The Enigma & Conundrum of Canadian Judas-Prudence

I may have figured out the mystery behind Canadian judges' unwillingness to hand out just sentences to criminals.

A couple of outrages off the top of my head:

A year or two ago in Windsor, Ontario a man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman was given a sentence of thirty days house arrest. The victim in the case said the rights and feelings of the accused were at the forefront of the court's priorities at all times, while hers were ignored across the board. Now we have Yonge Street shot up by criminals, one of whom was just released from thirty days in jail for his role in a convenience store robbery.

Who in the world thinks such sentences for such crimes are just?

Which led me to wonder, Who benefits from crime?

Criminals do -- in Canada, at least. But who else? Security companies. I think a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate how many Canadian judges hold investments in security companies. This is a clear conflict of interest, releasing repeat, violent criminals upon society, the reports of which send the sales of security-related items shyrocketing.

Are Canadian judges profiting from crime in this way? Someone should investigate.

In the highly unlikely event that such a conflict of interest is not proved, I think a further investigation should be made into Canadian judges: Do they tend to reside near chemical plants? Are they all emotionally remote sociopaths? Is there an inordinate amount of drug use in the histories of Canadian judges, accounting for their skewed and often dissociative response to real life and real events that enter their courts on a daily basis? Are Canadian judges brought into this reality from another realm through some weird membrane? If so, we must close that hole.

Is there any answer to why Canadian judges refuse to hand out just sentences to criminals?

Ask the Canadian Department of Justice

More Canadian Judas-Prudence: Out-of-touch Judges are to Blame for the Toronto Shooting?

While we still may speak of the culprits in the Boxing Day shooting on Yonge Street as "suspects", it's time to look at the judges before whom these "suspects" appeared during their criminal careers.

From the Globe & Mail: ... Andre Thompson, 20, who was on probation at the time of the alleged offences, faces several gun charges, as does a 17-year-old male who cannot be identified.

The source said the men are both known to police.

... Mr. Thompson, who remains in custody until his next court appearance, was released just before Christmas from Maplehurst prison near Milton, Ont.

He had served 30 days for his role in a convenience-store robbery.

Thirty days for a convenience store robbery. Where is the deterent in that? If that's the going sentence for robbery, I might change careers and take this up myself. And I can just hear this hairsplitting old milkshake of a judge, in his nasally gobshite voice, saying, "Uh, in fact, Mr. Thompson was sentenced for his role in a convenience store robbery. His role." As though that makes any goddamned difference.

Canadian Judas-prudence needs a change. The role that judges play should be reduced to simply presiding over cases, ensuring only the guilty are found guilty. Once a "suspect's" guilt has been ascertained, I say that police officers or a committee of police should mete out the sentences. Christ, how frustrating and demoralizing must it be for cops to be catching criminals only to see these crooks greeted like prodigal sons by old milkshake judges whose only connection to the world is... well, I've yet to actually figure that out. These lames could be presiding over cases via satellite link from Venus for all of the real-world justice they're handing out.

For all of my sarcasm and vitriol, the tragic fact of the needless and senseless loss of life that occurred on Yonge Street on Boxing Day must be addressed -- and not in the usual plodding, confused Canadian manner. If Canadian Judas-prudence is worth anything, it must begin protecting law-abiding Canadians from the increasingly cavalier criminal element that has (hopefully temporarily) found itself a comfortable home in our midst.

Update 12/30/2005:

Dangerous U.S. child-sex suspect seen in Ontario

Law-abiding Americans like coming to Canada for our cheap pharmaceuticals. Criminals find in Canada a safe haven where there are no consequences for their actions; where judges will receive them like fathers' receiving their prodigal sons.

Merry Happy Xmas

Ducking Bullets & Responsibility: "Canada blames U.S. for gun violence"

From CNN.com yesterday Canada blames U.S. for gun violence.

"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," Miller said.

Miller said Toronto, a city of nearly three million, is still very safe compared to most American cities, but the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence.

"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he said.

First, let's get one thing straight: Not all Canadians blame the United States for the recent gun violence in Toronto. Weak-kneed, spaghetti-spined Canadian politicians with their gag-reflex response to duck any and all negative responsibility may believe this. I, for one, blame the criminal who pulled the trigger. If any further blame need be cast, I cast it upon Canada's judges, those out-of-touch, rarified, philosopher-kings-of-the-bench who dispense feather-duster-spankings to criminals who come before them.

Toronto mayor David Miller says "... the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto..." If I'm not mistaken, the United States is not responsible for what comes in to Canada. Canada Customs and Canadian Border Services are responsible for that. The Canadian border is staffed with Canadian authorities. Whatever may be coming into our country -- be it ham sandwiches or hand grenades -- our people are allowing them in. If anything, maybe these services and agencies need more funding, more training, better facilities.

But more to the point -- what would make a criminal so brazenly act out his inferiority complex on a Toronto street with a hand gun? My opinion is that a complete lack of consequences is to blame for that. Sometimes I speed while driving my car. Do I do this because I'm a criminal who hates law and order? No. I do it sometimes because I think I can get away with it. And I do. Criminals in Canada know they face nothing worse than a stern finger-wagging-talking-to when brought before a justice. There are no consequences for breaking the law in Canada, and therefore criminals become more brazen and violent.

Paul Martin's myopic solution is to punish responsible firearms owners by banning guns or setting up an overpriced registration system. Responsible firearms owners are not the people committing these crimes in Canada. Why is it so difficult in Canadian life for the actual culprits of crime to be blamed for their deeds? Gang members are to blame in this instance. Crack down on gangs, not responsible citizens who follow the rules of firearm ownership. More to the point, crack down on Canadian judges.

America has its problems, but David Miller and Paul Martin are showing why they should hold positions of leadership by engaging in the usual shell-game of blame. Canada has suffered long enough under unimaginative, character-deficient, corrupt dodgers of responsibility. Problems are not solved by dodging blame, but by bringing wrongdoers to justice. Canadian judges consistently prove themselves unwilling or unable to protect Canadians from criminals. Canada not only needs responsive politicians, but responsive judges who share our values and who will act decisively and responsibly when violent criminals are brought before them. The rallying cry of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, "No justice, no peace," applies to Canadian jurisprudence. We won't see any peace in Canada until our judges begin meting out justice.

Backlash: Diskontent against Komtemp(tible)orary Musik Scëëne

Doing a little cultural slumming last night with the remote control, I found myself watching MuchMusic, and witnessed an interesting phenomenon: They have wakened to the fact that the music they feature is shit.

I watched a show called Video on Trial in which a panel of mostly stand-up comedians no one has ever heard of before are shown a selection of popular videoes, and who proceed to beat the hell out of these videoes in much the same fashion as my friends and I would. Their comments were quite funny, sometimes insightful, and always negative. The songs and "artists" featured, for the most part, were pretty weak -- except for The Killers, whom I happen to like. But the videos featured were uniformly reprehensible. If one ever needed a measuring stick by which to mark the superficiality of contemporary music -- how utterly lacking of ideas it is -- one need only watch music videos. This lost, abused, misguided artform is an atrocity.

The Backstreet Knobs were among those skewered (actually, on more than one program). Britney, of course, along with Lindsay, and the redundant Velvet Revolver took a worthy drubbing, as well.

Then came Ed the Sock's annual Fromage countdown. Again the triviality of contemporary music was the target, and Ed the Sock's remarks were cutting and bang-on as ever.

Then there was some retarded segment about "famous fallouts" of 2005. As a side note: this was among the weakest programming I've ever witnessed in over thirty years of television viewing. The hosts were tirelessly boring and unfunny, their banter lame and contrived, and the general premise of the show more than a little dubious. I know this describes most television programming, but take the worst show you've seen, multiply it by ten and there you've got what I saw last night. However, once again contemporary performers (they're not musicians, they're not singers, they're not songwriters) were taken to task as the banal succubi they are.

There is definitely a backlash afoot. Certainly, nothing about contemporary music will change. There will continue to be this glut of shit, speckled with a few rare gems. Because the people who enjoy contemporary music are not interested in quality, they only care about chronology -- when a song was released. So long as that banal piece of shit song was released more recently than anything else, it will sell. The same ridiculous non-philosophy ruled the day when I worked at a video store while going through school. People never cared about what movies were good, all they cared about was what movies were newest.

Play Beethoven or The Who: Live at Leeds for one of these shallow bobbleheads and I guess their physiology would explode. So, to the leprous pablum they flock. They can have it.

My Encounter with the Genuine Article: Musician Jody Raffoul

It didn't take Ashlee Simpson being caught-out lip synching on Saturday Night Live or the lame-o TV show Making the Band's cast of crybabies vying for a spot in the wretched "O-Town" to make me cynical about contemporary music. I have always been innately repelled by fakes, phonies, posers and frauds. In the video The Doors: Live in Europe 1968 Grace Slick quotes Keith Richards on the subject of poseurs, "Shave, and go home." No, music videos alone have been enough to sour me on contemporary music. This wasted, abused artform is the Grand Bandwagon where most musicians show themselves "being different... like everyone else," turning the spiritual experience that music truly is into something shat out by McWal-Mart.

But there are moments when my path crosses that of a Genuine Article. Like the day I first heard Lou Reed's song "Vicious," or U2's "Pride (In the Name of Love)." Hearing The Who's "Baba O'Reilly" for the first time. Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin' On?" Van Morrison's "St. Domick's Preview." Or, when I first listened to Sam Cooke's supernova performance on his album Sam Cooke Live at the Harlem Club. Or, the time when I worked in a stockroom in the Devonshire Mall and heard a girl named Sarah singing some throwaway line from her favorite song. She didn't know anyone was listening, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The Genuine Article. More than talent, more than a gift, even. Passion -- the bullseye of one's soul struck like a powerchord on Pete Townsend's guitar.

Last night I had the pleasure and privlege to see another Genuine Article perform. His name is Jody Raffoul, and he's got a sound that comes straight out of the left ventricle of classic rock 'n' roll. After eighteen years of show-by-show, city-by-city dues-paying, Jody Raffoul has released his latest album Like A Star.

The melodies and musicianship on this album caught my interest immediately, but hearing Jody's astonishing vocals stopped me in my tracks. Where voices like this come from, I don't know, but Bono has one, as does Smokey Robinson and Roger Daltrey.

Known for his acoustic performances, Jody's backing band provides him with a spare, stripped-down sound that strikes the bone on each album cut.

The tempos shift from song to song on Like a Star, weaving a mood and feel of great depth and complexity. From the flat-out addictive rock hooks of "Light of Day" and "Feel For You," to the meditative "Dreamer" and the soulful "Ten Times," Jody Raffoul's latest CD delivers a pile-driver rock performance.

On so many albums there can be such disparity between the "hit" tracks and those simply taking up space to fill out a CD (Sammy Hagar's I Never Said Goodbye comes to mind with its two great hits "Give to Live" and "Eagles Fly" and the ground sausage filler that rounds out the rest of the album). No such disparity exists on Like a Star. The music moves from the compulsively listenable "Light of Day" (which is currently enjoying quite a lot of radio play) to the soulful "Ten Times" through a highly personal landscape not unlike John Lennon's Milk and Honey.

Jody's cover of Jeff Lynne's "I Can't Get it Out of My Head" is one of those classic renditions where the musician paying homage injects a performance with so much of his own feel that he takes partial ownership of the song. Joe Cocker's cover of the Beatles' "With a Little a Help From My Friends" comes to mind as another such moment in music.

The track "Take Me Under" begins with a bluesy feel that quickly flowers into something with a psuedo-Beatles tang to it, but morphs into a solid pop chorus. Quite a musical feat, and clearly the work of a gifted artist simply following where a song leads him. During a conversation I had with Jody before his performance in Windsor, Ontario's Fidel's, he said that he only really hit his stride as a vocalist when a producer suggested to him, "Don't sing so much like a singer." Stripped of affectation, Jody's vocals are possessed of the unadorned energy of a natural singer. His meditative song "I Feel For You" is one of the strongest vocal performances on the album.

* * *

Having stayed at Fidel's much longer than I intended, I left the club after Jody performed a stellar version of The Who's "The Seeker." As I stepped out the door into the cold night, Jody launched into Bad Company's "Shooting Star." I stood there on the damp sidewalk, breath pluming before me, just listening... For whatever reason, I'm not much of a Bad Company fan, but Jody's cover of that song had it flexing and speaking in ways I had never considered before.

In a music scene cluttered by phonies and wannabes, Jody Raffoul is a Genuine Article in the mold of Pete Townsend, Bruce Springsteen, and Jimmy Barnes.

The "THROW THEM OUT" Campaign - Politicians must be made to sign a "Contract for Canada" contract in order to govern

Abuse of the public trust is the insider pass-time among Canadian politicians, political appointees and government employees. Maybe they get the same rush we felt as kids building houses out of cards -- whose card will knock the whole thing down?

At the risk of sounding like a bad public service announcement, betrayal of public trust is no joke (regardless of the gales of laughter coming from Jean Chrétien's mansion).

For this reason I propose that Canadian citizens of every stripe insist that a standard, legally binding document be drawn up -- called the "Contract for Canada" -- to enforce ethics and honesty among our politicians, political appointees and government employees, by threat of real and harsh punishment to all those who fail to measure up to the contract's rigors.

I don't care what laws are currently on the books relating to this subject. These laws and the people charged to enforce them have failed Canadians. Up to now, Canada has been insulted by hollow apologies -- if that -- from politicians caught abusing the public trust. The Liberal Party "Sponsorship Scandal" replete with its feather-duster spankings for those few and rare found guilty of any wrongdoing, is only the most recent outrage.

(Or, remember when the HRDC "misplaced" $1 billion? Not a single person even resigned over that debacle. That kind of unresponsive government must come to an end.)

The tepid apologies and shrugs-of-the-shoulders of years past, when politicians, political appointees and government employees have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, just don't cut it any more. From this point onward, when a hand is caught wrongfully in the public cookie jar, that hand should be hacked off.

So, among the punishments for any politician, political appointee or government employee abusing the public trust, there should be:

(1) Immediate dismissal -- not resignation. No one abusing the public trust should be given the courtesy of being allowed to resign. They must be fired. They will be fired.

(2) Immediate loss of salary and any and all pensions related to their so-called "public service.". No exceptions. In fact, if some wrongdoer attempts to make a claim that they are an exception to the rule, they will be forced under stiff penalty to repay their previous year's salary. If they continue to push the issue, they will be forced to repay every nickel they've ever been paid while on the public pay roll.

(3) Names and photographs of the guilty compiled on a Web site called "Throw Them Out." It would be tempting to bar identified and tagged miscreants from running for public office, but why deprive ourselves of such freakshows? Let these rotters run for office in the future, if they're so gluttonous for punishment. They will have to sign the "Contract for Canada" again, and adhere to increased monitoring of their conduct, including wearing electronic tethers. Hey, no one's making them run for public office.

(4) Incentive for politicians, political appointees and government employees to "rat out" one another. We need these people looking over their shoulders, feeling isolated and unable to trust anyone around them -- we must create an environment where honesty is their only option. Due to the obvious opportunity for abuse, incentives will only be handed out to those coming forth with clear, compelling, and credible evidence of another's wrongdoing. Or, if you're near retirement, rat your own self out. It's your choice. But for all of those slippery fellows who would seek to use this system of incentive/paranoia to merely sabotage a rival, harsh, harsh, harsh penalties await you. If come forward with anything other than ironclad proof of another's wrongdoing, you will suffer the consequences. What are those consequences? Try it and find out.

Politicians, political appointees and government employees must be made to know they are held in the greatest contempt by the general public. Since they can't be trusted to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, they must be compelled.

No one's forcing them to run for office. Maybe the idea of real, enforced punishment for unethical doings might finally draw people of integrity into the Canadian political process.

Who will be first in the Rogue's Gallery?

Near-Kerfuffle on Malden Road Right OUTSIDE of CITY HALL!!!

Near-Kerfuffle on Malden Road Right OUTSIDE of CITY HALL!!!

Two men, one on a bicycle, were conversing on Malden Road early this afternoon when a male pedestrian approached from the south, and a female pedestrian approached from the north. The male pedestrian was heard to shout at the bicyclist, "No! Don't move! Don't move!" as the female pedestrian approached the bicyclist's blind-spot. However, disaster was averted when the quick-thinking bicyclist ceased movement until the female and male pedestrians passed by. The identities of the two men who were conversing remain unknown at this time. Nothing is yet known about their relationship, though they were each wearing red parkas, so possible Nazi and satanic angles are being investigated...

Freelance Writing is Like Working for the Bomb Disposal Unit

Greetings from the most abused profession on the planet: freelance writing. People must think we're all descended from St. Matthew, and that our basic function on earth is that of a quasi-corporate Red Cross. To wit: that we work for free. Or, for table scraps. Or, for some unseen Zenful reward. Or, that it's some karmic work-release program; working off transgressions from a previous life.

None of these are true. I'm a freelance writer because writing is what I do best. Our media-driven world would grind to a halt without writers. A few years ago I watched actor Al Pacino receive a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Golden Globes. Without a script from which to work, the man was incoherent. So too is our media without actual writers -- the Internet, email, fax machines, print media, television would all be rendered impotent and dead without writers to make sense of the world for the Great Unwashed. A stark observation, but true nonetheless.

So, when I got a call from Carver Communication in Ottawa, Ontario to be a media monitor in the southwestern sphere of the provice, I took the job. But as it would turn out Carver is run by yet another necrophilic grave-robbing swine who seeks to pay wages that would insult a newspaper delivery boy.

From Ray Lauzon:

...[The job is] very, very straightforward. I think you'll do great. You sound like a very responsible person. With a bit of drive, the future is unlimited. Again, I started as a one person operation five years ago and now we have 30 people working around the country. Similarly, people started working part-time for us and now they're making great $$$$....

When it comes to describing what his employees will earn, Ray Lauzon is a fucking liar.

The job is simple -- I monitor television media in my area, write up summaries about stories that hit on key words or mention the names of Carver's clients. I was to get $1.25 per summary and $20 per item I sold. Ray Lauzon never explained what that meant or how it worked, but freelance work has taught me to be patient. And I was patient until I sent in 73 summaries and learned I would only be paid $91 for my trouble.

The notion there might be a problem with my compensation arose when I neared the end of my first two-week rotation of media videotaping. I saw I would soon be taping over material I had been told was a virtual sure-sell -- i.e. border issues in my area. However, these "sure-sell" items seemed not to have sold. If they didn't sell, that meant I would be hung out to dry for $1.25/summary. So, I wrote to Ray Lauzon, the boss, asking pointblank, how was this worth my while?

He asked what I wanted to be paid. I told him. We agreed on it. But when it came to actually paying me what we agreed upon, suddenly that pay rate wasn't retroactive. Time for the Carver Communications electric eel to violate my posterior. When I resisted this, ole Ray informed me that he was growing short on patience with dealing with me. Ah, shucks, these troublesome goddamned employees seeking to be paid a fair wage. Fuck.

If you're a freelance writer in the vicinity of Onion Field, Ontario, and see that Carver Communications is looking for a "stringer," please know that that's exactly what will become of you -- you will be strung along, and along. Get a route delivering the Pennysaver, instead. You'll earn more money.

If I were an unethical person, I might go after Carver's clients myself as I haven't signed any "non-competitive" contract. However, I wouldn't do such a thing.

A note I sent to the Labour Market Information (LMI) web site:

A company called Carver Communications (http://www.carvercommunications.ca/en_main.html) has advertised jobs on the HRDC -- I was briefly hired by Carver after applying to work for them via the HRDC Web site -- and I think the HRDC should know that Carver Communications completely misrepresents its pay rates and the amount of money contract employees will earn.

Carver professes to pay $1.25 per media summary submitted by one of its "stringers" -- the position I held. If one of Carver's clients buys one of these items, the stringer is paid an additional $20. The problem is, this does not happen. Ray Lauzon, the owner of Carver completely overstates -- and thus, fraudulently misrepresents -- what his clients are buying. For instance, I was told that border issues in my area were an almost certain sell. Among the 73 summaries I submitted to Carver, at least a dozen dealt with border issues. Yet none of these sure-sells sold.

Ray Lauzon can run his "business" any way he likes, but I think it's patently wrong that he fish for perspective suckers on a government of Canada employment database.

As anyone can see, there is no Zen to be found in getting ripped off.

Any balcony heckler reading this could easily make the accusation, "Well, sounds to me like you bring these problems onto yourself." And that would be wholly inaccurate. You see, some of my freelance writing gigs come off without a hitch. Some are even quite satisfying. When clients pay what they agree to pay, when they agree to pay it, things go very smoothly.

My most lucrative freelance gig has involved the writing of a full-length biography of a local industrialist. This has been, hands down, my highest paying gig by a long shot, and also one of the most satisfying and interesting experiences of my life. How does this differ from the debacles, such as I've experienced with drek like Carver Communications? Simple: I produce what I say I'm going to produce, and my client pays what we've agreed will be paid. And our relationship has grown and deepened, and been enormously beneficial on both sides.

Freelance work requires that I sometimes act in good faith. Meaning, that I commence work on a project before money has exchanged hands. And I do this. Carver Communications received top quality work from me. There was absolutely no complaint about the work I submitted. The only problem arose when I sought to be properly and fairly compensated. Short-sighted, tunnel-visioned greed-heads, such as Ray Lauzon, who cannot see past the end of their own wallets, don't understand why or how anyone would seek to be paid fairly. The sun and moon rise and set on their businesses. If they have to suck the marrow from my skull to make a few extra pennies, they will do it. They are confused and rankled by anyone who questions their conduct.

So, when my good faith is abused, I do not sit idly by. As a professional communicator, I make my feelings known -- quickly, vociferously. When I have been screwed-over, I get in the face of the miscreants. They never like this. Greed-heads detest being called on their greed. But they must. And I will continue to do this every time and everywhere it affects me.

Ottawa Breeds Corruption or Only the Corrupt Go There Via Public Office

I don't honestly believe there will be any significant change in Canada following the next federal election. By this I mean I don't believe a new government will do things substantially differently than the Liberal Party has been doing.

I have few philosophical arguments with the Liberals. However, based on their stunning display of mangled ethics, I would like to see the party incinerated, prosecuted, and banished to Nunavut with copious amounts of tar and feathers awaiting them.

The fact is, power corrupts. In Canada, Ottawa corrupts. More accurately, the seeming free-for-all that is Canadian government corrupts. I'm sure if we elected Jesus Christ it wouldn't be long before he was flying his mother and apostles all over the damned place on private trips on the public dime. How are the morally questionable who always find their way into politics supposed to resist the temptation?

The Liberals ought to be swept out of office. I hope they go the way of the Dodo bird and the Progressive Conservative party.

The problem in Canada isn't high taxes or the GST or Quebec or growing discontent in the west. The problem in Canada is Canadians. The sorriest, most malignant among us are the only ones who seek public office. This is a reality, and our central pressing problem. These malignants then head off to The Happy Rubber Room Where All Dreams Come True (otherwise known as Ottawa) where they proceed to run amok like baboons on Viagra.

Why are only the worst among Canadians the ones who seek public office?

Until we answer this question, and solve its multifarious mysteries, Canada will continue down the road of flaccid tyranny, taxing its citizens to death, its government committing outrage after unaccountable outrage, only to be voted out and replaced by an identical shower of bastards who go by another name, but subscribe to the same base, gluttonous personal philosophy: "Everything for me. Nothing for you."

The only way to deter these malignants is through accountability -- something with which Canadian governments have absolutely no experience. There is much talk of this weighty word in government, but talk and action are mutually exclusive in Ottawa.

In fact, Canadian government and politics not only needs accountability, but consequences for bad behavior. The malignants who have passed through our government in the last few decades have left a slimy snail-trail by which all misdeeds magically turn into personal profit. We need some person, group or entity to cover this snail-trail with rock salt and to begin assigning highly undesirable penalties when wrongdoing is uncovered.

You know, like that concept of "justice" that is so reviled in Canada -- the notion of people taking or being forced to take responsibility for their actions.

Sounds sensible, but in a country where Karla Homolka is unleashed by a myopic judge and publicly funded defenders, this concept is easy to desire, but almost impossible to attain.

At this moment, every Canadian politician comes across to me as defense attorneys do -- as liars. Defense attorneys are not under oath. They win for their clients. Politicians are similarly not under oath. They win for themselves. They're all liars, thieves, miscreants, and rogues. And some gaggle among them will also form our next government. All the while making themselves sound like the Messiah.

The only way a politician (I say "a" because I never imagine there will be more than a single person who will attempt this) will have credibility in my eyes is when he/she proposes, institutes and enforces not only accountability, but severe consequences for betrayals of public confidence. Because betrayal of public trust is a serious blow to the national psyche.

It's a sickening cycle in Canada that fuels and empowers the malignants.

I believe nothing that comes out of politicians mouths. If one were to finally stand up and propose, institute and enforce accountability and serious consequences for misdeeds, they would have my attention, not my trust. My trust won't re-emerge until I actually see positive changes take place. Talk is cheap -- that's why we have so much of it.