Jump to content

Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)


Free tampons…exactly what Canadians need to BORROW money for. Before you know it Trudeau will be supplying free underwear too

Women and Gender Equality Canada will get $25 million over two years, starting in the 2022-23 fiscal year, for the "Menstrual Equity Fund."


Edited by Jaydee
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sums up Canada rather well…..


Canada is an aging, complacent society that wears a dysfunctional health system as a badge of honour and invests more in housing, an unproductive asset, than in research and development, the core of innovation. The threat is that Canada gets left behind as the world shifts to a digital, carbon-neutral economy because politicians are too worried about “vote efficiency” to risk alienating their vote blocks, while executives cling to the notion that the hurdle rates they achieved selling goods and services to the U.S. during the rise of the baby boom will magically return.

One thing I didn’t notice in the budget (just using google search) was the proposed 10% luxury tax on cars, boats and aircraft…..you know ..make the rich pay their fair share.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, st27 said:

Canada is an aging, complacent society

The root of many ills plaguing western democracies right now IMO.

The definition of complacency is “self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies”.

Pretty much sums it up eh?

Now throw in a government eager to exploit it and a compliant media willing to assist them do it.  


Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada’s international irrelevance and the growing importance of housing

If Hub readers will indulge me, I thought that I’d mark the one-year anniversary of The Hub’sofficial launch with a list of ten key things that we’ve learned over the eventful past twelve months. Here it goes (in no particular order): 

1) Notwithstanding our best minds and intentions, we learned that we haven’t yet overcome the basic arithmetic of inflation. The “prime-pumping” that we’ve seen in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere over the past two years or so came with a technocratic arrogance that it could be done without the risk of inflation. It was if academics, bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians convinced themselves that we were so clever that they could keep their hands perfectly on the dials of fiscal and monetary policy and avoid the inflationary mistakes of the past. 

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that it intends to raise rates several times over the coming months is a powerful sign that they were wrong. That Larry Summers recently speculated there’s a 50-percent chance that the U.S. economy will fall into a recession in the next year portends the costly consequences of their mistake. 

It would be another mistake at this point to claim that one of the inadvertent results is that Modern Monetary Theory is dead. Its underlying ideas not only continue to hold sway in certain progressive circles, but they also tend to resurrect themselves over multi-year and multi-decade cycles. At least in the short term though one gets the sense that these past twelve months have discredited them in the minds of most ordinary citizens. One certainly hopes. 

2) We learned that obituaries to liberalism and growing efforts to define a post-liberal future were premature. While the liberal international order may have been seriously weakened by the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the global financial crisis, and the West’s policy failures in China, the basic currency of liberal ideas and values have sustained greater appeal than the pessimists assumed. It just took the Ukrainians’ courageous defence of their country and the extraordinary leadership of President Zelenskyy for us to see it. 

Their heroic example and the massive reaction that it has catalysed in the West is, as David Frum said in a recent Hub Dialogue,1 a sign that liberalism’s reservoir of strength may be latent but it’s still capable of manifesting itself in the face of serious threats.

The question for good liberals everywhere is: how do we seize on this moment and ensure that this wave of liberal self-confidence doesn’t quickly wash away? Or, as Ross Douthat recently posited for the New York Times, is it the case that liberalism can only thrive with a “wolf at the door”The Hub intends to take up these fundamental questions in the coming weeks and months. 

3) Talking about wolves, we got further evidence over the past year that, notwithstanding our best hopes, Starbucks and McDonald’s won’t ultimately bring China into the so-called “global community.” The Chinese government’s ongoing circumspection, denial, and misinformation about COVID-19 aren’t the actions or behaviour of a reliable partner but rather signs that it’s moving in the opposite direction as the country gets richer, more self-assured, and ultimately more belligerent. 

Its ongoing genocide of the country’s Uyghur Muslim population, ambivalent position vis-à-vis Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and a new round of totalitarian lockdowns in Shanghai are stark reminders that the West’s three-decades-long policy approach of greater economic integration with China has been something of a “spectacular failure.” China is not going to become Japan. 

It isn’t in our interest for the relationship to break down into outright hostility. But we also cannot continue on the same path either, as American defence and security policy expert Elbridge Colby persuasively argued in Hub Dialogues in December and March.2 

Although it may have been mostly symbolic, the boycott by global leaders (including Prime Minister Trudeau) of this winter’s Beijing Olympics may be a sign that we’re finally learning these lessons. We’re opening our eyes to the real China. It couldn’t come soon enough. Perhaps we’ll eventually look back on 2022 as the year in which the modern equivalent of the “long telegram” found expression. That would be a positive development.   

4) Notwithstanding Justin Trudeau’s big claims in the aftermath of the 2015 federal election that Canada was “back” on the international scene, recent evidence suggests that the world isn’t so sure. 

Canada’s exclusion from a major defence and security agreement between the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia is a powerful example of our ongoing isolation. There are various reasons for our current irrelevance, but the key explanation is our lack of “hard power.” We’ve become a country that mostly talks a good game, as Michael Ignatieff recently noted in a Hub Dialogue.

Yet, for all the talk of a “feminist foreign policy,” the rest of the world still ultimately cares about hard assets—including guns, tanks, and planes—as Germany and others have come to learn in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The recent federal budget’s new defence spending—which in light of these world events seems like the bare minimum—is at least a nod that the Canadian government is starting to learn this same lesson. Nice socks are no substitute for a well-equipped military in the realpolitik world of global affairs. 

5) While democracy and representative politics may be imperfect in various ways, we learned that it’s still preferable to the technocracy that we’ve seen in response to recent waves of the pandemic. 

It now seems clear that government reactions to the Omicron variant, particularly in parts of Canada, were overplayed and a cost-benefit analysis of another round of lockdowns—including schools—probably failed to support our policy choices. The long-term costs, as some brave scholars argued at the time, likely outweighed the short-term benefits. 

It raises a broader and oft-neglected point: notwithstanding the significant differences in government responses to the pandemic across jurisdictions, the actual outcomes have converged a great deal.4

This shouldn’t be interpreted as a rejection of expertise but a call to put expertise in its proper place in a democratic society. As David Frum recently put it in an episode of Hub Dialogues: “In the latter part of the COVID-19 pandemic, too much of that deference [by politicians to experts] was a mistake and a mistake that needs to be learned from.”5Amen. 

6) In response to the recent spike in consumer prices, one thing that’s been brought into focus is the political economy challenge of combatting climate change by relying on pricing mechanisms. 

Canada’s carbon tax is currently $50 per tonne but it’s set to reach $170 by 2030. That should in theory have a far bigger effect on prices (including gas prices) than anything we’ve seen in recent months. Yet we’ve seen governments in Canada and the United States scramble to reduce fuel taxes and other consumption taxes in recent weeks to try to mitigate rising prices in response to growing political pressure. 

If we can’t sustain the price increases that we’ve seen in recent months, it suggests that, notwithstanding its conceptual appeal, a rising carbon price as a key means of abating emissions is probably not sustainable. Democratic buy-in—particularly among key “swing voters” in car-friendly suburbs—increasingly seems like a less plausible outcome than the rise of our own Yellow Vest movement. 

If that’s true, it tells us that the primary means by which we’ll make climate progress will be less the use of “sticks” in the form of carbon taxes and more the use of “carrots” in the form of major public investments in R&D and subsidies for private firms to commercialize and deploy new technologies at scale. Net-zero emissions, in other words, is going to come from breakthrough technologies rather than higher taxes. 

7) As the Conservative Party kicked off its third leadership race in six years, we learned that the party continues to search for an identity more than seven years after its founding leader, Stephen Harper, officially stepped down. 

Successive leaders lasted for a single election each in large part because they failed to reproduce the formula that enabled the Harper-led Conservatives to reach close to 40 percent of the popular vote in 2008 and 2011. While the party has won the popular vote in successive elections, its vote share was still less than 35 percent in both cases. 

The current leadership race, therefore, is fundamentally about the right message and messenger to expand the party’s support. It pits Pierre Poilievre’s ideological narrative of “freedom” against Jean Charest’s pragmatic message about election appeal. The former seems self-evidently better positioned to win the party’s leadership. The question is whether his impressive support will translate into a general election. The Hub will be following the race closely between now and voting day in early September. 

😎 As we’ve discussed on The Hub’s weekly roundtable, there’s something big going on in our country with younger Canadians. We’ve heard from Ipsos Public Affairs CEO Darrell Bricker that there’s a growing agitation that reflects a generational sense that the milestones of middle-class progress are increasingly out of reach. 

The most obvious example is the housing crisis which we’ve written and talked a lot aboutat The Hub over the past year. The housing market has gone berserk due to a combination of too little supply and irrational exuberance. Aspirations of homeownership in our major cities are now mostly the purview of those with rich parents. 

Another manifestation is delayed family formation and declining fertility. Last year Canadians had the fewest babies in more than two decades. We now seem poised to join a group of countries known as the “lowest low” for our fertility rate of barely 1.4 children per woman. An unwillingness or inability to bring children into the world is an alarming expression of collective pessimism and discontent. 

It’s crucial therefore that policymakers, business leaders, and civil society commit themselves to addressing these issues and restarting middle-class progress. The Hubcertainly intends to. 


https://thehub.ca/2022-04-12/ten-things-we-learned-over-the-hubs-first-year/?utm_source=The Hub&utm_campaign=9dfa1215b1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_04_11_07_35&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_429d51ea5d-9dfa1215b1-522638043&mc_cid=9dfa1215b1&mc_eid=09433e3d5d


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Medicare takes centre stage after Liberals post 'manipulated' video of O'Toole online

Gee, who da thunk??? …….another election promise and on to other things…


If voters return his party to government on Sept. 20, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau promised Monday to spend $3 billion more on health care to help the provinces hire 7,500 new family doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners.

Speaking to reporters at a campaign stop in Halifax, Trudeau said a government led by him would "rebuild" a health-care system ravaged by COVID-19 by recruiting more physicians and eliminating wait-lists that have grown during the pandemic.


One more sockboy promise that got “lost in the shuffle” of the budget…and now that he’s bought off the NDP and parliament is in recess (since when did Trudeau give a crap about parliament?), the voters were sucked in again.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Liberals' sci-fi budgeting buttressed by the energy industry they have pledged to destroy 

The government could be forced to put the country on red alert if the global economy continues to deteriorate and it presses ahead with its plans to decimate the energy industry

In a 1992 episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” the Enterprise finds Scotty from the original series suspended in a transporter buffer and brings him back to life after 75 years. While interacting with the crew, the ship’s chief engineer, Geordi La Forge, informs Scotty that he told the captain his current task would take an hour and that it was an accurate estimate. “You didn’t tell him how long it would really take, did ya?” asks Scotty. “Oh, laddie, you’ve got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker.”


In many ways, this is the approach the Liberals have taken to budgeting throughout the pandemic: predict a high deficit in the fall and then bill themselves as miracle workers when it comes in slightly lower. The 2020 fall economic statement, for example, estimated the deficit would hit $381.6 billion, but it turned out to be “only” $327.7 billion. Likewise, the 2021 fiscal update pegged the 2021-22 deficit at $144.5 billion, but last Thursday’s budget had it coming in at $113.8 billion.


The big question this time around is whether the Liberals’ science fiction-like predictions will continue to work out in their favour. Though the budget forecasts that the deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio will steadily decline over the next four years, an alternate scenario detailed in the document admits that “the economic outlook is clouded by a number of key uncertainties.”

Should we see a long, drawn-out war in Ukraine — which is looking increasingly likely by the day — we could see higher-than-expected commodity prices, inflation and interest rates, coupled with reduced consumption and economic output. This would significantly throw off future budgets, causing the deficit to be over 150 per cent higher than expected by 2026-27.


But in the coming year, the country’s fiscal situation would actually improve, with the deficit falling to $39.5 billion, instead of an expected $52.8 billion, and the debt-to-GDP ratio dropping 2.5 percentage points below what was initially forecast.


This would come about thanks to higher-than-expected commodity prices that would provide the federal government with additional revenues. Such an eventuality would allow Trudeau to play the miracle worker card one more time, but the gains would be short lived. Eventually, global energy prices will stabilize, and Canada will find itself in a situation in which “energy-related investment and exports remain relatively muted,” due to “uncertainty about longer-term demand for fossil fuels.”

This will surely be exacerbated by the fact that the Trudeau government has made punishing the energy sector a top priority. Budget 2022 reiterates the government’s recently laid out plans to put a cap on oil and gas emissions and force the industry to reduce its CO2 output by a whopping 42 per cent below 2019 levels.


The budget does include a new carbon capture and storage (CCS) tax credit, which is expected to cost the feds $35 million this year, increasing to $1.5 billion by 2026. But it will not be available to companies looking to use carbon to extract otherwise unrecoverable oil from existing wells, in a process known as “enhanced oil recovery,” which could help reduce emissions while encouraging economic growth.

The money made available for CCS will also be dwarfed by the $8.2 billion the government expects to bring in from its pollution pricing framework, which includes the gas tax and taxes from jurisdictions where the federal government collects carbon tax revenues. That doesn’t include all the carbon taxes the industry will pay to provincial governments, most of which now have their owncarbon tax, cap-and-trade scheme or output-based pricing system that allows them to bypass the federal backstop.


To further turn the screws on the industry, the Liberals will be phasing out minimally taxed flow-through shares, which are used to help finance exploration. It’s a measure that is only expected to bring in $9 million over the next five years but will have a significant impact on smaller players. It is yet another example of the federal government imposing additional costs on the industry simply because it doesn’t like fossil fuels.

Instead, the Liberals are betting big on the green transition fuelling the economy of tomorrow. Measures include the Canada Growth Fund, which the government hopes will attract $3 of private capital for every $1 of public money put into it. The Canada Infrastructure Bank will also be tasked with finding private investment in clean energy and other emission-reduction technologies, despite having little success in its previous efforts to entice investors. And, of course, there will be significant new spending on energy-efficient home retrofits, green-energy infrastructure, natural decarbonization measures and electric vehicle chargers.


The environmentalist left has long tried to sell us on the idea that transitioning to a less carbon-intensive future will boost economic output. As we’ve seen over the past two decades, however, most green technologies are not economically viable and are only feasible through massive government subsidies and tax increases designed to make once-cheap fossil fuels more expensive. Far from providing jobs and driving growth, the green transition will continue to be a net drain on society and will ensure the economic vitality of the country will be intimately tied to the government’s continued largesse.

Despite huge government “investments” in green technologies throughout the western world, it’s clear that sustainable energy will not provide the power needed to fully displace fossil fuels any time soon — not unless we can secure a supply of dilithium crystals and perfect matter-antimatter reactors, that is. Instead of ensuring the resource industry can continue to drive the economy and provide much-needed government revenue during these turbulent economic times, the Liberals will make Canada’s investment climate even less hospitable, driving energy companies away at warp speed.


National Post


Edited by Jaydee
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sarcasm alert………If only Climate Barbie had the strength of her convictions to stick around, instead of abandoning ship, to shows us the way to produce those thousands of clean tech jobs so we could live happily ever after.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And from the crime file…….diversity is our strength :



Hamilton man acquitted in a notorious domestic violence case which sent his brother to prison, is jailed in the Dominican Republic after 210 kilograms of cocaine was found on the airplane he crewed.

Aatif Safdar was arrested in a major international drug bust April 5 when a Pivot Airlines jet was searched by drug control agents at the Punta Cana International Airport before it could depart on a private flight for Toronto.

Safdar, a licensed pilot, is one of five crew members arrested.

A statement sent to The Spectator by Pivot, based at Pearson Airport, says it was the crew who discovered the cache and contacted authorities.

Aatif 's brother Adeel Safdar, a now disgraced scientist once held up as a superstar by McMaster University, is serving a four-year prison sentence for breaking his former wife's jaw in two places and permanently disfiguring her ear.

In the longest domestic violence trial in Hamilton history, court heard how Dr. Sara Salim, a medical doctor, was wed to Adeel in an arranged marriage.
She moved in with him and his extended family — including Aatif — in Hamilton and allegedly endured psychological and physical abuse and torture.

The brothers and their mother were charged and their defence at trial was that Sara was mentally ill and inflicted her injuries on herself.
While Adeel was found guilty of aggravated assault. Aatif was found not guilty of assault bodily harm, assault with a weapon, assault and threatening death. Their mother, Shaheen Safdar, faced the same charges at Aatif and was also found not guilty on all counts.

Aatif's wife, Sehrish Hassan, provided unexpected drama in the trial when she was caught lying on the witness stand. She was a law school graduate at the time, but was fired from a local firm after her stunt.

Defence lawyers Dean Paquette and Nader Hasan represented the Safdars in the domestic violence case. Paquette did not know of Aatif's new legal troubles until contacted by The Spectator. Emails, phone calls and texts to Hasan have gone unanswered.

I wonder when we will hear a statement from sockboy standing up for a woman’s right to choose who she marrys … after all, it is 2015 or so.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

105 Million…:angryangry: peanuts in Trudeaus world.

“ Federal government paid $20M for Ottawa company's COVID-19 test that flopped and was never delivered “

Spartan Bioscience created buzz by promising an Ontario-made, portable testing cube that it said could detect the novel coronavirus in less than an hour without a trip to the lab.

Now, the Public Health Agency of Canada says it is writing off the amount as a loss pending the company’s liquidation, according to information recently tabled in the House of Commons and in the 2021 federal public accounts.


“The company went through insolvency proceedings and is now being liquidated. By law, once a person or a company is in the insolvency process, no one can sue or attempt any other form of recovery. No litigation is allowed and all procedures go through the Trustee and is a public process,” reads the document.


Spartan Bioscience created buzz early in the pandemic by promising an Ontario-made, portable testing cube that it said could detect the novel coronavirus in less than an hour without a trip to the lab. Users just needed to swab their nose, insert the test into the cube and wait for the result.

In spring 2020, CEO Dr. Paul Lem was promising MPs that his company would produce over 200,000 of his proprietary Cube, which sold for $8,000 each in addition to the cost of each individual test ($70).


Seduced by the concept, the federal government as well as public health agencies and hospital networks in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec poured millions of dollars in orders for the product. For Health Canada, that amounted to $20 million following the signing of a March 2020 contract, it confirmed Tuesday.


Except the Cube never worked as well as promised, failing to catch nearly half of COVID-19 positive cases at one point during testing. Health Canada originally approved the product for sale, then retracted it in late 2020 before re-approving it in January 2021.

Three months later, the company had to halt production again due to technical issues, according to the Ottawa Citizen. Soon after, the company declared bankruptcy and is in the process of liquidating its assets.


But in the meantime, the federal government never received a single unit, barring a few used in clinical validation studies. Now, it’s hoping to recoup any amount of money through the liquidation process.


“The Spartan COVID-19 system encountered numerous performance-related issues since the initial contract was signed in March 2020. The company was unable to fulfil the terms of the contract and did not deliver Health Canada-approved COVID-19 tests to the Government of Canada,” Health Canada spokeswoman Anna Maddison said in a statement.

The total loss is still $20 million,” she added as an update to the 2021 public accounts.


A representative of the company’s trustee Ernst & Young did not respond to emailed questions Tuesday.


For the Conservatives, none of this would have happened had the government been faster acquiring proper PPE and testing equipment early in the pandemic.


Instead of being proactive from the start and using every second available to prepare the best defence against COVID, the Liberal government made a panicked last-minute dash to secure rapid tests, putting millions of taxpayer dollars at risk as a result of their failure to perform proper due diligence,” Conservative MP and health critic Michael Barrett said in a statement.

The cost of the Liberal government’s failure is always paid by Canadians, and this is one more example of how Canadians can’t afford more of the same from this NDP-Liberal coalition government.”


The Spartan Bioscience loss is one of three COVID-19 advance payments worth a total of $105 million that PHAC wrote off in 2021.


Edited by Jaydee
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Liberals are infecting our military and police forces with wokeism. We will all pay the price 

What the government is determined to fix is not the military's capabilities as a force, but its lack of social justice

Years ago, American political philosopher Harvey Mansfield made a troubling observation that I cited in these pages five years ago. In case you’ve forgotten, events conspire to remind you that, and I quote a paraphrase not the original, “it may be possible to impose perfect justice, but … people may not be in a mood to live together when you are finished.” For instance, in the Canadian military.


The Armed Forces might seem an odd place to make the experiment. But nowadays, the government is imposing wokeism everywhere it can, with results that seems to be vindicating Mansfield painfully, as morale and preparedness plummet in tandem.


As my Post colleague Matt Gurney wrote on Saturday, the feds just put an extra $8 billion into defence. But “we could skip right past the billions and authorize $8 trillion in new defence spending … and not actually make much tangible progress because the systems that sustain the military are dysfunctional, if not outright broken,” he wrote.


You might suppose that a mere $8 billion under current circumstances, for what Gurney rightly calls unspecified purposes, indicates that the Trudeau Liberals are not serious about fixing the military. But they are. Just not its capacity to break things and hurt people, despite Finance Minster Chrystia Freeland’s “very uncertain 21st century.”

What they are determined to fix is the lack of social justice. And they really seem convinced that, if identity politics crushes all opposition, there will be such a flowering of true human fulfillment that lack of modern equipment, logistical support or actual soldiers will be of no importance in safeguarding our security.


It’s not working, in any sense. The military isn’t just incapable of fighting. It seems incapable of controlling sexual harassment, with one senior officer after another going up in flames. Arguably, the sort of “leaders” who are capable of securing advancement by promising to make an army a “safe space” are highly unlikely to have the character necessary to impose and enforce exacting standards of any sort, especially against the demands of their political masters to prioritize the wrong things in the wrong way.

It’s a problem throughout the federal bureaucracy. Everything is exquisitely politically correct yet, despite lavish remuneration and ridiculous job security, polls repeatedly find the mood and ethics to be dismal. The solution, naturally, is a further assault on patriarchal bigotry in the belief that perfect justice is just one seminar and three pronouns away. But what if it’s not?


Frankly, if the department of Prairies Economic Development Canada sank into demoralized paralysis, the world might not find out for decades. The economy might even benefit. But what if policing collapses?


Blacklocks just reported on testimony before the Commons human resources committee that RCMP applications have plummeted sharply. The testimony was given by the head of the Mounties’ union, who has a vested interest in the size of the force and used social justice language. But we should still give serious attention to his claims, including: “Policing is no longer considered as an attractive career as it used to be. Police services across North America are seeing a decline in applicants.”

Why would such a thing happen? Despite a certain faddish enthusiasm for getting rid of the police a couple of years back, even most silly people realize that we need someone to enforce the rules. But who?


I think policing, like soldiering, used to attract mostly serious, stoic applicants willing to endure hardship to protect order against chaos. But if so, those professions are unlikely to appeal to social justice warriors. And if only SJWs need apply, you’ll wind up with an inadequate pool of unsuitable applicants trickling into institutions that spectacularly fail to deliver either on their ostensible mandate or on social justice, becoming instead dungeons whose occupants are in no mood to live together let alone do their jobs, under leaders unfit to inspire them to do either.

Mansfield’s insight might be called conservative since it relies implicitly on human nature being both flawed and intractable. But if so, more people should be conservative, because the predictable impact of woke policies is to foster petty resentment that doesn’t even help the supposed direct beneficiaries. As Terry O’Neill wrote in B.C. Report nearly 30 years ago, “Victimhood is the devil on your shoulder, whispering in your ear that you’re damaged goods.”


If in consequence you spend your days convinced people hate you and are tormenting you in petty ways with “microaggressions,” you will be a misery to others and a burden to yourself. And no organization that is primarily a non-violent version of a Chinese cultural revolutionary re-education session can possibly fulfill any constructive purpose. The Mounties won’t combat fiscal or cybercrime, nor the military foreign enemies. Or be in any mood to get along with one another.


Not even if you give them $8 trillion.


National Post

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaydee said:

It seems incapable of controlling sexual harassment

A senior Captain and senior IC FA have been bidding pairings together for the last 20 years, They have two children together and everyone knows it... 

Is that harassment? Should they both be fired because of a breakup?

This is that.... so lets apply a common threshold we can all relate to. 

What say y'all?



Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lesson of the Plucked Chicken

During those final days of the collapsing Marxist experiment in the Soviet Union, Soviet novelist Chingiz Aitmatov retold the following story, which has been paraphrased here.

On one occasion, so it was narrated, Stalin called for a live chicken and proceeded to use it to make an unforgettable point before some of his henchmen. Forcefully clutching the chicken in one hand, with the other he began to systematically pluck out its feathers. As the chicken struggled in vain to escape, he continued with the painful denuding until the bird was completely stripped. “Now you watch,” Stalin said as he placed the chicken on the floor and walked away with some bread crumbs in his hand. Incredibly, the fear-crazed chicken hobbled toward him and clung to the legs of his trousers. Stalin threw a handful of grain to the bird, and it began to follow him around the room, he turned to his dumbfounded colleagues and said quietly, “This is the way to rule the people. Did you see how that chicken followed me for food, even though I had caused it such torture? People are like that chicken. If you inflict inordinate pain on them they will follow you for food the rest of their lives.”

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...