Ford's Cabinet:

Apparently, Doug Ford considers every cabinet member he appointed an unhyphenated Canadian.

No member in the new Conservative cabinet in Ontario is there because of sex, sexual inclinations, inclusivity, skin color, hiring quotas or belief. It would appear that they are all there because they are the best available re: education, experience, track record and whatever potential each portfolio requires. 

In today's social consciousness, this is a radical concept. Not at all the norm.

As expected, the liberal media was quick to run around gathering selective quotes from the public to the effect that women and minorities are under-represented. 

In their view, actual ability to do the job was less important.

Climate Change:

Apparently Climate Change was one of the items on Justin Trudeau's  G-7 agenda.

It wouldn't hurt for people to understand and accept that climate change is an ongoing planetary process, just as it has been for the life of this planet.

It also wouldn't hurt for us to understand that we human beings are not to blame for it. It will happen regardless of what we do or not do.

We ought to also understand that initiatives like the Paris Accord and the G-7 sessions on climate change are strictly political posturing for reasons only some political types can understand. 

The logic behind it escapes me, but maybe Al Gore can tell us more.

A Mature View:

Does a study on women's equality and another on climate change have any room at a G7 international conference?

Trudeau seems to think so.

U.S. president Donald Trump, on the other hand, is reported to have made it a point to arrive late for one session and leave early when the other came up.

It would seem that Trump thought there were more important things to discuss at a conference of leaders of the most important economies on the planet. 

He's right. For him, political posturing was less important than actually getting things done.

Politics Made Easy:

In any election, there are only two political choices.

Some of us vote for an economy that will improve our chances for a productive lifestyle.

This means an economic plan that will encourage potential investors to take a chance. New investment should result in more and better jobs for people looking for work.

But not everyone is looking for work. Some voters look for politicians who promise the most freebies. 

Politicians offering the most freebies are hoping to offer what they can extract from the pockets of those people who get up and go to work in the morning.

Voting for such politicians is like handing them free access to your credit cards and saying, "Go ahead. I'm sure you can spend my money better than I can."

Such people are unlikely to vote for Doug Ford.

Political Foul-ups:

The Millennials in Ontario wouldn't remember what some previous administrations did to this province, but a quick lesson could be had simply by Googling Eleanor Clitheroe, the financial whiz kid who ran Hydro One.

Ontario's working folk are still paying for all those $25,000 per month retirement funds and golden parachutes.

If I remember correctly, it was the Ernie Eves administration that was elected to exorcise this gang who ran Hydro One like Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves.

Apart from Clitheroe picking up an armload of legal credits from various schools around the province, apparently what qualified her to run Hydro One was her experience with the Bob Rae NDP administration back in '91.

Cat Fight:

Now that the teacup readers are predicting a bigger slice of the political pie for the NDP in Ontario, Kathleen Wynne has switched her attacks from Doug Ford to Andrea Horwath.

The latest cat fight between these two political prodigies now appears to be which party has the most women candidates. Apparently, both view more women as a winning strategy.

Neither appears to view those dastardly male candidates as having any real potential. 

What a strange election this one's shaping up to be.                      

Equal wages:

Wynne's attempt to secure equal wages for equal work is not a new idea.

Politicians are in no position to judge whose work is equal to who else's. Only the people actually working at the scene--the employers--can do that.

Any attempt to legislate equal wqages will get muddled results like they got in the Soviet Union before it was dissolved in the 1990s.

Why it fails was described in an excellent article in the Sun a few weeks ago. It discussed a professor's attempt to demonstrate to his class why the communist principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" results in ultimate failure.

The prof set out to show why averaged-out wages will not work by averaging out something the students understood: their grade scores. The low achievers among them saw it as relief from the need to study. The high achievers were not so sure.

The article described how the class reacted to the results of the first test. The happiest were those who put in the least effort but were still awarded a passing grade. The brightest were less happy with their reduced marks.

The next test was more of the same, only the average score was now lower because the top students were beginning to lose their enthusiasm. 

And so it went with lower scores each time, descending to average class failure as the bottom feeders continued to coast while the achievers refused to continue their struggle while being dragged down by the slackers. 

The equal pay for equal work theory failed to work for Joseph Stalin and it will fail to work for any other politician bent on buying votes from people looking for a free ride.

This is the bait Kathleen Wynne is dangling before the noses of people simple enough to still think there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Actually, there is, but it lasts only until they run out of people willing to pay for it; in this case, the working taxpayers.