Guilty, regardless

That's the deal now.  Men are automatically guilty of sexual assault -- regardless of anything anyone says, proves or disproves.  Every airwave is full of the testimony of women who are siding knives out, full bore with Ford in the Kavanaugh hearing.  Never mind that they know nothing about what might, or might not, have happened, they're hammering the guy relentlessly.

It's obscene.  The worst part is how Ford cried her way through her testimony.  This happened 36 years ago and she is still crying about it in the public thoroughfare.  This is some kind of PhD professor and she's crying!  Remind me never to take any of her classes.  Justice isn't blind, she's got her eyes wide open and the verdict pronounced for all the world to see.

Contrast Ford's "performance" to that of the dignified Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings.  Hill was calm, measured, cool, collected and credible.  She is a credit to her gender, but Ford is an embarrassment.  The piling on is appalling and sets women's credibility back 50 years.  Grow up.  If you go to a drunken frat party, expect whatever comes along.  Frankly, with that long, dyed-blonde, young-woman hair, she seems to be still back there.

Regardless, Kavanaugh is done unless Trump digs in and threatens every senator and congressman with his wrath if he loses.    

Moral courage

Know anyone who has it?  B and I were talking about it today and I came up with very few.  Many are dead, but include B's grandfather, his mother, both my adoptive and birth mothers (the latter who had the guts to carry and put me up for adoption), my father, John Booth, Michael Kirby, Jacqui Sadler and John Vought. I know that sounds ridiculous, because these people are both living and dead and don't even know each other, but they stuck to their principles in the face of resistance.  Canvas your own circles and see what you find. 

On another note, the latest nonsense is the decision by that ridiculous Freeland to create the position of an ambassador dedicated to "women, peace and security".  What??!!  Why??!!  Trudeau made an embarrassing speech at the UN the other day lauding women and vowing to protect their security.  Great, but how are you going to prevent men in cultures that supress and violate women from abusing them?  You're not and neither will this ambassadorial position.  So ludicrous.

Canada already has devoted $450 million and a staff of 63 to a "peace and stabilization program" in departments and agencies across government.  What have they accomplished?  Nothing.  Why do we need another useless department dedicated to what can't be done?   

Both Andrew Coyne and John Ivison take it on in today's 'National Post' when they write about the disastrous appointment of Julie Payette as GG.  Speculation is the government is set to dump the vacuous Payette into that job and appoint a new GG.  Won't be happening if Payette has anything to say about it.  She may not like being GG and carrying out boring duties such as upholding Canada's constitution, signing stuff and pulling in $300 K a year, but if pushed, a contrarian such as she will dig in and stay.  So, that's a non-starter.  The betting is on the appointment of a native woman -- which is what I had predicted before Payette was named.  I got the gender right, but not the native part.  Now that can be glossed over if a native were to be named to this post.  But, as I said, she won't budge.

Coyne talks about "gravitas" being an essential part of a GG appointment.  The only holders of the office who had it were Vincent Massey, Georges Vanier and David Johnston.  Every other appointment consisted of light-weights -- mostly journalists.  Think of Jeanne Sauve, Adrian Clarkson, Michaelle Jean and Ed Schryer.  Any "gravitas" there?  No.  None.

In appointing Payette, Trudeau did not consult the panel of vice-regal experts, whose role it was to vet candidates, so Trudeau and his cronies could fast-track a female who ticked all his boxes.  Ivison says the whole deal with this new position is to create a superfluous job to provide a soft landing for Payette and cover for a blunder of Trudeau's own making. 



   

What a joke

So, parts of the Ottawa area were flattened by a rare tornado that hit over the weekend and where was Trudeau?  In New York making speeches at the UN about gender politics, lobbying to get a seat on the Security Council.  Why?  Why does Canada need a seat on the Security Council?  Just so Trudeau can say he got one and Harper failed?

I have no clue.  The UN is a castrated organization no one takes seriously, so what's the point?  Anyway, I guess it's more fun being in New York than Dunrobin.  Here's a picture of that devastated community:



It's hard to believe that little old Dunrobin has been taken off the face of the earth.  I can't even imagine losing my house like this!?  My heart goes out to those who have lost everything and I give kudos to the emergency responders who have stepped up so tirelessly. 

________________________________________
p.s.  Had a mammography last week and got my results today:  normal.  Very grateful.     

I told you so

The media is full of what a disaster our current GG, Julie Payette, is.  Installed a year ago, she remains seemingly unaware of what a governor general in a parliamentary democracy is supposed to do.  I wrote "Give her a copy of the constitution" on 07/11/17, pointing out that she thinks she has opinions to impart on government bills and won't sign them.   

No, she doesn't have opinions, but apparently she refuses to give Royal Assent to things with which she doesn't agree.  Really!?  Seasoned Rideau Hall officials and constitutional staff have tried and tried and tried to educate her, but have failed.  She actually has the gall to complain that her duties are interfering with her personal time!  OMG!  Guess that means she doesn't work nights or weekends, when most official stuff is carried out.  And by the way, she gets paid $300 K to do what she's told.  And as to being a "single mother", you can bet that kid's father is paying lots of child support.    

I also wrote "Is it just me?" on 02/10/2017 about her ignorance of her role and the inappropriateness of her dress and ridiculous hair.  When you're the governor general, this stuff is all very important.  People are counting on you to show up and look like "the governor general" -- not some ex-astronaut.  Years ago, when I was with Customs and Excise and Elmer MacKay was the minister, I went to a briefing to make a presentation on something or other (see how unimportant it all is in the end, can't even remember what it was about?) and Elmer said, "Nancy, as Woody Allen said, ninety percent of life is showing up and here I am, so what do you have for me?" 

He was right.  The fault, of course, lies with Trudeau and the PMO, who obviously failed to vet her sufficiently to have seen her personality just didn't fit the role.  She reminds me of Freeland, who thinks everything she says and does is perfect because it's she.  I'll bet Payette was chosen as the token female astronaut, but hasn't figured that out yet and thinks it was because of her brilliance.

Wrong.  Afterall, they train monkeys and dogs to go up in space, so how hard can it be?!

Trudeau needs to call her into the office and give her a spanking, but oh yeah, I forgot, he doesn't have a clue about the constitution either!  Someone should give me a call because I am married to one of the guys who wrote it.        

Let's all calm down

#Metoo has gone too far.  Now, if a guy got a little sexually eager with a girl 36 years ago, as teenaged boys tend to do when they're in the throes of emerging manhood, he's dumped in the dirt with Harvey Weinstein and the Boston Strangler.  Come on, people.  But yes, this apparently is the case with Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, who is currently being vilified by a girl he met at a party in high school he may -- or may not (she can't really remember because she was also drunk) -- have sexually assaulted. 

Brett Kavanaugh has a law degree from Yale, clerked for three judges and has had a distinguished career in public service; his work ethic is prodigious.  Not that any of that would matter, if he had been a rapist, but does one juvenile act define a man for life?  These days, I guess so. 

Compare this to the treatment accorded Omar Khadr, writes Christie Blatchford in today's 'National Post'.  This guy pleaded guilty to killing a US special forces soldier and partially blinding another by throwing a grenade during a firefight in Afghanistan.  He only got eight years and to top it all off, Trudeau handed him a $10.5 million cheque to compensate him for....something or other.  It was ludicrous.

And then there's the ruined Jian Ghomeshi.  Acquitted of all the charges against him, he is nevertheless done for life.  Done.  Yes, he was in a position of power and used it to date and have sex with women.  What man in power doesn't?  But the women were willing and none objected.  Where's the assault in that?  I can't find it?! 

I was a speech writer for ministers in Trudeau senior's cabinet and I can't count the number of times most came on to me (I was young and gorgeous at the time).  It didn't bother me in the least.  In fact, I was flattered.  I could hold my own in such situations because everyone was good-natured about it.  It was harmless.  Women either said "yes" or "no" and no one pressed it, but you had to be aware that if you said "no", you might not have been given that particular assignment, depending on the personality and ego of the minister.  One thing that amazed me was that even when pregnant and "out to here", I was still propositioned.  Weird.  But should I go back and start "#Metoo-ing" everyone?  Please.   

Ghomeshi recently wrote an essay for the 'The New York Review of Books' and people attacked him in the ether without mercy for telling his side and actually apologizing for the assumptions he made with the women he dated.

It's all ridiculous and I'm sick of it.  And, by the way, Q has never been the same without him.         

The skinny on Singh

Jagmeet Singh was elected leader of the federal NDP because a lot of Sikhs joined the party at the last minute, overrode traditional NDPers and voted him in.  Now I read that the NDP can't raise money.  Geez, no kidding!  My question is, where are all the Sikhs who voted for him when it comes to filling the NDP coffers? 

Obviously, nowhere.  They've taken their wallets and gone home.  Why did they want him as leader?  For that, I have no answer.  Someone wondered what he had to do to attract voters.  He has to drop his turban, cut his hair and shave.  Sorry, but them's the facts and the reality of the voting public in Canada.  There is a separation between "church" and "state" in this country, but his primary identity is his religion, which is why he has to drop the paraphernalia.  His turban and hair send out a religious message.  Wrong.  He's running in Burnaby, where the NDP squeaked in; it will be amusing to see if he loses.
   
As for Maxim Bernier, he should have won the leadership of the Conservatives.  The fact that it was so close and the ballots destroyed immediately meant no re-count was possible.  Scheer, as nice and dimply as he is, can't win and that's a tragedy.  Bernier will split the vote and the Liberals will slide back in under the inept Trudeau and we will be effed for another four years. 

As for NAFTA, the wrong person is handling the negotiations.  She is a dog barking, as my psychiatrist used to call B's ex, and can't get out of her own chair.  Not good for getting to an agreement.  Were I Trudeau, I would put Bernier in charge of the file and dump Freeland.  Mulroney put Simon Reisman in charge for the original Canada/US Free Trade Deal and they got it done.  I was a member of that task force and very proud to have made a small contribution in getting it signed.  I well remember working all through Christmas and New Year's in 1987 to make sure it rolled out on January 2nd, 1988, as it had to.  We were a busy bunch while everyone else was opening presents and eating turkey.  But, by the way, I still managed to get a turkey on the table for my parents and extended family.

But the "gender-mad" Trudeau will not dump Freeland, much to the country's detriment.  Here's a picture of her.  Would you buy a used car from this disaster?  She's a disgrace to her gender and to the rest of us who worked so hard to get women to the grownup's table.



 

Here's the deal

The rabble protesting Doug Ford's invocation of the "notwithstanding" clause in the Canadian Constitution is ill-informed.  I am married to someone who held the pen when the Constitution Act of 1982 was drafted, so I rely on his knowledge to unravel the facts.

The clause was insisted upon by the three Western Premiers, Sterling Lyon, Alan Blakeney and Peter Lougheed, because they feared that Quebec would abuse the constitution.  What the clause means is provinces can override the Charter of Rights in cases where provincial jurisdictions and decisions are at stake.  That, my friends, is exactly what Doug Ford is doing.  He wants to reduce the number of Toronto city councillors and is perfectly within his rights to do so.  What people don't know is that the municipalities are creatures of the provinces.  In fact, municipalities are not necessary and Ford has the right to make changes as he sees fit.

Basically, what the Western premiers were saying was eff Quebec.  We're not going to let one province block our legislative powers, hence the clause.  Reading all the letters and editorials, I have to laugh at the ignorance of the positions taken.  It was simply Western provinces standing their ground.  And as to the Ontario MPPs protesting and banging their desks, they have no idea either.  It's all legal. 

He's doing it and so what.  The clause is there and it's being used.  B has a letter in The Globe and Mail today which sums it all up perfectly.  Here's the letter:

"Dear Editor,

"As part of the team in the Federal Provincial Relations Office in 1978, I was a participant in the negotiations that resulted in the Constitution Act of 1982.  The “notwithstanding clause” was insisted upon by then-premier Sterling Lyon of Manitoba to enable provincial legislatures to challenge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should issues be at odds with provincial legislative initiatives, as Premier Ford is now doing. 

"Supported by both Premiers Lougheed and Blakeney, this clause was an essential element in securing the support of all premiers for approval of the Constitution.  The fact that Premier Ford is using it now is perfectly legitimate and within the province’s constitutional rights. 

"Brian Marley-Clarke

Director, Federal Provincial Relations, Privy Council Office (ret’d)
Calgary, Alberta"