Canadian Cincinnatus

Liberal Talking Points Even in Construction News

It's not surprising to come across talking points from the Ontario Liberal government in the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail, but I was gobsmacked the other day to come across them in the construction news: On-Site Magazine, which proudly boasts that it's been Canada's construction magazine since 1957. The reasonably titled article, Research Council to Examine Broken Bridge Bolts, is ostensibly about finding out why the brand-spanking new Nipigon River Bridge failed, but deeper in the article the truth begins to reach far more than the cables of this bridge could ever stretch.

I have a bit of a thing for bridge news because in my teen years I worked for a bridge painting company on far flung bridges up north, and this bridge caught my attention because I crossed in twice last fall, first in October on my way out to Vancouver, when the bridge wasn't fully open to traffic yet, and again in December on my way home after it had opened. There are a several of these cable-stayed bridges in the lower mainland of BC, and other than some early ice shedding problems that broke a lot of windshields one week, they seem to work well.

The big news was that on January 10th during a cold snap, the deck on one side of the bridge lifted two feet, creating quite a ramp for one direction of traffic and a undercarriage ripping metal barrier for the other. This resulted in the temporary closure of the brand new bridge, and so far they've only been able to reopen one lane by piling thousands of pounds of concrete barriers in the closed lane to weight the bridge back down into place.

With words like "Embarrassing" in the headlines of some articles, the Ontario government went into spin mode and came up with some talking points, and they're all here in On-Site Magazine.

1) "...the bridge lifted in extremely high winds..."

Most of the articles about this bridge hardly mention the 70 kph winds because they're not unusual or extreme on the north shore of the biggest lake on the continent, Lake Superior. This bridge is less than 5 kilometres up river from Nipigon Bay. But the Liberals are fond of carbon taxes, which they say we need because climate change is making the weather more extreme. Here's the talking point: it's not bad engineering or bad Liberal oversight that caused the bridge to fail, it's global warming! Interestingly, the On-Site article doesn't mention that temperature had plummeted to -30 C. That's not extreme for Nipigon either, but it just sounds too cold for global warming. Any engineer can tell you that metal contracts and gets brittle in the cold, and this probably has more to do with the cable-stayed bridge heaving (and staying up) than the wind. But the Liberals don't want to remind Ontarians that we still enjoy very cold winters. It might make us think that we don't need carbon taxes.

2)"The $106-million project is still under construction…The westbound side was opened to two-lane traffic in November last year" 

Wow! These lines taken together give the impression that the bridge isn’t finished and maybe they just opened the two lanes too soon. The bridge is complete. They had an opening ceremony and everything. The project isn’t complete because construction on a second bridge has yet to begin under a plan to twin highway 11. Eventually one bridge will handle eastbound traffic and one westbound, but this bridge is complete! It failed less than two months after opening. So here's the talking point: make it sound like it’s still under construction, implying that it didn’t fail two months after opening, which sounds like someone really messed up. It's just part of a work-in-progress. It'll all get sorted out when the "project" is complete. Of course the old bridge, partially demolished, stood without a problem since 1933, and it didn’t fail just after opening.

3) "No one was injured but the crossing was closed for almost a day, which severed the Trans-Canada Highway and “cut Canada in half,” said a local politician."

Note the sneer in this statement: Only a “local politician” said the country was cut in half, as if it isn’t really a valid statement. What could a narrow minded “local politician” know about big Canada? Of course, anyone who looks at a map can tell you that the mayor of Nipigon, the “local politician,” was right on the money when he said the country was cut in half for truck and car traffic. It's a good thing the rail bridge just south of the highway bridge is owned by the CN/CP. (Note the rail bridge didn't fail in the "extremely high winds.") The only other highway route from Ontario to Manitoba is south of Lake Superior through the United States, a massive detour. So the talking point: let’s make the local politician sound like he’s exaggerating. Let’s pretend that truck traffic in goods worth hundreds of millions a day wasn’t forced to wait for the bridge to reopen or work through the mountain of paper required to cross the US border so that truckers could deliver their loads via the US.

 

The simple fact: if you wanted to drive from anywhere in the east of Canada to anywhere in the west, you would've had to go through the United States of America. In fact, some heavier truck loads are still forbidden. Canada, except for rail traffic, was cut in half. The Ontario government failed to properly oversee an essential piece of economic infrastructure.

 

Journalists believe they are more objective than bloggers, yet they parrot the Liberal governments without a question. I'm a conservative, but when you read my words, at least you know that and can make your own judgements. I don't pretend to be a neutral observer, which is why I'm more trustworthy than the CBC, or apparently, On-Site Magazine.

 

Mike Downtown

It's Time for Attack Ads on Tim Hudak's Real Opponents: The Unions

Rob Ford didn't get elected mayor of Toronto because he has good hair, like the former mayor, David Miller, or because he's slim and has a good pedigree, like Justin Trudeau. He got elected by promising to go after the city unions and their spend-happy councillor enablers. Ford wasted little time talking about his main opponent, George Smithermen. He just kept pounding home the message that he would stop the gravy train and ensure, "Respect for Taxpayers." For anyone in Toronto, that was code for, "I'll get those greedy, arrogant garbage workers who forced you to endure a five week strike in the middle of a hot summer last year."

The memory of that strike was very fresh four years ago. One story that did untold damage to the union reputation was of a senior citizen forced by union members to walk a 1/2 kilometer in the hot sun, carrying her one allowed bag of garbage, so that she could drop in on the stinking temporary pile. Of course she had to walk back to her car too. This is just one example of how the union enraged the voters. Worse, Mayor David Miller spent most of the strike haranguing citizens and promising that they would be severely punished if they illegally dumped. Everyone knew he was in the union's pocket, especially after he caved in to their demands. I suspect he took one look at the polls after that debacle and decided to quit rather than face humiliating defeat.

In Ontario, people still remember last year's teachers' work to rule, and believe me, we parents are still peeved. I recall showing up at 6:30 at my son's middle school for a parent-teacher night. Many parents had rushed home from work, wolfed down a quick dinner, and hurried over to find out how their children were doing at school, only to discover that the teachers had all left in protest without notice three hours earlier. Most of us are on the school's e-mail list, so sending out a warning that the teachers would not be there would've been simple, but the teachers kept their protest a secret until the last minute because they wanted parents to be inconvenienced. They wanted to hurt us under the mistaken assumption that we'd all blame McGuinty and call our MPPs. It never occurred to them that we would blame the people who beat rush hour every day by leaving for home as early as 3:30 pm, even when there isn't a work-to-rule.

The greatest damage to the tories is being done by the Working Families, so it's time to attack them. It's very simple. Make the following statements over ominous music:

The unions, including the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, fund the advertising of the Working Families.

In the last election, Working Families spent big money on ads attacking Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives.

The Teachers' unions also supported Kathleen Wynn's bid to become the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Now they're again attacking Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives.

Why?

What are they afraid of?

It's time for a government that represents all the people of Ontario, not just union members. Paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

This ad will make all the advertising of the Working Families toxic. Each attack ad aimed at the tories will suddenly sound self-serving. Remember, most voters don't know who funds the Working Families, which is why their advertising is so effective. Educate voters and you will irreparably damage the brand of the Working Familes, and all their future advertising will only hurt their cause.

Obviously, numbers would be good. I'm pretty sure researchers can say exactly how much Working Families spent on attack ads in the last election, and I'm pretty sure it's a matter of public record about who contributed to Kathleen Wynn's bid for Liberal leadership and how much. It wouldn't hurt to mention that Wynn gave the teachers a huge settlement in exchange for labour peace as soon as she took control.

In order to pay for this advertising, simply cease all attack ads against Wynn. She looks like a grandmother, like everyone's grandmother, and attacking a grandmother makes you look weak.

Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservatives need to remember that no union members are going to vote for them anyway. Attacking the unions is win-win.

Mike Downtown

How Rob Ford Can Win the Next Election in Toronto

The Toronto Star is breathless in their excitment because Police Chief Bill Blair says that there is a video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford doing...something. The sharks are circling, smelling blood in the water, but Rob Ford could climb out from under all of this slime with one statement to the press, followed by a lot of honest hard work. What follows is my proposal for a press statement, but keep in mind, I wrote this, not Rob Ford. I have no idea what his habits are or what he's thinking. Here's what I believe he should stand up and say to Toronto:

Folks, I have an addiction problem. It's alcohol. While under the influence of alcohol, I have had black out periods, which some people have used to manipulate and incriminate me in hopes of blackmailing me or selling the story to the media for substantial profit. It saddens me that some of these individuals are young men who initially reached out to me for help.

Many cultures are aware of the dangers of alcohol, and I must admit that I have been blind to the damage it has done to me while I was in denial about my addiction. I have joined Alcoholics Anonymous, and I will attend meetings. Obviously I can't invite the press to these meetings to protect the identity of other members. I will, however, ask AA to designate a representative to keep the media informed about my progress.

I've read that the eigth step of this journay will be to apologize to those I have wronged, and while I have a long way to go before I can reach that eighth step, I would like to take a moment apologize to my family for the times I have not been home while out drinking, and to my staff for the extra work and stress I have caused them. They have all been very supportive.

I will be returning to City Hall on Monday morning because I feel the best way I can fight this addiction is to work, and I especially look forward to the rewarding work of continuing to reduce the taxes paid by the citizens of Toronto.

I would ask the media to not hunt around my backyard or ambush me in my driveway in the future. My home is my refuge from the stress of work, and I need that peace more than ever as I come to terms with this affliction.

This will be a long and difficult road, but I with the support of my friends and family and the good citizens of Toronto, I know I can beat this addiction, and together we can do great things for Toronto.

End statement.

Please note so I don't get sued: I made this statement up. I have no idea how much Rob Ford actually drinks or whether he is an alcoholic.

This statement would, however, answer a lot of questions for voters and would put Rob Ford in a positive light, as a hero struggling with an addiction, one who has suffered unprecedented scrutiny and stress as mayor of Toronto at the hands of the Toronto Star and the CBC. And here's the best part: if he's not an alcoholic, swearing off drinking will be easy. If he is an alcoholic, joining AA will extend his life and make him a happier, healthier person.

Is this a cynical Machiavellian political move? It depends upon how much Ford drinks. Since the Star likes to carefully document every time he appears tipsy at a city event, it certainly wouldn't surprise anyone if he announced that he had a drinking problem.

Of course the sharks at the Star and CBC will still circle, but any further attacks will make them look like intolerant bullies. Left wing councillors who don't offer their support for his efforts at reform will be percieved as mean spirited. In one press statement, all of Rob Ford's opponents in the media and on council will be utterly gutted.

But of course the hard work is that Rob Ford would have to follow through, join AA whether he thinks he's an alcoholic or not, and stay dry. The press conference will be the easiest part.

Mike Downtown

New civility watch: Jon Stewart’s producer says Oklahoma tornado clearly targets conservatives

Lizz Winstead, the ‘co-creator’ of the Daily Show, that features comedian Jon Stewart, tweeted “This tornado is in Oklahoma so clearly it has been ordered to only target conservatives.”

She got unlikely support from Glenn Beck who tweeted “How many of us has made a joke we wished we could take back. She has to feel awful.” From the perspective of genuine tolerance, a recurring theme on these pages, Beck is quite right, of course.

However, it must nevertheless be noted that if the roles had been reversed and a conservative had gloated the same way over a natural disaster in a Democrat area, like say Hurricane Sandy, it would have been a career ender.

Incidents like this are useful to file away for the day when leftists lecture conservatives on incivility. At those times, we must throw comments like this back at them to show everybody that their civility talk is just partisan hogwash, and that they are the true political gangsters.

For this reason, I make a practice to note left-wing barbarism in this blog as it occurs.

The Intolerance of the Tolerant: the Cowboys and Indians Version

I came across this gem of a story from the Toronto Star, which perfectly illustrates everything wrong with today’s smug and entitled left-wing activists.

I always like to point out how much the character of the street-left has changed much since in the 1970’s, when they liked to quote Voltaire, “I may disagree with what you say but I defend with my life your right to say it.” Today, as the Star article points out, things are a bit different:

‘Bar patrons who wore feather headdresses and war paint to a “Cowboys and Indians” party on Saturday faced a battle they may not have expected.

A horde of outraged social media users crashed the Parkdale bar where the party was being held and demanded they remove the “racist” costumes, after photos appeared on Twitter just hours earlier.’

‘“They were reinforcing so many negative stereotypes,” said Leslie McCue, 25. “It’s degrading to our culture, to see women dressed in short felt costumes and low-cut tops, men with full headdresses holding alcohol, throwing tomahawks at each other and wearing multicoloured feathers.”’ 

Leslie is oblivious to the negative stereotypes of ‘social activists’ that she is reinforcing.

‘The themed party was apparently organized by a Toronto couple to celebrate two birthdays. More than 20 people attended, but none of the guests could be reached by the Star for comment.’ 

Birthday party = hate crime.

‘Photos of face-painted guests wielding tomahawks quickly appeared on Twitter, with the hashtag #racist or #racistparty. Soon, some were calling for action. 

“Round dance flash mob at #TheRhinoBar #parkdale midnight tonight. Stand against racism #idlenomore,” wrote one user.’

Yup. What did I tell you: cheap, moral high. 

‘She and friend Lance Morrison sat down with party attendees and explained why the costumes were offensive. On napkins, they wrote phrases like “I’m native and these are my people,” and “Are you OK with this?”’

So there were actual native people present? It’s not mentioned anywhere in the article that there were any, so I am dubious of this claim. But regardless, I have a question for you: If you found the party offensive, why did you go out of the way to be present. 

Have you heard of minding your own business?

Do you realize that being tolerant means tolerating things you don’t like?

Do you realize that forcing others not to do things that you don’t like is the polar opposite of tolerance?

I’m guessing that the answer to the last three questions is, no, no and no.

‘“No one would play Jews and Nazis,” he said. “The narrative of cowboys and Indians is of cowboys killing Indians. That’s what westerns are about.”’

No one ever did played Jews and Nazis. And best as I can recall from childhood, when kids played cowboys and Indians, it was a competitive role-play – as in, the kids who played Indians weren’t expected to play sacrificial victims but to fight back. But hey, details like that interfere with the Narrative.

“It never would have happened without a fleet of mobile gizmos and gadgets,” she said. “It really is about a connected class of people.”

No, it’s about a connected class of assholes.

Say, I have an idea. Why don’t all us ‘social media protesters’ flashmob the next Marxist conference at our neighbourhood university campus? We could help them out of their ignorance by ‘engaging in a dialogue’ with the purpose of explaining to them that their fellow-travelers deliberately murdered 100 million innocent people; and that their conference is insensitive to the families of those victims because it propagates the very same hate-filled ‘narrative’ that inspired those bloodbaths.

Let’s make it a date, shall we?

Who is the Strong Mayor Now?

"Unintended consequences" has become a buzz phrase lately, mostly used by left wing latte sippers.  It's an indication of a shift in power from left to right over the last few months, and Toronto's election of true conservative Rob Ford is the most dramatic example.

Four years ago David Miller won his second term with unprecidented powers, bestowed upon him by Ontario's libreral premier, Dalton McGuinty, who felt Toronto's mayor needed to be a "strong mayor," with powers like the mayor of New York, the power to push through a socialist (oops, I mean "progessive") agenda without needing the support of right wing councillors.

I warned friends, especially socialist friends, about the danger here: what if a right wing mayor were elected?  Would they be happy then?  I was no fan of Miller, and I was trying to get them to understand how I felt about the City of Toronto Act and Miller's new powers, which allowed him to have an executive council of his socialist buddies, limit debate on the budget and shut right wing councillors out of city government, giving key positions only to his loyalists.

My socialist friends scoffed.  David Miller was going to be mayor for years, at least until he annoited a successor.  No right winger could ever win Toronto.

In their defense, I envisioned Doug Holiday, Case Oates or maybe Denzil Minnan-wong coming to power.  Even I didn't see that the left's arch-nemisis, favorite council punching bag, and the man endlessly ridiculed by the Toronto Star could ever come to power.

But now Rob Ford is the strong mayor with power that McGuinty and the socialists unwittingly endowed him with.  He has already shut out the downtown socialist from his executive, and while the left wing councilors point out that Rob Ford is only one vote on council, they are quietly cringing that they gave him the power to corall many votes without the need to compromise.  The unintended consequences of the City of Toronto Act make it clear that it is a mistake to increase the power of government to support a particular ideology.  Governments must be contained and constrained.

I'm delighted about the election and Rob Ford's strong mayor powers, of course.  Rob will be able to fundamentally change the way the city works, and I'm looking forward to that.  But I'd still like to see the end of the City of Toronto Act, because I prefer it when the mayor has to build a consensus, something Miller always talked about but never bothered to achieve.

Unlike my socialist friends four years ago, I can see that a pendulum swings.  Rob Ford has more staying power than David Miller, of that I'm sure, but stuff happens.  One day, unexpectedly, a socialist mayor will be voted in, probably disguising himself as a centrist.  I don't want him to be a strong mayor.  I want him to have to include the right wing councillors.

But for now: Go, Rob, Go!

Mike Downtown

Am I being slandered by a lefty blogger?

The left-wing blogger Canadian Cynic posted this item on his blog, his response to this item of mine about the Obama – joker poster. The racist quote he attributes to be is entirely made up by him. My readers know I said no such thing and I certainly had no contact with him. I think this “quote” could even be characterized as an outright lie. His post is entitled "Racism, What Racism?" Evidently, the answer to his questions is that the only racism is that which is coming out of his imagination. My question to you is this: do you think his misrepresentation of me constitute slander as understood by the law.

According to the Oxford English dictionary, slander is “false report maliciously uttered to person’s injury” and “defame falsely”. Consider the evidence:

His post consists of a racist quote falsely attributed to me. Now he might claim it to be political satire, which would be fine except that nowhere in his post does he make it clear to his readers that he made it all up. I know that the quote is false but I think a case can be made that a reasonable person perusing his post might conclude that this false quote was taken from my post, or that it came from private communication between us. And unless his reader reads my post in its entirely they might erroneously conclude that my post was in some way about race.

This false impression is aided not only by the fact that his screen capture of my original post is done in such a way that my stated reasons for liking the Obama – joker poster are invisible. Given that my post did not mention Obama’s race, anybody else’s race or references race as a topic in any way, even tangentially, one might even conclude that Mr. Cynic is deliberately misleading his reader about my writings for the purpose of defaming me.

What do you think?