Who Won the American Election?

Remarkably, opinion pieces of journalists, passing as news, flowed off the press and refuted claims of election fraud before any evidence was formally presented, much less investigated. In the absence of the kind of reflection and insight that might serve as a caution, journalists remained oblivious to their diminishing reputation and public credibility. Ratings for public news channels have never been so low.

Journalism has become a sad reflection of an element of society that cares less about investigative reporting and more about controlling the narrative. The currant narrative is clearly that there is no election fraud. Period. Even though, prior to the election, both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly questioned the integrity of election processes.

I’ve watched several hearings that presented claims of misdemeanours in elections— sending/receiving ballots from dead voters, voters with parking lot mailing addresses, voters who don’t exist. Whether this was intentional, is virtually impossible to prove. Intention would imply fraud. This is called “rigging” the election.

Of course, we want to believe that nobody would stoop to undermine the American election process by endorsing non-existent voters, or duplicate voters, or voting in place of others, or incentivized voting, or voting of non-citizens. If it happened, and these turned out to be predominantly Democrat voters, we are assured, by the same journalists who insisted there was no voter fraud, that it was on a small scale of only a few thousand, not enough to change the election outcome.

At the close of an article that vehemently denies evidence of election fraud, a journalist concedes that the level of fraud is at best insignificant. There were not enough irregularities to change the election result.

And so, with the consolation that the fraud that happened was insignificant, because it didn’t affect the outcome, public attention is steered away from the glaring truth of a compromised electoral system. The same journalists who declared there was no fraud a few weeks earlier, have moved us to the acceptance of “irrelevant” fraud.

As the hearings progressed, with their “irrelevant” allegations, the opinions of journalists progressed as well. When testimonies came forward presenting more substantial evidence, the witnesses themselves became “irrelevant” and the story was not about the allegations but about Giuliani’s hair dye running down his face. Lawyers who shied away from participating in the hearings were touted as evidence of a sinking ship, with no hint at other possibilities, like their livelihoods being threatened.

If I were in charge of Republican allegations of election fraud I would have gone about this differently. But of course it is too late now. I would have focused only on evidence that does not require witness corroboration and only on such evidence as would change the election outcome. Too much time has been wasted on proving that the election process can be manipulated. There was never a need to be prove this at all. The real question is, was the level of manipulation able to change the outcome? In other words, did the American vote count?

There is still another equally disturbing problem with journalism surrounding the election, besides misrepresentation and manipulation. This is silence. Silence when there is a real issue to report. Like the lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell. Silence when voters rally by tens or hundreds of thousands in support of the president. Silence about the actual significance of only Republican watchers not being allowed to observe ballot counting.

One can’t help but speculate that journalists who are willing to suppress the voices of half the population of America might also be willing to cooperate to suppress the votes of these same American citizens. Meaning, of course, the loss of a democratic election process. It will require a level of fearlessness journalism, and integrity we have not seen up to this point, to uncover what actually happened in the American election.

“It doesn’t make sense, after 10 days, putting the kids in self-isolation.”

At a time like this it is critical that we have confidence in our health authorities and respect their directives. CTV News reported in an article yesterday that Elsie Roy Elementary School in Vancouver had a case of Covid-19 and ten days later parents received a letter requiring students to isolate for four remaining days, back-dating to the last day of exposure.

As one mother pointed out, until this time the children “were in school, they were everywhere, going outside, just living our lives normally.” In other words, students had opportunity to spread the virus for ten days.

The delayed response is at best evidence of a system that is clearly not working and at worst a sign of negligence and incompetence.

The delay in response by the Vancouver Health Authority is disconcerting on its own, but the directive to isolate for the last four of fourteen days indicates a weakness in the interpretation and application of isolation guidelines.

The directors could have explained the ten day delay to parents and assured them this would not happen again, but to send families into isolation for four days is totally futile at this point. Anyone can see that. It adds insult to injury to parents who find out too late the risk they were exposed to, and then are required to respond like puppets to an unreasonable order.

The delay in response by the Vancouver Health Authority is disconcerting on its own, but the directive to isolate for the last four of fourteen days indicates a weakness in the interpretation and application of isolation guidelines. Even if we can ignore the delayed response time, this lack of judgment is difficult to overlook.

It is precisely this kind of decision making that causes people to lose confidence in health authorities. It would be advisable to investigate how such a lapse in judgment happened and to consider a possible change in management. This is not a time when we can afford to lose public confidence in health authorities.

It’s not just statues that are toppling in Canada

Jordan Peterson: The activists are now stalking the hard scientists | National Post

Ben Mulroney steps down as host of CTV’s ‘etalk’ to make way for Black, Indigenous voices | National Post

UBC board of governors chair steps down after ‘liking’ anti-Black Lives Matter tweets – BC | Globalnews.ca

In Canada it is no longer acceptable to question or dislike violent anti-racisim protests and anti-police protests. It is apparently not acceptable to “like” Trump tweets either, or Republican talking points. And you can lose your job, simply for liking a tweet. I saw a revealing video commentary regarding the resignation of the UBC board of governors chair, Michael Korenberg, but today it appears to have been removed from YouTube.

Here is an opinion piece by Rex Murphy who has also been a target, as I wrote about recently: Rex Murphy: The right to your own opinion is a keystone of a true democracy | National Post

And another matter of concern, that may or may not be related, is this article, Why CSIS believes Canada is a ‘permissive target’ for China’s interference – National | Globalnews.ca Here is a quote:

The committee’s report named two countries — Russia and China — among those conducting “sophisticated and pervasive foreign interference activities against Canada.”

But intelligence officials and former diplomats, including Canada’s former ambassador to China, believe China is the greater threat, in large part because the country has been successful in “elite capture.”

“China is the No. 1 threat to Canada and has been for some time,” David Mulroney, former ambassador to China, said in an interview.

China has used its economic leverage to secure “the voices” of political and business leaders in Canada with “sweetheart business deals” and “various inducements,” including lucrative board positions or honours in China, he said.

This week we have seen new pressure from the media on our government to intervene on behalf of the two Michaels that are being held in China. Our Prime Minister insists that our judicial system is independent from the government. The CBC (the official, government funded broadcasting station) featured a legal expert who claims it is within the power of the government to interfere in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case. Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig were arbitrarily detained in China following the arrest of Meng who faces extradition to the U.S. on charges of bank fraud and covering up Huawei’s violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Meng, is “deputy chairwoman of the board and chief financial officer (CFO) of telecom giant and China’s largest privately-held company, Huawei, founded by her father Ren Zhengfei.” (Wikipedia) It is curious to me that the CBC presents a view that appears to side with China, over our Prime Minister.

While Meng is under house arrest in Canada and has every luxury, including the freedom to travel in the lower mainland during the day, with surveillance, the two Michaels sit in detention with the lights on 24/7. This is a form of torture, make no mistake. One can only imagine the psychological damage of being in confinement under trumped up charges, without contact with family, and experiencing sleep depravation and hormonal disruption for 550+ days. A simple flick of the light switch, twice a day, could make their lives much more tolerable. I’m wondering what the response would be if Meng were treated in the same way–even for a week.

The two Michaels have now been charged with espionage and stand little chance of avoiding conviction. This is clearly a very delicate situation. Kelly McParland says, We all want the two Michaels back, but Canada mustn’t give in to China.

My response to George Floyd

I don’t know if I am skilled enough to write on this subject. I’m going to make an attempt, with the possibility that this may never see publication. If you are reading this, then I am satisfied that I somewhat clearly communicated what is on my heart. It seems that saying nothing is seen as cowardly, and yet I know I am taking a risk as I write.

When I grew up my family was shunned by much of the community. I was bullied relentlessly. Before you shut me down as just another person who says they were a victim too, hear me out.

I later learned that a mistake had been made in the printing of a geneology book that listed me and my siblings as born in Mexico. As a result, everyone in the community thought our family came from Mexico. That put us in a different class.

In Junior High a family actually arrived from Mexico and the children came to our school. They lived on a property adjacent to the school. In the garage, which was separate from the house, and visible from the school, their teenage son hanged himself. I saw the rejection he faced in school because he was different but I never imagined it would end in such tragedy.

In grade five I had a crush on a native boy who was in grade six. One day the police were at the school because he had pulled a knife on a teacher.

In high school I had Chinese friends who helped me with my Math and improved my ping pong skills. After high school I worked for a Chinese boss who owned a Chinese restaurant in our town.

I lived in the Philippines where I saw racism when Filipino children were told that the missionary’s stomach was fat because he ate children. I got my hair cut in the “bakla” area of town. Our sons were taunted by children calling them that name. The NPA–New People’s Army (Communist) had skirmishes with the Philippine military. Muslims began to broadcast their call to prayer in our community and I heard their angry rants against “Americanos” on Fridays at noon. A missionary couple from our island was kidnapped along with others at a resort. Some of those kidnapped were beheaded. The missionary husband died from a gunshot wound during their rescue by the military many months later.

I am endeared to Indigenous people and Filipinos and Chinese because I have known so many of them. More recently I have made friends with people of various other nationalities as I worked at a college. I live in Surrey, BC where we have a large Indo-Canadian population. I am accustomed to seeing a representation of many different cultures around me. I’ve learned about the different nuances and values of various nationalities and I continue to observe and learn.

Being a guest in another country for five years has given me a broader understanding of racism. After an extended time of living among nationals in the Philippines, I found myself in a setting with Caucasian people and I thought I was different from them. I felt brown. I was shy. I actually had to remind myself that these were my people.

The reason why I feel less than qualified to speak to this subject is because, although I have had varied experiences with exclusion and discrimination, I do not know what it is like to be of another skin color while living in a predominantly Caucasian nation. I know that in the Philippines we always felt different. We could never escape from that fact, even if we forgot it for awhile. But we were generally treated well in the Philippines. There was enclaves of people that resented us. We knew who they were. We also knew they were dangerous. We tried not to pay attention to these groups or to go to their area of town.

I’ve been taught to love everyone equally because God created us equal. I used to say I don’t see color, but that statement has been misconstrued. When I have a friend of color, I forget that they are colored until I see a characteristic that is particular to their background. This is the same if they are white and from another nationality. I worked with Americans for years and then encountered a couple from Germany. I noticed that my Canadian upbringing and Germanic background in some ways aligned me more with the German couple.

Different characteristics of people from varying locales fascinate me. I was not born in Mexico. My grandparents were not born in Mexico. But my mother was. Her mother was adopted by a couple who moved to Mexico when she was six. My mother was sixteen when her family later moved to Canada. They were fleeing a drought that had devastated their farm. Initially they worked in sugar beet fields in Manitoba and tomato fields in Ontario. So, in a sense the community was correct in their assumption about us. Living in Mexico and immigrating to Canada shaped my mother in a way nothing else could and I deeply love her and respect who she is.

The bullying I experienced made me stronger because I sought my own identity apart from how others saw me or treated me.

I see class distinctions within every culture and some cultures are much less kind to those of a lower class. My Christian background has taught me not to prefer those of higher status or give them special treatment. We are all created equal.

I am as distressed as anyone over the unnecessary and cruel and unjust death of George Floyd. Where attention needs to be given to making changes to prevent racism and inequality, I am all in favor of making these changes.

However, there is something that is troubling me about this picture. I think it is the myopic vision, the near-sightedness, in other words. The immediate demand to “defund” the police, for instance is very lacking in vision. Think of all the people who call the police daily to come to their defense. Think of what would happen if there was no law enforcement to intervene and help settle altercations, investigate thefts and solve murders.

People are upset. I get that. It is very upsetting when power is abused and justice is miscarried.

I also get that people need to have a voice. They need to know someone is listening and taking action.

But I have a bigger concern. Without presenting a thought out plan, we could just be advocating anarchy. Who could possibly benefit from that?

The problem I have is that we no longer seem to be discerning who we should be listening to. Some messages are helpful. Some are not.

When I got married I heard a very good piece of advice. When you have a disagreement, it is not a matter of who is right, but what is right. In the heat of the moment we can make judgments that we end up regretting. That is why we need to take a breath, and take a step back, and look at the whole picture. We don’t need knee-jerk reactions right now. We need a careful analysis.

Heritage minister clarifies government won’t be licensing news outlets following backlash

February 3, 2020 news article by Terry Pedwell

Commentary

The Liberal government is revising Canada’s broadcasting and telecommunications laws and it’s a good thing somebody is watching. As a blogger I am particularly interested in the need for freedom of speech online. The idea of licensing news sites does not sit well with me at all.

A report released last week, called “Canada’s Communications Future: Time To Act,” compiled by a panel of “independent broadcast experts” included the following recommendation, as posted in the article:

that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) or another regulatory body control licensing of all companies creating “audio, audiovisual, and alphanumeric news content.”

The article concludes by stating that,

The CRTC currently issues licenses to TV and radio broadcasting outlets but does not regulate content on digital outlets such as Google and Facebook, on websites or in print.

Let’s watch that it stays that way.

More information on the CRTC’s plans to regulate Netflix’s Canadian content can be found in a January 29 CBC article by Eli Glasner.