connection simply a data point that may or may not be relevant, and then sweep it all under the rug as too much of an emotionally taxing 'culture war' issue. The Line's editors simply and disappointingly went along with the media narrative (no doubt the next podcast will go along with the whole 'It's really a gun issue') and failed to provide us with any meaningful benefits of listening to this portion. Rather, without any caveats or concerns about the political aspect of this travesty/tragedy raised, the audience was (once again) lectured by Jen to understand that the trans part of the 'story' was in truth a data point in need of recognition but better treated as requiring more muted inquiry by others, perhaps medical researchers. We were subjected yet again that we should not overblow the dangers from the larger victimized trans population who don't slaughter children, that this event should not be used as a transphobic springboard as some - let's call them - deplorable people might or have done. Well, sure, but... look at what was missed by journalistic media as an institution of which both G&G claim membership and how the public could have been much better served if more of them would stop getting so wrapped up in competing narratives and choose, instead, to double down on respecting and reporting what's true, questioning important issues of common concern raised, investigating why this isn't being done, revealing the adverse effects of avoiding all of these for political reasons and what further eroding social trust effects doing so may have, seeking and explaining not just what is factual and knowable over and above what might offend or cause more emotional angst by why asking important and relevant questions matters to the public welfare. Perhaps this tarnished silver lining could be obtained from such a terrible event. That, at least, would be something of meaning, something of benefit. The Line's audience I think would be vastly better served with a little more inquiring journalism and a little less 'culture war' podcast palavers.
Really solid episode, thank especially for being human and not overtly politicizing the tragedy in BC. And yes to the re-use of Olympic facilities. What a decadent waste if we don't. The Nordic Centre in Canmore remains as a beloved community playground and training centre, improved upon recently and hosting other world competitions (like last year's biathlon). It's important to note that part of what makes it live on is significant community engagement and volunteerism.
We should hope that the US Senate takes up the US house bill asap. One of the arguments against the tariffs at SCOTUS was that once the power was possibly available to the President it would never revert. Trump proving that by vetoing the bill would be another proof point.
My dad,may he rest in peace,once suggested to me the same Matt. He said to try and avoid,at the local hotel: “Do not discuss religion,politics or pee in the wind!” Man,now I know how deep that was,safer,and funny and true as hell.