Signs in Toronto urge white people to join ‘alt-right’. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/14/signs-in-toronto-urge-white-people-to-join-alt-right.html Marilyn May is correct in asserting that these fringe racist groups are emboldened by the attention such beliefs have received in the press with the ascent (or should I say ascend) of Trump and right-wing xenophobia in the U.S. Before we get too smug; we should reflect on the fanaticism displayed by our own Rob Ford and the so-called "Ford Nation". While that issue was not racist; it was a reflection of the resentment of certain groups against what they considered the "elites" in downtown Toronto; or the fringes versus the centre. No matter the deranged moral relativism and verbal sewage spouted by their drug-using leader. As Trumps election has shown; it matters not what moral depravities are displayed; be it sexual; misogynous or racist; as long as he is singing their tune. There will always be tribalism amongst us humans; and on a smaller scale this gives a sense of belonging and coherence in many groups. This applies to political as well as religious versions, and has positive aspects. Yet; when it becomes confrontational --"them" versus "us"-- it is dangerous and inimical to the public peace. The U.S. seems to be suffering from extreme political and social polarization at this time of social and technological change. It was thus in the Industrial Revolution. When James Hargreaves, a British carpenter and weaver, invented the spinning jenny in 1764; many weavers also found themselves suddenly unemployed since they could no longer compete with machines which only required relatively limited (and unskilled) labour to produce more cloth than a single weaver. Many such unemployed workers, weavers and others, turned their animosity towards the machines that had taken their jobs and began destroying factories and machinery. These attackers became known as Luddites, supposedly followers of Ned Ludd, a folklore figure. The first attacks of the Luddite movement began in 1811. The Luddites rapidly gained popularity, and the British government took drastic measures, using the militia or army to protect industry. Those rioters who were caught were tried and hanged, or transported for life (ref. Wikipedia). In times of rapid technological and social change; we experience high levels of personal and social stress; no matter how comfortable and safe we might be, compared to our forefathers. Yet; today it is interesting to note that the support of radical Trumpism has a religious twist. Christians, in particular, feel threatened and scared by the apparent incursion of other, foreign faiths such as Islam; or from those who have no faith at all. It is interesting to note that 80% of Trump supporters are Christian fundamentalists such as Southern Baptists and fringe groups throughout mostly the Southern States. I'm not sure Jesus would have approved.

“Insurer asks policy holders: Are you driving for Uber?” Wawanesa is asking the question directly, and won’t cover drivers who are charging for rides. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/12/26/insurer-asks-policy-holders-are-you-driving-for-uber.html I have for some time wondered why no one seems to be bringing up the problem of Uber-driver’s commercial insurance. It was my understanding that if you take passengers for a fee –in fact operating as a taxi –you had to have commercial insurance coverage; or your passengers, in the event of an accident, would not be covered, and you, as the driver/owner could be personally liable; or at a minimum; the insurance company could go after you for the compensation paid out to your “passengers”. Now it seems that Wawanesa has addressed this shady area by threatening to cancel or refuse insurance to anyone driving for Uber. This won’t let the foot-dragging City Council off the hook –they still have to address this problem to insure conformity with insurance requirements in this “wild west” activity by properly regulate, inspect and direct the free-for-all mess created by Uber; its willing participants, and their patrons. I don’t have a dog in this fight – I never take taxis; but I can see this for what it is: an unfair and shady practice detrimental to the fee-paying taxi-owners. Sigmund Roseth

Canadians reclaim their country from Stephen Harper: Siddiqui thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/22/canadians-reclaim-their-country-from-stephen-harper-siddiqui.html “Ideology doesn’t hobble most Canadians the way it does Americans. A liberal or a progressive conservative could vote for a Bill Davis, a Brian Mulroney or a Jean Chrétien. In 2011, I endorsed Jack Layton.” It appears that Haroon Siddiqui is back as a regular columnist. If so; welcome back. He was always one of my favourite columnists –for good and bad.  In today’s column I can find nothing to criticize. Like a Blue Jay; he hit the ball right into the park. His comment, quoted above, is right on the mark. We are different from most Americans –and from most other counties in our ability to tolerate and absorb different cultures and traditions –religious and social. We might not like it, but we “defend their right to be different” –to paraphrase a comment usually attributed to Voltaire. We seem to have avoided –largely –the polarization observed in the U.S. Probably, our style of governance has much to do with that. I too, voted for Layton. I also supported Mulcair in the beginning. I liked his style; and I was somewhat taken aback by some rather foolish statements and poor choices made by Trudeau in the early part of the race. e turned out to be a fast learner; though no doubt profiting from some rather serious N.D.P. mistakes; particularly in Quebec. There, the niqab was a real wedge issue; but rather than switching to the Harper; they –mostly –chose Trudeau as the alternative; voting strategically to oust the Conservative Napoleon wannabe. The saddest and almost maudlin moment was when he brought in the Ford mafia to help bailing his sinking ship. Politics don’t get more revoltingly bathetic than that. Ultimately, it matters little. Nero fiddled, but Rome didn’t burn. A new political day is born.

KATHY PORTER; Public Editor: Ljonny32@gmail.com, who are you really?. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2015/10/16/ljonny32gmailcom-who-are-you-really-public-editor.html “An embarrassing apology in the Star underscores the need for journalists to be skeptical when verifying identities of online sources”. Yes. Indeed. The Star has done it again. The last major faux pas was “My daughter's run-in with Ezra Levant at her first protest: Porter; The Star, July 6/15”; where a Star columnist Catherine Porter got caught on camera, and had to apologize; as did The Star; for a blatantly mendacious article that also was not properly vetted by the editors, who relied on the veracity of a known columnist. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/07/06/my-daughters-run-in-with-ezra-levant-at-her-first-protest-porter.html At the time, I wrote to you about this matter; but as usual; critical comments are ignored; no matter how factual and fair. Here it is again, for your edification and usual disregard: I don’t normally read Catherine Porter’s columns; and I only read this one out of curiosity after reading Ezra Levant’s letter in today’s Star. I am no fan of Ezra Levant –he is far to rightwing for my liking –but this time he got it right. His video interviewing some of the lesser intellects demonstrating, shone a light on the general hypocrisy of these part-time self-important phonies; though he seems to have managed to pick the most inarticulate and stupid participants. They surely do no good service to sincere environmentalists and their agenda. Catherine Porter and her daughter was but a small part of their video; and it appears that Ms. Porter thrust herself into the picture; manipulating and directing her poor daughter’s questions to Mr. Levant; and then, dishonestly, recasting it to suit her in her own agenda in her Star column. Involving her young daughter in such travesty does not reflect positively on Ms. Porter. She is lucky that Mr. Levant has not chosen to sue her for libel in civil court. I must give credit to The Star for giving Mr. Levant the lead letter in today’s Letters section; and for making a notation on your web page version of her column about Mr. Levant’s explanatory letter ( Note – July 8, 2015: See Ezra Levant’s response to this column, “Ezra Levant begs to differ.” ). I would expect no less from my favourite newspaper. There are many excellent freelance reporters available for The Star’s reader’s benefit. Ms. Porter is not one of them. Sigmund Roseth I don’t know if it is the dire straits of newspapers in our digital economy that causes a fine publication like the Star to take shortcuts in their editing process; but editing for facts is important, even online. I expect better from my Star. Sigmund Roseth

NAFTA; THE TPP AND THE GST: A Conservative legacy. Eventually; political leaders wear out their welcome; whether by accumulation or errors and missteps; bad judgments and controversies; often abetted by external factors outside their direct control. This is true for our present Prime Minister; who seems to have accumulated his shares of missteps and bad judgments –his Senate appointments and subsequent scandal is perhaps the worst of the issues hurting his stature and reputation. Yet; whatever the final outcome; he might go out with at least one victory to his name –the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. Time will tell. There is never a pure gain on any such agreements; there are winners and losers in the trade-offs that must be made; or there would be no agreements possible. This was true with Mulroney’s NAFTA as well. Staying out of the accords would leave us vulnerable in an increasing global economy; subject to a slower growing economy at best and economic balkanization at worst. Though John Chretien vowed to cancel it; he did no such thing; nor did he keep his promise to cancel the GST. Reality looks different when in office; and blatant lies to the voters is expected; even accepted; as in the case of Harper’s solid promise not to abolish Income Trusts; taking retirement funds from seniors and retirees; yours truly one of many. He is making promises again; but I am not “banking” on them a second time. The GST, the other legacy of the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives, based on the European VAT, or value added tax; was also a mostly positive change. It made it easier for manufacturers to export; and shifted the cost to the end user –the consumer. The negative part of the GST is, of course, that it is a “regressive” tax; falling disproportionally on the lower income earner –though here it exempts food basics purchased for home cooking. It is ironic, that socialistic countries like Norway have an even higher taxation rate –some 25 percent on most goods; though somewhat less on food –11% last I heard. There are compensating income tax reductions for lower income families, as well as a number of subsidies available; yet it flies in the face of socialist dogma. Another drawback; quite salient in Norway; is the hidden economy it creates –or “under-the-table” as we often term it; which is an estimated 10-15% of the total economy; depending on whom you ask. It is also quite prevalent here, especially amongst small entrepreneurs such as handymen and even larger home improvement firms. On the positive side –with the foregoing exceptions –the GST is harder to avoid than income taxes. On balance; keeping the GST below 10% is probably advisable and on balance, positive. International trade agreements are a necessary evil. It keeps us in a game we cannot afford to sit out; but no doubt; there are major downsides. The flight of production to lower income courtiers like Mexico is well documented and still underway. One could take a charitable view of it and think of it as “foreign aid”; but unfortunately; the cost of this jobs transfer is borne by native Canadian labourers and semi-skilled workers whose jobs are gone overseas. The best that one can hope for is that our governments will assist and accommodate the losers in this economic race; spreading the cost fairly among all citizens. That; however, is not, and never truly was on the Conservative agenda; nor was it ever present in the Conservative DNA

A LETTER TO TOM MULCAIR. Dear Thomas; You don’t need my advice; and I am not going to give you one. I don’t know if I represent the average Canadian; if there is such a bird; but I do have some personal comments, for whatever its worth. First, about me: I do have a huge NDP sign on my front lawn; and also on my rental house here in Mississauga. Michelle Bilek is your candidate in my riding. I am NOT a NDP member; nor was I ever. The reason I have contributed (minimally) to your campaign is two-fold: I hate Harper (personally; going back to the Income Trust debacle and his blatant lies; which cost me a huge amount of retirement money; and less about the Conservative platform) and distrusted the Liberals; who, after two candidate mistakes in a row chose a name-brand in desperation. Justin Trudeau made some strange comments and made some very stupid candidate choices; so the NDP became my default position (yet, it seems that Justin Trudeau is growing up). Furthermore; I was and I am very impressed by you personally; by your professionalism and mature demanour; though that cannot be said about some of your candidates. Your Quebec contingent is rather shallow; as is many of your Ontario candidates. In particular, I attended a meeting with Michelle Bilek and some of her followers. I did not vote for you last time, because I was not impressed by her then, and I’m even less so now; having met her in person. She is an incredibly shallow and strange personality. In my brief conversation with her, she had absolutely nothing intelligent or informative to say. Some of her followers were also rather peculiar. It made me uneasy and somewhat concerned. For example; one hugely fat woman sat and munched on some food and occasionally grunted out some incoherent comment. Be that as it may; I am going to leave the two signs on my lawns (even though my renters didn’t like it); though I think my vote is wasted here; and that’s all right; because I would not want Ms. Bilek to represent me in Parliament. I have a couple of bones to pick with your platform though: 1. The “no deficit” stance; in the face of costly promises. I think you are walking on a tightrope there –definitely not on water. 2. Your niqab stance is most troubling, and I think you have unnecessarily alienated a large part of your Quebec base; which you need to win. I am also concerned about your general immigration position; and I say that as a onetime immigrant myself. These are, no doubt, wedge issues and somewhat trivial; but you have let Harper use it as a cudgel; playing to the vacillating voter who, like me, despise the niqab and what it stands for. I will take the liberty of attaching my letter to The Toronto Star on this subject. 3. Your statement about cancelling the TPP before even having read it borders on the absurd; and is going to hurt you. I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like you could agree to take this position. It must be heavy elbowing from your union support that caused you to take such a stance. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/07/can-stephen-harper-stoop-any-lower-on-the-niqab-editorial.html The Star spares no effort in attacking the Conservatives; having brought back the Islamist Haroon Siddiqui expressly to sling his arrows; even a cameo performance by your publisher John Cruickshank; backed up by today’s “editorial” (with which, of course, he had no involvement). I am not a Conservative, nor a “Harper-fan”; but your totally one-sided anti-Harper diatribes irk my sense of fair play. While The Star occasionally let a critical letter pass muster; when it comes to a direct criticism of your editorial policy –forget it. Nevertheless; I will vent my frustration with your singularly one-sided leftist political stance. Today; you have plastered he niqab-wearing woman across your front page and atop Mr. Cruickshank’s missive. While I agree that this has become a ridiculous election issue and a wedge item for the Conservatives (and a huge Quebec setback for the NDP); I do think you are missing a major point here –even partially acknowledged in your editorial; viz.: “Let’s be clear: A lot of Canadians are uncomfortable with the veil. Some see it as oppressive to women. Others see it as a sign of alienation from the wider culture. Some even take it as a positive rejection of our society”. Yes; indeed, and I am one of those scoundrels. Let me make one thing clear: I have absolutely no problem with Sikh turbans; Jewish skullcaps; or any other head coverings, including the hijab. What I object to is the blatant temerity of women who hide their faces behind a veil, and do so amongst non-Muslims in the public sphere. To do so is an insult to our society and individuals. It is an inherited instinct to recoil from covered faces; harking back to our human beginnings, when reading facial expressions could define friend or foe and life or death. You cannot wipe out thousands of years of evolution in one swipe. I also agree we should prohibit the niqab in the public service and allow the prohibition of it in business, for the same reason. I feel sorry for store check-out clerks who have to deal with a walking, talking sack from which only two eyes are peering out. The niqab is, at its worst, inimical; at least, a distraction; even potentially a danger to the public safety and peace. How would you like to sit across from a person with the head covered; peering at you from under a black cloth? If you want a civil uproar; you might just get it. You are not allowed to prance naked down the street or work in the nude; but you are free to do so in the privacy of your home. Ditto for wearing the niqab. I don’t expect The Star to have the courage or fairness to print this. But I do think you will read it. Perhaps some of it will sink in –for John Cruickshank. ---Sigmund Roseth I wish you well in the campaign; and I am somewhat comforted by the thought that whether you come first of second; Harper will be third; and you and Trudeau can work out a reasonable and sensible cooperative arrangement to put this country on the road to recovery from the Harper years. Yours truly, Sigmund Roseth

Can Stephen Harper stoop any lower on the niqab?: Editorial http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/10/07/can-stephen-harper-stoop-any-lower-on-the-niqab-editorial.html The Star spares no effort in attacking the Conservatives; having brought back the Islamist Haroon Siddiqui expressly to sling his arrows; even a cameo performance by your publisher John Cruickshank; backed up by today’s “editorial” (with which, of course, he had no involvement). I am not a Conservative, nor a “Harper-fan”; but your totally one-sided anti-Harper diatribes irk my sense of fair play. While The Star occasionally let a critical letter pass muster; when it comes to a direct criticism of your editorial policy –forget it. Nevertheless; I will vent my frustration with your singularly one-sided leftist political stance. Today; you have plastered he niqab-wearing woman across your front page and atop Mr. Cruickshank’s missive. While I agree that this has become a ridiculous election issue and a wedge item for the Conservatives (and a huge Quebec setback for the NDP); I do think you are missing a major point here –even partially acknowledged in your editorial; viz.: “Let’s be clear: A lot of Canadians are uncomfortable with the veil. Some see it as oppressive to women. Others see it as a sign of alienation from the wider culture. Some even take it as a positive rejection of our society”. Yes; indeed, and I am one of those scoundrels. Let me make one thing clear: I have absolutely no problem with Sikh turbans; Jewish skullcaps; or any other head coverings, including the hijab. What I object to is the blatant temerity of women who hide their faces behind a veil, and do so amongst non-Muslims in the public sphere. To do so is an insult to our society and individuals. It is an inherited instinct to recoil from covered faces; harking back to our human beginnings, when reading facial expressions could define friend or foe and life or death. You cannot wipe out thousands of years of evolution in one swipe. I also agree we should prohibit the niqab in the public service and allow the prohibition of it in business, for the same reason. I feel sorry for store check-out clerks who have to deal with a walking, talking sack from which only two eyes peering out. The niqab is, at its worst, inimical; at least, a distraction; even potentially a danger to the public safety and peace. How would you like to sit across from a person with the head covered; peering at you from under a black cloth? If you want a civil uproar; you might just get it. You are not allowed to prance naked down the street or work in the nude; but you are free to do so in the privacy of your home. Ditto for wearing the niqab. I don’t expect The Star to have the courage or fairness to print this. But I do think you will read it. Perhaps some of it will sink in –for John Cruickshank. Sigmund Roseth