1,200 versus 60,000

That the ratio of Jews killed in the October 7th attack to the number of Palestinians killed to date in that horrific war.

That's obscene.

They call it the Israel Defence Force, but "defence" has long been abandoned.  It's just plain brutal attacks on women, children and anyone else who happens to live there.  The destruction is unconscionable.  Now even Jewish columnists like the usually one-sided Marsha Lederman are calling the massacres a genocide.  

Corpses piling up in morgues await burial.

"We Jews have a special obligation to speak out against what is happening," she wrote.  As Mark Kersten, professor of criminal justice at the University of the Fraser Valley wrote, "Genocide is a process, not an event.  It starts slowly and gradually spreads and widens while people don't seem to notice.

A man tragically holds his dead child.

"Under international law, there is no hierarchy of international crimes," Kersten writes.  "But genocide is generally accepted as the worst and it is being accomplished through starvation.  Israel is chipping away at life in Gaza.  What will states like Canada do to stop it?"

Nothing.  As for Trump, remember he has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren.  These realities factor into his policy on Israel, make no mistake, because ultimately everything is personal.  As I have said, look at Carney.  His green, lunatic wife greatly influences his poor decisions on all files.  The guy is weak.      

What is happening in Gaza is the deliberate extermination of an entire people. Canada, England and France's announcements that they will recognize a Palestinian state in September will only make Israel bolder in its desire to decimate Gaza.  It's a futile finger-wagging exercise, plain and simple.  

Carney predicated his announcement by saying recognition would only happen if President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to free elections.  As if that's going to happen.  Hamas -- a terrorist entity -- is Palestine.  The people elected Abbas and he has been president for 20 years, but refuses to hold an election, so why would he now?  He's effectively declared himself  'president for life', so that's done and dusted.  

We all know that a sitting prime minister cannot be removed in Israel while a war is waged.  That's why Netanyahu keeps it up because the minute it ends, he'll be back in the dock and convicted of corruption.  It'll be jail for him, so he has to continue the genocide to save his own skin.

Zelensky is also doing the same.  He was elected to fight corruption, but he's right in the thick of it and conveniently and secretly tried to take over the running of two independent anti-corruption bodies to save his own hide.  That didn't work, as thousands of Ukrainians found out and took to the streets in mass protests.  He backed down, but he too will be facing charges when his war is over.  

As I have blogged, google his personal wealth since he became president.  A ton of nest feathering has gone on there.  He's now worth millions.  That's where a lot of the money thrown at Ukraine has been skimmed --  into his own personal bank accounts.

Please, please, someone has to do something. 

He gets the dunce cap

 “Under the auspices of B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People’s Act, Premier David Eby has admitted that provincially significant projects on Crown land will not be expedited under its own fast-track law without the consent of Indigenous groups. At the same time, an effective veto is already being written into a growing number of agreements with Indigenous groups covering vast swaths of the province.”

Yep, that's NDP Premier David Eby of British Columbia effectively strangling economic development and further crippling Canada's economy.  What a dunce!  Does he not know that three quarters of Canadians support building a new oil pipeline to the West or East?  Obviously not.  He behaves as it he's still in high school writing essays and doing projects on never-never green projects.  Dave, you're the premier.  Until green is ubiquitous, we still need oil!

Tanker ban still in place off the B.C. coast effectively blocking all oil exports to market.  Great job, Messers Carney and Eby!

Although not all Indigenous tribes are against development -- Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Band in B.C. being a strong and sane supporter of economic growth -- many are.  And for no reason, except to say they are against the Feds.  Why?  Just because.

The majority are lined up against Bill C-5 because, frankly, they have no skin in the game.  The billions given them by the Canadian taxpayer will be doled out with or without any shovel digging into any piece of dirt.  Said Jason Schulz, executive director of strategic advisory services of the Athabasca Chipewyan Band, "I'm sure if we asked a number of different individuals, their perspective on what those consultation requirements might entail could vary greatly."

I'm sure they would, Mr. Schulz, because most chiefs think "consultation" means "veto".  But in spite of what Dave Eby thinks, it doesn't.

 

Chris and Don and Dave

Or, the "Big Dogs" as I call them, swim with me at the pool here in Cochrane.  Well, they don't exactly swim "with me", I just happen to be in the lanes when they are.  All excellent swimmers, they are in their fifties and sixties, but ripped like 20-year-olds.  

The Spray Lakes pool in Cochrane, where I swim 1 Km, three times a week.  We are very lucky to have this beautiful facility in little, old Cochrane.

Of the Dogs, Chris is probably the best and fastest, but they are all in the same postal code.  I mean, he is the Canadian national champion in the 65 to 69 age group and is heading to World's on the weekend to compete in Singapore.  I'll be watching his results and hoping for a podium finish!  

Because I'm a creature of habit, I always like to have "my" locker.  Discombobulates me if someone else is using it.  I also like to swim in "my" lane, so when I arrived on deck this morning, lifeguard Grace said, "Nancy the Big Dogs are in your lane."  "No!" I replied, half-jokingly, but only just.  So I got in with Neil in the next one.  

Apologizing, Don said, "I'm sorry we're in your lane, Nancy, but there was no other when we arrived."  So there I was looking like a total baby, but laughing it off because it really is stupid of me to want the first lane by the stairs.  (The truth is I like to be in that lane in case nature calls, you know.....at my advanced age, you never know when she will summon you!)

So what did they do?  They switched lanes to the one I was in so I could move over to "my" lane.  Was it out of respect, or mockery?  Probably a bit of both.  "You know, Dave, if I don't have my lane, I might cry."  "Well, we can't have that," he replied.

That's the kind of guys they are -- fun, fast and respectful.  Here's to you, Chris, we'll be following you in Singapore very soon!

        

As expected

Lives ruined

So, the five young men charged with raping someone called "E.M." have been acquitted.  Frankly, from my armchair, the judge really had no other option.  I mean, there she was on video agreeing to sex and inviting the men to "have at it", so to speak.

Legally, Justice Carroccia's ruled, "Although the slogan, "Believe the victim" has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial."  Says Globe columnist Robyn Urback, "That's why #Me-Too hit a firewall when it came up against the doors of a London, Ont., courtroom and why it will -- or ought to -- for similar cases to come.  There are some things social movements cannot, and should not, change."

That's the law.

In this case, can you tell me what red-blooded young man would turn down an invitation like that?  Can't think of anyone; virile, vigorous men in their prime are always up for a "good time".

And whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?  In spite of the fact that these five have been found not guilty, their reputations lie forever in tatters.  If E.M. could not be named, neither should the accused.  Why is a woman's name always protected, but a man's is blared and blasted all over the media -- pictures and everything.

The whole thing was a circus.  Firstly, they had to have only female prosecutors because can you imagine male prosecutors cross examining E.M.?!  Would never happen.  The defence lawyers were also women because that always seems the M.O. in such cases.  The best of this breed is Marie Henein, the lawyer who defended Jian Ghomeshi and won.  He too, however, has been ruined, which is too bad because the various CBC morning shows have never been a touch on 'Q'.

And let's not forget that in 2022, E.M. settled with Hockey Canada for $3.5 million!  That should have been the end of it, but no, she was persuaded, apparently by her mother, to press charges -- even though the London police hadn't seen any case there at the time.  'Cause legally there wasn't any.  Will she pay it back?  Hahahaha!

Was this a case of two female prosecutors attempting to re-define "rape"?  Didn't work.

As you know, I was actually raped when I was 20 and I sure wasn't "asking for it".  I fought as hard as I could, but lost.  However, I did get my revenge a few years later when I bumped into my rapist at a parent/teacher night, where he was the speaker.  Yep!  He was by then a saint.  "Hi Bill," I said in front of a gaggle of his fawning admirers.  "Remember when you raped me at your parents' cottage a few years ago?" 

Ya, that was a good moment.

I have to put in a good word about NHL players back in my day.  I dated two Montreal Canadiens and both were complete gentlemen.  My Mother loved them and I always felt completely safe and respected in their company.  May they both Rest in Peace.   

More billions

Canada's immigration system is a mess.  So is our "management" of asylum seekers.  Both are destroying the country's economy and culture.  This headline tells you all the proof you need about the latter:

And that number doesn't even include the extra $1.5 billion given provinces to deal with their own messes.  So that's $2.6 billion and we're absolutely nowhere on either file.  As I keep saying, countries have borders for a reason.  Why can't we enforce them?

The department of immigration used to be called, "Employment and Immigration".  Remember that?  Immigration was tied to employment needs.  What a concept!  But successive governments since the fifties have mucked it up with all sorts of other categories which have nothing to do with benefiting Canada -- you know, family unification, humanitarian grounds, blah blah blah....

Right now it is estimated that we have 500,000 illegal migrants in Canada, working and hiding in various sectors.  Legal immigration is also currently projected to be 500,000, so we have equal numbers in both categories.  That's dumb.  The CBSA admits it has lost track of more than 500 illegals with criminal records who were supposed to be deported.  Can't find them!  (If they admit to 500, you can bet it's a lot higher.)

What are we doing at the borders?  The country currently budgets $224 per illegal per day.  Do the math, it's ridiculous.  Most are staying in federally-funded hotels -- some fully-booked for this purpose alone, like in Cornwall -- which means that ordinary Canadians can't enjoy them.  As I say, the whole thing is ridiculous. 

So far, Carney is doing zilch about the whole expensive shambles.  Is it just me, or does anyone else see how weak he is?  He has no presence, no gravitas and no leadership on any file.  Jim Balsillie says Carney's working with outdated economic models from the seventies, which bear no relation to how economies must be managed today.  I'm no economist, but that sounds about right.  By the way, Carney is no economist either, in case you thought he was; his PhD is in philosophy.

As I say, if you voted for the guy, hang your head. 

As an aside, why did he hang out and have a sleepover in his jammies with Doug Ford at the latter's cottage during the recent fed/prov meeting in Huntsville?  What an idiotic thing to do!  Talk about no judgement, that just undermines the whole process because obviously he and Dougie cooked up some side deals no one else was privy to.  As I have said, Dumb.      

I don't care!

That's my newest go-to comment on just about everything.  "Did you know that so-and-so has moved to Timbuktu?" B will say.  "I don't care!" I will shoot back.  'Cause I don't.  

These days, I have to focus on the little bits of minutia and data I need to remember in my ever-shrinking brain because they're important to me.  Stuff to do with my kids or grandkids, getting B's next batch of pills ready, finding my bathing suit, towel and goggles, checking to see if I'm out of wine.  You know, important stuff.

So, when I was in line at the bank the other day -- because their on-line system is for computer PhDs only -- I was more than a little annoyed by the guy behind me who started up a conversation.  "I don't care!" I almost screamed.  In the space of about 10 minutes I knew this guy's entire life story.  Where he was born, how long he'd lived in Cochrane, where he had just vacationed, all his ailments, aches and pains, where he gets his hair cut, what his dog did this morning, what his departed sainted wife was like....and on-and-on-and-on!

I don't care!!

Why do some people feel the need to vomit up their lives to complete strangers?  Don't worry, I was unfailingly polite and feigned sincere interest because that's how I was reared, but I just wanted to get to the teller, do my business and get the hell out of there.

So, with apologies to that guy in line, "I don't care!"

You knew it was futile

What was Mark Carney thinking when he decided to "consult" mostly after-the-fact with Indigenous leaders about Bill C-5?!  He rammed the bill through Parliament before it rose without adequate consultation with the natives.

Would any consultations ever be adequate?  Rhetorical.  Here is a letter I sent to 'The Globe and Mail', which didn't get in:

____________________________

Dear Editor,

While Indigenous leaders claim to support major infrastructure projects, their initial position is most often one of protest.  Mention the word "project" and the blockades, placards and press conferences shift into gear.

Consultation, cooperation and compromise are the only way forward.  However, "consultation" does not mean "veto" and this is where things fall apart.  I hope Mr. Carney's upcoming meeting with First Nations leaders bears fruit and allows industry to get moving with haste on key partnerships for resource development projects. 

But to make it happen, the old "us versus them" paradigm must be jettisoned.

Nancy Marley-Clarke

7 Glendale Way

Cochrane, Alta

403-710-9122 

________________________________

I knew it wouldn't because The Globe is increasingly woke these days, but I live in hope.  We need to strengthen and grow our economy, but the natives NEVER agree to anything.  Ever!  

You know who owns all native reserves?  The Crown.  Look it up.  "Native reserves in Canada are indeed on Crown land.  The legal title to reserve lands is held by the Federal Crown (the Government of Canada) for the use and benefit of a specific First Nation.  While the Crown holds the title, the land is set aside for the use and benefit of the First Nation."  

This is something Indigenous leaders apparently don't know.  They think it's their land.  It isn't, but the media never calls them on this inconvenient fact -- much to their shame.

So, why does every politician have to stand up and offer a "land acknowledgement" every time one stands up to make a speech?  Why do they always say, "We acknowledge we are on the ancestral lands of the...blah, blah, blah...nation."  Unnecessary because, as I say, it's Crown land owned by the Federal government.  

According to Chief Vernon Watchmaker of the Kehewin Cree Nation, "Bill C-5 centralizes power in Ottawa, lets cabinet override environmental laws, ignore treaty and inherent rights.  "This is not modernization, it is colonization in 2025. "  The problem is, chief, Ottawa does have power over what happens on Crown land.  You don't own it.    

"We must give free, prior and informed consent before anything is built," Watchmaker added.  The snag is that natives think this means they have a veto.  They don't.  Of course, Carney held the meeting behind closed doors, with no media access.  That was also dumb.  This isn't the velvet boardroom of a central bank, Mark.  The public has a right to know what you're up to.

Now nine Ontario First Nations have filed a lawsuit to have Bill C-5 struck down and have called for an injunction.  And as if that isn't enough, Carney now also has to consult with Métis leaders as well.  That'll go well.  Not. 

Chief Joey Pete of Sunchild First Nation in Alberta told a news conference that treaties must be honoured.  "We have to revenue share.  These are resources stolen from us illegally.  They were all ours to begin with."  

Really?  What were you doing with them?  Rhetorical.  Of course, natives want to share in the revenues, but will put no money up front to develop them.  

They vow more protests.  Of course they do.  At this rate, nothing will be developed and Canada's vast wealth will continue to be locked in the ground.  But the natives don't have any skin in the game; their billions will continue to flow from Canadian taxpayers regardless of what's developed or isn't.  The wealth we give them doesn't depend on getting anything to market.

A good solution would be for the Federal government to calculate what the yearly income of a project rejected by a native reserve would be and then deduct that amount from the $32 billion handed them every year.  In other words, you don't want that pipeline, here's how much your allotment will be reduced because of your objection.  That might have an impact.  Will the feds do that?  Never.

"There's gold in them thar hills," but it'll never get anywhere.

So once again, we're check-mated and doomed.  Poor Mark, aren't you glad you're the PM?  Not only are you getting pummeled by Trump, you're getting drubbed right here at home.