Jian Ghomeshi

More on Jian Ghomeshi

A woman– I should have noted who she was but I didn’t– appeared on the CBC recently to respond to the fact that Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty of the charges of sexual assault against two women.

This was a trial. A judge was chosen who was a friend of neither the prosecution nor the defendant. The prosecution presented evidence. The defense presented evidence. They argued before a judge. The judge weighed the evidence and found Ghomeshi innocent.

This woman, on CBC radio, insisted that the justice system needs to change. Because it was unfair that the judge ruled against the women. It was, in fact, unfair that the women were even questioned about their allegations. It was unfair that Ghomeshi had the opportunity to defend himself. It was unfair that the women should be disbelieved just because they lied.

And they did lie. Indisputably, they lied, to the police, to the Crown Attorney, and to the Judge. Ghomeshi’s lawyers merely provided the court with the documents that the Crown did not even know existed, and there it was: clear, undeniable evidence that these women had juiced their stories. They had lied.

So when this feminist activist on the CBC demands that the court system handle such allegations differently, what she is essentially arguing for is a court in which women may lie with impunity and men are never believed.

I wonder if she has done more damage to the feminist cause then one could ever imagine all the Jian Ghomeshis and Anthony Weiners and Bill Cosbys of the world have ever done.


With the recent conviction of Harvey Weinstein, the CBC (Radio) had a couple of “experts” on to discuss the verdict. One thing that was brought up was the Jian Ghomeshi case– why was the result different?

I knew that none of the personalities on this program were going to admit that, in the Ghomeshi case, the women lied. Instead, they dodged the issue and mutter some vague allusions to “different facts”.

No– the women in the case against Jian Ghomeshi lied, to the police, and crown, and judge. And that’s why they lost that case.

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

By the way, I never liked Ghomeshi as host of “Q” on CBC.  He was a major suck-up, flattering his guests with unseemly adoration.  Well, it turns out, there is substance to that angle.  “During his time as host of Q, Ghomeshi many times booked guests who shared his agent and lawyer without disclosing this connection.”  Wikipedia.

The inconsistency and “outright deception” of the witnesses’ testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution’s case.[91] Lawyer Marie Henein was able to access thousands of messages between Ghomeshi’s accusers and presented them during the trial.[92] Judge William Horkins rebuked the complainants for providing “deceptive and manipulative” evidence.


I am somewhat disgusted by the utter contempt for truthfulness and integrity shown by those who continue to insist that the women were telling the truth.  But it does tell you something.  “Truth” for the activists in reference to ill-behaved men is a malleable thing.

Trump Will Not Win This Election

[My Wrong Pick]
Trump and the Angry Uneducated White Men
Donald Trump is not going to be president of the United States. He cannot win the demographics. He will probably do pretty well among angry, disenfranchised white voters, and old white women. But he has not, so far, demonstrated the slightest attraction to blacks, hispanics, women, educated white men, educated white women, educated people of no specific gender, or establishment Republicans.

How Does He Do It?

One is forced to consider how he might just do it, as if the possibility itself must be considered for some reason. Trump is volatile, and he doesn’t embrace a lot of the traditional Republican values. He has even– God Help Him! — let slip that he would consider raising taxes on the rich, if necessary, to deal with the mythic crisis called “The Budget Deficit”, which is only ever a problem when it can be used to justify slashing social spending. You want a war? Hey, here’s my gigantic American Government Credit Card.

So, he is volatile. He might take positions that a lot of Americans would find appealing, even if they don’t like his boorishness.

We cannot afford to forget that Americans are very, very angry at their government. Most of them could not name a single policy that they actually want to change, or how they would change it, aside from the obvious: no boots on the ground in Syria. They do want to tear up trade agreements but I suspect most people would be easily frightened into keeping them, if the consequences of a trade war with China were described to them in vivid terms.

But Trump looks like a bully and sometimes you like the bully if he’s on your side.

Or if you think he’s on your side.

I lost it at the Movies

Do Americans cling to an obsolete, nostalgic image of impervious American power and prestige? When the marines could just land somewhere and “take” a country or city, and the rubber or oil or coffee or bananas would just flow through American corporations to American consumers in American malls?

2021-05-05 Update

Yeah, obviously I was wrong.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this election cycle is the fact that the two people most people want to be president– Bernie Sanders and John Kasich– will not be the nominees.

Is there a problem with a system that produces two of the most unwanted presidential candidates in history?

Is there a problem with the obscenity of the fact that the wife of a former president is about to become the next president of the United States? Is the U.S. actually a tin-pot dictatorship?

Why the hell doesn’t someone start a third party? If people hate their government so much– no matter which party is in power– why don’t they do something about it? Is this an abusive relationship? Are the American voters enablers?


Wednesday, May 05, 2021

Good Riddance

When Heidi Cruz is first lady, he pledged, “French fries are coming back to the cafeteria.”   NY Times, 2016-05-04

So said Ted Cruz before the love died and he was cast out of the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination.

This is kind of a mind-blowing thing for a responsible, serious, Christian, politician to say: elect me and I will let your kids eat as much junk food as they want.  It’s one thing to say, “elect me, and I will ensure that parents have the final word on what their children eat at school”, or “elect me and we’ll leave nutrition up to corporate food vendors instead of the government” (which is, more or less, what he said), but to openly trumpet the fact that he doesn’t give a damn about what our children eat at school is truly mind-blowing.

Trump is a buffoon, of course, but I preferred him over Cruz– or even Paul Ryan– right from the start.  Trump would probably say, why should I care what your children eat at school– it’s up to them.  But Cruz would force them to eat their french fries just to spite those liberal intellectuals who you just know think they are smarter than him.  And he would ban healthy foods in order to free our children from the oppression of nutrition experts, pediatricians, and scientists, who are all obviously out there to promote their gay agenda.

The gayest looking candidate of all can’t have that.

[whohit]Freedom Fries[/whohit]