Saturday, November 18, 2017

My Warning from an Uberpeople.net "Moderator."

I just got a message from one of the moderators of the uberpeople.net Toronto driver's forum. In it he states,

"This forum values opinions from all angles. However, being argumentative, name-calling, personal attacks, instigating other members, and any post that can be deemed confrontational will not be tolerated. Please refrain from any posts of this manner, even if instigated. We hope you can tone it back a bit going forward.

Please review the terms and rules http://uberpeople.net/help/terms"

I think he was feeling a bit humiliated after he read my criticism of his limp response to my "Uberpeople Service Animal Discussion" that I posted in the Toronto Uber taxi driver forum.

Things have really changed in the last twenty-five years. It used to be quite the rollicking back and forth in discussion forums. Now, whenever you get the better of some smart-ass who takes shots at you, he threatens to have your views censored.

As an example of my objectionable conduct, the "moderator" cited the following passage by me,

"Are you dyslexic? The individual referenced in my post was not "terrified of driving," he was terrified of dogs. A remedial reading comprehension course might help you in this thread."

I thought I was being kind in attributing the respondent's dishonest and deliberate misquoting of my post to dyslexia rather than the slimy tactic that it obviously was. It seems to have escaped the "moderator's" attention, that deliberate and dishonest misquoting of forum participants is, itself, "confrontational." Yet I doubt the individual who slandered me received any similar warning. I doubt that the thought even occurred to the censorship muscle-flexing "moderator," Mugats, or whatever his real name is.

I could be wrong. Maybe "Mugats" did send a similar warning to "Fuzzyelvis," but I sincerely doubt it.

By the way, and perhaps of some significance, is the apparent fact that this "moderator" uses a fake name and a fake picture of himself.

In my reply to his "warning" I challenged him to reveal his true identity. Any bets as to whether he will have the guts to step up?

I anticipate that Mr. Mugats will use his power to shut me down on the discussion board.

My last reply to him was,


Relevant Screenshots

Did this person receive a "warning" from Mugats for this?

Or this?

Bets?

I am not omniscient, but I remain certain that none of the other "offenders" received a similar warning from the mysterious moderator. Notwithstanding, I will happily recant if Mr. Mugats provides any evidence that proves me wrong.

At this point, I would say the odds that Mr. Mugats uses his power to borf me from the forum is about 99.9 % to the .1 % chance that he will identify himself and provide evidence that he sent the other confrontational users similar warnings.

By the way, I love it when people are confrontational with me. It gives me the opportunity to work on my debating skills. If no one ever confronted me, I would be bored as shit.

Unfortunately, these days, it seems that whenever you challenge the crooked scumbags that spew their fraudulent effluvia on social media, rather than engage, they run and hide.

Well. That didn't take long.


Also of interest:

The Fred Eisenberger Comedy Special

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Uberpeople Service Animal Discussion

I knew a guy who was terrified of dogs, no matter how small. Even a Mexican Chihuahua would terrify him. It would be a dangerous mistake to force someone like that to drive passengers with service animals.

Some of the people in the thread claim to have pet allergies. Should they be forced to take service animals?

And what about those who have strong religious beliefs about dogs? Whose rights rights should prevail in our new utopian socialist caste system?

I prefer one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization, the now deceased ideal of equal rights for all. In accordance with Rand's statement,

"Any alleged right of one person which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not, and can never be a "right."

According to that simple formula, there would be no question about the Ubercab driver's right to refuse service animals.

And there's no reason it should be a problem in the first place. There will always be drivers willing to take service animals. The installation of a simple marker or flag in each driver account indicating a desire to accommodate service animals (or anything else, for that matter, including heavy bags or luggage and wheelchairs, tobacco use, racial or ethnic background, music preferences, intelligence, alcohol, prostitutes, drug addicts, people who stink like corpses, etc.) would solve most driver/rider incompatibility issues.

Everyone could be happy. It's the manifestation of Milton Friedman's "Unanimity vs. conformity" argument in favor of the free market vs. the coercive democracy lorded over by slick, mendacious, manipulative, sociopathic, and above all, uninsightful politicians we must all presently endure.

Instead, the politicians opt for brutal mandates, the equivalent of using a legislative sledge hammer to force square pegs into round holes. It creates nothing less than a social pressure cooker. A war of all against all. It's dumb and it's evil.

It also explains why all socialist regimes eventually descend into chaos and mass murder. If the sledge hammer isn't big enough, try a bigger one. And if that doesn't work, use internment camps, guns, gas chambers, and gulags.

For my part, I have never refused animals in my cab. In fact, they are often preferable to many of my "human" passengers.


Service Animals Forced Agreement

Saturday, November 11, 2017

The Most Boring City Council Meeting Ever

Refresh my memory. I seem to recall being able to tune in to the odd City council show back in the 1960's when I was still a kid. We didn't have cable at the time. CHCH was the local channel. Did they broadcast the tomfoolery that was going on at city hall at the time, or am I just imagining it?

What struck me at the time, and this was long before I had any serious political opinions, was how phony all of these politicians were. I could see right through them. They were basically a bunch of actors putting on what had to be the most boring show around. They reminded me of some of the people in my classes at Westwood public school. The ones I couldn't stand. The ones that had picked up on the art of virtue signaling. Today we call them Social Justice Warriors or SJWs.

You know, this edition of the Public Record is more boring than most. That's probably because there is no sound. I mean, how much time is anyone going to spend watching a bunch of people in a room scratch their noses, and walk up and down stairs, and in and out of doors.

The most exciting part I've seen so far is where Maria Pearson reaches across the desk to retrieve an item that is under a piece of paper. She rearranges the paper after retrieving the object, but doesn't seem to do anything with the object after successfully retrieving it. What ever is going on must be REALLY boring, because the guy beside her, I'm guessing it's Lloyd Ferguson, actually allocates a few seconds of his valuable time to turning his head and watching his colleague's fascinating maneuver.

I mean, these people haven't even figured out a creative way to waste time. At least, when I was in high school bored as hell with what was being taught, I used to drum on my desk, trying to mimic In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida by Iron Butterfly. You should have seen my Gr. 10 French book. I covered every inch of it with creative doodles. I knew how to waste fucking time.

There is one thing these politicians are very good at, though. I'll give them that.

It's wasting money.

I'm surprised they haven't actually hired that transgender piss artist to put on a show right outside of those glass doors.

For something completely different, and much less boring, I invite you to view my latest video.

It's about:

  • Uber Drivers Soliciting Cash Fares
  • Mayor Eisenberger Refuses to Apologize
  • Uber Driver Takes Graveyard Shift Too Seriously
  • Hamilton Cab Drivers Say it Plainly
  • Comedy Segment Featuring Fred Eisenberger

Check it out

Uber Driver Tells Young Girl to Meet Him in Graveyard

In this show:

  • Uber Drivers Soliciting Cash Fares
  • Mayor Eisenberger Refuses to Apologize
  • Uber Driver Takes Graveyard Shift Too Seriously
  • Hamilton Cab Drivers Say it Plainly
  • Comedy Segment Featuring Fred Eisenberger

Background Links

Fred Eisenberger Exposed

REPORTED LIST OF INCIDENTS INVOLVING UBER AND LYFT

Friday, November 3, 2017

Satan Lives.

Person A: I like what I see in Person B, but I cannot attempt to make contact with him/her, unless he/she first gives me a verbal indication that they are interested in hooking up.

Person B: I like what I see in Person A, but I cannot attempt to make contact with him/her, unless he/she first gives me a verbal indication that they are interested in hooking up.

In the end, they just walk on by each other for fear of being accused of a transgression..... finally settling on the much safer option of showing interest in someone they would otherwise not be interested in hooking up with, because, if accused of a transgression, they could always fall back upon the argument that they WERE NOT attracted to the person they tried to hook up with.

This is the purest expression of the self-sacrificial, self-immolative, altruist/collectivist morality identified, and condemned, by Ayn Rand.

I think what we are seeing here is the evolution of a code of thinking that has, at its root, exactly that which Rand tried to warn us about.

Hatred of humanity. Hatred of the mind. Hatred of success. And above all, hatred of human happiness.

Oh! And correspondingly, white people, be they atheist, Christian, or Jew, being, arguably, the happiest, most successful people in the history of this planet, must be correspondingly marginalized, vilified, and blamed for all of the planet's wrongs.

Oddly, perhaps, though I am an atheist, this monstrous evil is beginning to persuade me that Satan, does indeed, exist.

What a weird way to become religious.


More News

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

For a while there, Uber seemed to have the whole world hoodwinked…

By Rita Smith

November 2017

This article originally appeared in the Toronto Taxi News. It is reproduced here with permission from the author, Rita Smith.

Rita Smith is a writer and communications consultant whose career was launched at Taxi News almost 30 years ago. She has worked at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government as well as in multiple roles in media and public relations. Her respect for hard-working cab drivers is endless.


Taxi drivers are owed giant apologies by so many groups, it’s hard to keep track any more.

I have read so many ridiculous, misguided, inaccurate and plain pathetic media articles about Uber in the past four years, I am at risk of becoming inured to the lunacy. I’ve lobbied politicians and pleaded with cops. I’ve debated family members and friends. I’ve pestered media members until they ran away from me.

Their minds are impenetrable; people want so desperately to believe you can get something for nothing, you can’t overcome their magical thinking.

We should never give up thinking skeptically, though, and challenging the lunacy; because what happened to taxi drivers could happen to anyone in any industry. The corruption and massive breach of business and political ethics that have infected the vehicle for hire industry can – and will – affect EVERY industry in future. Uber’s business model and philosophy is a cancer that must be removed from commerce. Cabbies, unfortunately, have been the canaries in the coal mine.

First, it appears that Uber’s terrible, horrible, very bad year was triggered by a blog post published in February by Susan Fowler, a female engineer at Uber. Her treatment was so egregious that her recounting of it set in motion a chain of events that forced CEO Travis Kalanick to resign.

What, you may ask, could possibly have happened to motivate Uber to send Arianna Huffington off on a fact-finding mission and hire former US Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate its toxic culture?

Well, this woman’s boss sent her an online message saying he would like to sleep with her. Instead of replying “F--- you,” or even just “No,” or perhaps taking documentary evidence in the form of a printed chat message to a lawyer, she went to Human Resources, which did not help her. She was sad. She did not quit, though.

The next event, in a display of sexual discrimination so breathtakingly cruel I cry just thinking about it, Uber bought leather jackets for a team of male engineers, but they did not buy any for the women.

I contrast these dire circumstances with those of cab drivers whose stories I have heard over the past four years: one driver I met had his own apartment in spring of 2014. By summer, he was sleeping on a friend’s couch. By fall, he was homeless.

I wish the legal, licensed taxi drivers who’ve had their lives decimated by Uber got even the tiniest percentage of the media attention female engineers get when propositioned or deprived of leather jackets – but nobody cares. Not even Susan Fowler, who is clearly completely comfortable with the thought of wrecking the lives of thousands of law-abiding cab drivers and their families, but doesn’t have the guts to say “no” to a lecherous boss. I am sorry for the pain she was content to cause taxi drivers, and I am sorry we are even the same sex.

Second, cab drivers are owed an apology by technology writers at every outlet that covers Uber. These writers are supposed to be smart and prescient and have their finger on the pulse of all the trends which are going to affect us in the years ahead. In fact, they are so out of touch with business reality that they shouldn’t even be allowed to predict whether VHS VCRs will overtake Betamax, or whether online music shopping might be more popular than vinyl records.

Here’s a quote from a ReCode article on self-driving cars written by Johana Bhuiyan:

“Uber’s future depends greatly on solving self-driving. It’s what will keep the ride-hail company relevant as more automakers produce their own autonomous vehicles. But taking drivers out of the equation would also increase the company’s profits: Self-driving cars give Uber 100 percent of the fare, the company would no longer have to subsidize driver pay and the cars can run nearly 24 hours a day.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let’s just skip over the fact that Uber has NEVER turned a profit, and is on track to lose more than $3 billion in 2017.

Uber doesn’t own, or maintain, or insure, ANY cars.

The cars are owned by the drivers, who absorb every dollar of the cost of maintaining them no matter how much or how little revenue they generate.

Imagine what Uber’s bottom line would look like if, in addition to buying leather jackets for female engineers, they also had to purchase, insure and maintain their own cars. And then pay drivers. Uber’s business model is based upon persuading car owners to share their cars with Uber, while those drivers assume 100 percent of the risk of the business. While this appears to be far too futuristic a concept for a tech writer to grasp, P.T. Barnum was able to sum it up succinctly over 100 years ago: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Third, the mainstream media.

There aren’t enough column inches in Taxi News for me to recount the ways in which the mainstream media missed the boat on Uber.

I’ll just focus my comment on one recurring inaccuracy which is repeated in almost every article I read about Uber around the globe (England, Australia, Canada, the US, India and various Asian and African nations): how fairly or unfairly Uber “pays” its drivers.

“Uber doesn’t pay drivers!” I groan every time. “Drivers pay Uber! The driver does all the work, invests all the time, pays all the vehicle maintenance, and gives Uber 25 percent of the money he earns. Without drivers, Uber has nothing. The drivers are Uber’s only source of revenue. Uber doesn’t pay drivers; drivers pay Uber!”

If they don’t understand that, they don’t understand anything about Uber. Why would we trust anything else they report? I am sorry we can no longer trust the mainstream media on much of anything.

Fourth, politicians.

Where to start? The betrayal of the taxi industry by politicians around the globe has been complete, quick and starkly hypocritical.

From John Tory in Toronto to David Cameron in England to Daniel Andrews in Australia, politicians who are either air-headed or corrupt just rolled over backward for Uber, re-writing or eliminating safety standards that have been decades and millions of dollars in the making and shredding the social contract with drivers that supported consumer protection.

Nobody puts it better than Hamilton taxi driver and writer Hans Wienhold:

“All of the most expensive elements of a secure taxi industry were never about safety at all. Now we see clearly that none of these things ever had anything to do with safety: they were just power grabs and cash grabs. No one will ever buy the politicians’ BS again.”

Finally, consumers.

People like cheap, there’s no arguing that.

When Uber first arrived, there was much ado about cartoon cars on cell phone screens and free ice cream and free puppy cuddles and hot women drivers.

Really, though, what it all comes down to is that Uber is cheaper than taxis, and people like cheap.

For the first two years after Uber arrived we read lots of stories about free water and candies in the car and happy grandmothers driving for extra cash.

When the first stories of sexual assault started showing up, a little dark cloud appeared on the horizon.

When an uninsured Uber driver killed a six year old girl in San Francisco, concerns were raised.

When London, England announced they were averaging almost one sexual assault per week and Londoners began referring to Uber as “rape roulette,” things began looking serious.

And then, when a woman in Texas was made a paraplegic in an accident with an uninsured Uber driver, people sat up and took notice.

Back in the day, when I was reading dozens of articles about Uber around the globe as part of my job, I felt some sympathy for these people.

Now, I confess, sympathy has evaporated. Now, when I come across complaints about Uber in my Twitter feed (“My Uber driver refused my service dog! My Uber driver left me at roadside! My Uber driver showed up at my apartment and told me he has feelings for me!”) I tend to reply sarcastically, “But you saved some money, so it’s all good, right?”

I particularly love the fact that there is a campaign underway by some women right now to get security cameras in Uber vehicles….now, consumers want to combine “cheap” with “safe.” They want it all; but as Austin Powers would say, “Some things just aren’t in the cards, baby.”

Sunday, October 29, 2017

professor block  pollutes the universe

Two Ways to go Insane

March 1, 2013

I read another ridiculous article in the Hamilton Spectator (Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013) about the ongoing Two-Way street conversion debate, currently wasting precious ink, which was replete with the usual mental squeeze chute drivel I have come to regard as typical of that particular purveyor of information and ideas.

I was going to write a rant about it and then I remembered that my esteemed colleague, Professor Schnickenkeimskivishenzochung, had already done so.... about 16 years ago.

So, I think I will take a break from ranting for this morning and let Professor Schnickenkeimskivishenzochung have the floor.


(January 1997)

Recent Hamilton Spectator Headline:

Push for two-way streets gains momentum

How Stupid Can People Be! (?)

The downtown core in the city of Hamilton has been declining for some years now.

Take a walk along King Street and you can't miss the depressing sights of the stores and small businesses.... once bustling with commercial activity...now sitting vacant... with no customers... and only ghosts collecting taxes.

Sure, there are a few places still hobbling along, here on King Street.... as the photo (right) shows. But anyone who has lived in Hamilton for a while knows it used to be better.... much better !

Well, have no fear Hamilton, things are going to get better. You see, we have a whole crew of brain surgeon types working on new plans to revitalize the core!


What are some of the ideas these brain surgeon types are coming up with?

In an article in the Hamilton Spectator Ken Peters gives us a great example:

"Hamilton politicians believe a call to make King, James and John two-way streets again is headed in the right direction.

The return of two-way traffic to the three main thoroughfares after nearly 40 years would occur by this summer if a citizens' lobby group has its way. The streets have featured one-way traffic since 1958.

(Italics mine.)

A recently formed Hamilton Downtown Two Way Streets Group won support yesterday from the city's planning and development committee for its proposal.

The group says it may make a case for turning Main Street into a two-way thoroughfare in future.

The move to two-way traffic is expected to create greater traffic congestion in the core, thus creating a more pleasant atmosphere for pedestrians while improving storefront visibility and tourism opportunities."

(Italics mine.)

Well whaddaya think of THAT gem! Two-way traffic is expected to create greater traffic congestion in the core, thus creating a more pleasant atmosphere for pedestrians! Yummy.... all those engines idling away... yup should create a mighty pleasant atmospherefor everyone.

You can just hear Fran calling up her girlfreind Megan to go shopping downtown, "Megan, I just heard the on the radio.... traffic's backed up for miles downtown... it's creating a really pleasant atmosphere for pedestrians. Why don't we go and do some shopping!"

Well, if greater traffic congestion is called for why stop at two-way streets? Why not quit repairing the roads!? Let those potholes proliferate. Imagine what a combination of two-way streets and potholes will do to revitalize the core!

Why, no doubt pedestrians will find the experience so damn pleasant they will begin to have orgasms. Hell, if the potholes don't cause orgasms then a few strategically placed road construction sites with cranes and huge craters should do the trick. Hamilton could become a tourist Mecca what with flowers on the traffic islands and massive, hair ripping, traffic jams in the core.

"I don't know of a successful downtown in the world that isn't congested"

Alderman Marvin Caplan said in voicing his support for the concept.

Let's see if we can expand upon Mr. Caplan's thinking here. Mr. Caplan observes that successful downtowns, at least the ones he knows about, suffer from congestion. He concludes that congestion must be the reason for the success of these downtown areas and happily supports proposals to deliberately create congestion in Hamilton's core! See what I mean about brain surgeons?

I used to go to a lot of Rock concerts back in the 1970's. At every one there were line-ups and crowds of people jostling to get in to see the band. In other words, there was a lot of human congestion. In accordance with Mr. Caplan's thinking we can suppose then, these concerts were not successful because of Pink Floyd or Super Tramp or the Rolling Stones or what have you. No, these concerts were successful because of all the human congestion that occured around them.

"I can think of no successful Rock concert without crowds" we can easily imagine him saying. Clearly then, if the line-ups and crowds were there, even Fishin' Wire Eddy could become a flipping millionaire! This, of course, begs the question, "If we want to make Fishin' Wire Eddy a millionaire how do we attract the crowds?"

"I don't know of a successful downtown in the world that isn't congested" --Marvin Caplan

Create conjestion and everyone will rush downtown to visit places like the ones shown here. These are just a couple of examples of the community which extends

over most of Hamilton's Barton Street. Barton Street never had to worry about losing it's "vitality" due to efficient traffic flow... it has been a two way street all along.


Can anyone guess where Bob "Flower Power" Morrow perches on this issue?

The Spectator says

Mayor Bob Morrow supports the proposal to revert the three streets to two-way traffic.

"I am convinced on the philosophical side and from the nuts-and-bolts side that it makes a whole lot of sense. I think it is one good ingredient to the recovery of the downtown, and this could be a tremendous shot in the arm."

Maybe we can get Hamilton's core to look something like this, (left) section of Barton Street, ey Bob? Just another example of the "Nuts and Bolts" of two way traffic. Perhaps Sheila Baby will turn the "Closed" sign around.

And really.....the philosophical side? Excuse me but is this guy for real? What is the "philosophical" side of this issue? If anyone knows please leave a comment in the box below! I suspect it relates somehow to the fashionable leftist notion that the private automobile is evil and any government action to make driving unpleasant is therefore laudable regardless of whether screwing up traffic revitalizes so much as a single abandoned warehouse.

The Spectator article continues:

"Group member Helen Kirkpatrick, a founding member of the Greater Downtown Development Corp., a defunct advisory group, says the two-way plan has the backing of the Hamilton-Halton Homebuilders Association, Durand Neighbourhood Association, Hamilton Society of Architects and International Village Business Improvement Area. The proposal was a key element of the Hamilton Downtown Ideas Charrette report presented to city council in October by the Hamilton Society of Architects."

Another shot of the vibrant two-way Barton Street (right) leads one to wonder whether any of the members of the groups mentioned above have ever visited a two way street.


Jonathan Diamonds, evidently, is located on a section of Barton Street that was not sufficiently congested even though traffic does indeed travel in both directions in front of it. Perhaps the owner should have requested a stop sign in front of his property. Or maybe he should have hired a fake road construction crew to hang around out front having coffee breaks after digging a gaping hole in the road. Surely then a whole army of frustrated drivers would jump out of their cars to take advantage of the pleasant atmosphere for pedestrians thus created... and they'd also be overcome by a sudden urge to do some shopping, no doubt!


Ms Kirkpatrick said civic politicians must choose whether they want the core to be a street-friendly place or a thoroughfare for quick-moving vehicular traffic. "It comes down to a choice. Are our people a priority or are cars a priority?"

What the heck is "street friendly" supposed to mean? It's probably just another Spec typo. She probably said "people friendly." Who cares... it's a load of hogwash anyway.

It really does seem as though everyone who advocates a return to two-way traffic clog suffers from mental caplitis (irritation of the caplan wrought by inflamation of the colon). Ms. Kirkpatrick clearly sees quick-moving traffic and "street-friendliness" or "people friendliness" as mutually exclusive values. Slow traffic down, she seems to believe, and hoards of happy pedestrians will suddenly descend upon the core and start buying stuff.

The boards will come off the storefronts and the bums will find other hangouts as everyone rushes from Limeridge Mall, Eastgate Mall, the hundreds (thousands and counting?) of new establishments on the mountain and in surrounding communities.... as everyone rushes from these places into the core of Hamilton to take advantage of the pleasant atmosphere for pedestrians created by traffic hell!

"It comes down to a choice. Are our people a priority or are cars a priority?" -- Helen Kirkpatrick

"We see this proposal as not an end point but part of the beginning to the revitalization of the downtown."

Yeh right.... as the pictures here clearly show... the "revitalization" of Barton street started eons ago. I guess they forgot to go to the next step. Or maybe they would be satisfied with that vibrant community in the photo... the one in the black hat... taking advantage of the pleasant atmosphere and "street friendliness" here on one of Hamilton's longest two-way streets.


What's the next bright idea? A "Johnny on the Spot" on every corner?

You should be be able to find more reports on the two way street issue by visiting the Hamilton Spectator Home Page

And remember, if you get stuck in some horrendous traffic snarl in Hamilton next summer, just get out of your car as fast as you can. The sooner you become a pedestrian the sooner you will benefit from the pleasant atmosphere . That is, if you can find a place to park that doesn't cause an unpleasant atmosphere in your wallet....


Update

Further foolishness from City Hall....

Taxpayers ought to cringe as of this date (September 2005) since construction has now started on the conversion of James and John Streets, south of main to two way traffic.

It is well known these days that many Hamiltonian's incomes have remained static for over a decade. Hamilton's cab drivers are making less than ever even in dollar terms without inflation adjustment.

Woe to the poor soul whose life may depend upon seconds as the ambulance attempts to access St. Joeseph's Hospital emergency once the desired two-way gridlock has been accomplished. Mencken was so right.

Yet Hamilton's politicians remain committed to a monumentally stupid campaign of two way street conversion, a politically motivated but utterly hairbrained scheme which involves the squandering of MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. All of this is happening while property taxes continue a never ending skyward trajectory.

It is time for Hamiltonian's to demand that the scope for municipal political action be seriously curtailed. Unfortunately, politicians presently have far too much local decision making leverage. Since they are spending money which is not their own, and therefore of little or no cost to them if the money is simply wasted, there is little incentive for truly prudent action.

If the local government were somehow constitutionally limited to picking up the trash and fixing potholes, instead of indulging their flights of fancy at taxpayer expense, they might even be able, though not without difficulty (given the evidence on our streets at present), to actually achieve some measure of competence in these very mundane, yet important, tasks.



last modified:Sunday, October 29, 2017

Read about the latest round of vandalism on Bay St perpetrated by Hamilton City Hall and its lobbyists.


 

Cartels and Tobacco

For a long time, I have been saying that tobacco fascism has been the greatest affirmative action program ever conceived for indigenous Ca...