Mediaboss Marketing

By Staff The Canadian Press

Construction workers are pictured at work in Montreal. A Senate committee says the Liberal government needs a clearer plan for new infrastructure spending.

OTTAWA The Senates national finance committee is challenging the federal Liberals to finally come up with a detailed strategy to invest billions in new infrastructure.

The committees report released this morning warns that without such a plan the money could miss its mark and impair the ability of the economy to grow in the coming years.

WATCH:Justin Trudeau opening up infrastructure investment

The governments goals of jobs and economic growth are worthy and commendable, said independent Sen. Anne Cools, who is deputy chair of the committee.

We want to track progress, and if we as parliamentarians are expected to do our work, we believe that they can do even better by creating a clear plan, with concrete targets and specific performance measures, that will help them to meet their objectives.

The report says the Liberals must not only invest the right amount in infrastructure, but also in the right places particularly in trade infrastructure.

The federal government is set to dole out $186 billion in infrastructure money over the coming decade, with almost half of that stemming from the Liberals new infrastructure plan.

The government is finalizing the details of the second phase of its infrastructure program, valued at around $80 billion.

READ MORE:Budget watchdog targets slow infrastructure spending

The Liberals say that money will be aimed at building large, transformational projects that will also help grow the economy.

The Senate committees report is recommending the government create a single window for funding, instead of being spread across multiple departments and agencies, and take into account the needs of municipalities when deciding how money will be spent.

-With files from Global News

View post:
Senate committee slams Liberals on infrastructure plan - Globalnews.ca

5504978

The very day the Trump Administration barred The New York Times from a press briefing and the president said reporters shouldnt be allowed to use unnamed sources (were going to do something about it), much of the Left couldnt be bothered to protest. They were too busy howling about a minor change to federal transgender bathroom policy. Once again, President Donald J. Trumps opponents have been pursuing something shiny and gossamer while barely noticing unprecedented threats to the Constitution.

Which is precisely what the president wants.

There are really three levels of opposition to this president, and they range from essential to important to trivial.

At their best, opponents of this Administration protest the ways Trump is undermining our system, as he chips away at the Constitution. Fridays attacks on media freedom were dangerous, as were the presidents steps toward undermining the separation of powers (the opinion of this so-called judge) and trust in our democracy (millions of people who voted illegally). Assaults on fundamental aspects of the American system by a president popular within his own party create their own momentum and are hard to reverse. Even those inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt must be vigilant so Americas freedoms and checks and balances stay intact.

Then there are the presidents policy steps that Americans who disagree can and should organize against. Conservatives like me who oppose protectionism on trade or an expensive but nugatory wall along the Mexican border should lodge our protests, as should liberals who oppose school choice or the Keystone Pipeline. Organizing around policy issues should take a backseat to opposing threats to the American system of government, but theyre still important.

Then there are the largely symbolic issues that have taken up too much liberal bandwidth in protesting this president. The latest reversing President Obamas nationalized transgender bathroom policy is a great example. Despite the hyperventilating distortions of Big Gay (a disaster, a blind and cruel attack on young children) its a tiny change. The policy under Trump will be the same as under Clinton, Bush, and even President Obama for the first 92 percent of his term. Where were the protesters then?

Trumps move will not affect the vast majority of transgender children only the ones who attend schools that will now bother to reverse their compliance with the mandatory Obama policy, which seems to have worked in most places. In those schools, in most cases trans students will be asked to change and use the facilities in separate quarters like nurses offices.

I question the idea that discreet use of private bathrooms will lead to bullying, since the biggest risk of bullying is when trans students are face to face with cis (non-transgender) students such as when they share a bathroom. In any event, within months the Supreme Court may very well moot the whole debate.

So why all the attention to such a small issue? LGBT activists want government imprimatur for their ideas about gender (most of which I share). Most protesters are liberals with what I call Phantom Selma Syndrome the sense of regret at not having been able to march with Martin Luther King, accompanied by a constant search to exaggerate the latest ersatz civil rights cause.

The brouhaha over Trumps refusal to denounce anti-Semitism is a similar non-story. The fact a low-level staffer didnt mention Jews in a press release commemorating the Holocaust, and the meandering way Trump answered media questions about attacks on Jews are merely symbolic. While in a normal presidency I could understand paying attention to every symbol, this is not a normal presidency.

Sometimes I wonder if the administration is deliberately dropping baubles down rabbit holes, confident the presidents opponents will chase them and not notice when he takes away things that matter. Example: before the inauguration, I received an E-mail suggesting I protest Trumps inauguration painting because, if studied closely, it suggests sympathy for slavery. (Really this was a thing.)

Then, with any of these non-issues, Trump can give in (as he did denouncing anti-Semitism) and opponents can feel like they won.

And Trump can continue his march to autocracy unabated, our checks and balances impotent to stop him. Under this president, only the united voice of the people can make sure America stays America. And I applaud those liberals and conservative dissenters who over the weekend began organizing to fight for press freedom.

Too bad the rest of them were busy scurrying down a shaft worrying about where a few thousand kids pee.

David Benkof is a columnist for The Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

See the original post:
Liberals Play Petty Potty Politics And Trump Laughs - Daily Caller

Winnipeg Sun

Liberals urge Tories to sign health deal Winnipeg Sun The Manitoba Liberals are lobbying the province to give up their fight for more cash and sign a federal health agreement now. Manitoba must take action to avoid losing $40 million in targeted home care and mental health funds over the next decade Judy ... Pallister gambling with $40M in federal health funds, province's Liberals chargeWinnipeg Free Press all 4 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Liberals urge Tories to sign health deal - Winnipeg Sun

A couple of weeks ago I penned a comprehensive and mandatory piece that I modestly titled A General Theory of Leftist Politics. I argued that leftist politics has always been about representing the unrepresented, the people outside the system. Think workers in 1850, African-Americans in 1950.

Imagine my delight when I noticed, on my regular afternoon walk, one of those placards that are starting to breed like rabbits outside liberal houses in liberal North Seattle. The sign said, in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic, that you are welcome here and you belong.

Was I right, or was I right? Liberals now demand the right to represent the only people left in the world that are not properly represented by the system: illegal Hispanic aliens and violent Muslim jihadis. And they are signaling their virtue with mass-produced signs outside their wealthy homes in their wealthy fashionable neighborhoods.

I wonder which Democratic bigwig runs the non-partisan 501(c)(3) Center for Lefty Antifascist Astroturf Resistance and Messaging that coordinates this sort of thing.

Hey, liberals! Theres a reason why illegal Hispanics and jihadis arent represented by the system. In the first place, they have broken the law by coming here without completing the administrative states vital and voluminous paperwork. In the second place, they intend to break the law by violently overturning the United States government and its separation of church and state, replacing Western culture with Sharia law. And I thought that you guys were supposed to be the smart ones.

My point, in the original article, was that the strategy of representing the unrepresented was a wizard wheeze back in 1850. And in 1950 it was noble and honorable to make African-Americans full members of the American family.

But now, after 40 years of wage stagnation, we need to welcome the world? After 50 years of stigmatizing Christian fundamentalism, we need to import and promote Muslim fundamentalism? Alas, its the only game the left knows how to play.

Good luck with that agenda, Tom Perez, if you want to get the Democrats back into the winners circle here in the good old USA.

Let us talk about why the white working class has finally turned up in the Republican column. It is because the left repaid the loyalty of the working class -- won 150 years ago -- by leading it into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with tribal labor unions and replaced mutual aid and fraternal associations with government welfare. So the white working class ended up dying of despair in the Rust Belt, and liberals didnt care. In fact New York Times columnist Charles Blow seems to think that the white working class had it coming.

You may have noticed that President Trump is clearly making a bid for the votes of African-Americans. I say he has a sporting chance, given that liberals have repaid the loyalty of African-Americans -- won 70 years ago -- by leading them into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with identity politics and Black Lives Matter. No wonder African-Americans are angry -- the First Black President seems to have done nothing for them.

Now let us talk about women, that seem to be beside themselves after having got out the champagne to celebrate the First Woman President last November. Id say that someday, after the liberals have left them in the wilderness of divorce, sexual revolution, abortion, no children, and a boring nine-to-five job with no Promised Land of a work/life balance in sight, that even the liberal women presently besieging their therapists will realize that they have been had. And hell hath no fury, etc.

Have you noticed? What I have just written about the working class is called, by our liberal friends, classism; what I have just written about African-Americans is called, by our liberal friends, racism; and what I have just written down about women is sexism.

You may wonder why that is so, but I do not. I have stopped wondering about that sort of thing. There is only one answer to the vile accusation of racism, sexism, or homophobia: We Dont Care.

God bless our liberal rulers for doubling down on their represent-the-unrepresented politics. It may be the only thing they know, it may lead millions of people into the wilderness, it may be brutally divisive and neo-feudal, but at least they believe in it, and at least they are consistent.

Maybe Im missing something, but I dont see a lot of Americans voting for the party of illegal immigration and religious war.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

A couple of weeks ago I penned a comprehensive and mandatory piece that I modestly titled A General Theory of Leftist Politics. I argued that leftist politics has always been about representing the unrepresented, the people outside the system. Think workers in 1850, African-Americans in 1950.

Imagine my delight when I noticed, on my regular afternoon walk, one of those placards that are starting to breed like rabbits outside liberal houses in liberal North Seattle. The sign said, in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic, that you are welcome here and you belong.

Was I right, or was I right? Liberals now demand the right to represent the only people left in the world that are not properly represented by the system: illegal Hispanic aliens and violent Muslim jihadis. And they are signaling their virtue with mass-produced signs outside their wealthy homes in their wealthy fashionable neighborhoods.

I wonder which Democratic bigwig runs the non-partisan 501(c)(3) Center for Lefty Antifascist Astroturf Resistance and Messaging that coordinates this sort of thing.

Hey, liberals! Theres a reason why illegal Hispanics and jihadis arent represented by the system. In the first place, they have broken the law by coming here without completing the administrative states vital and voluminous paperwork. In the second place, they intend to break the law by violently overturning the United States government and its separation of church and state, replacing Western culture with Sharia law. And I thought that you guys were supposed to be the smart ones.

My point, in the original article, was that the strategy of representing the unrepresented was a wizard wheeze back in 1850. And in 1950 it was noble and honorable to make African-Americans full members of the American family.

But now, after 40 years of wage stagnation, we need to welcome the world? After 50 years of stigmatizing Christian fundamentalism, we need to import and promote Muslim fundamentalism? Alas, its the only game the left knows how to play.

Good luck with that agenda, Tom Perez, if you want to get the Democrats back into the winners circle here in the good old USA.

Let us talk about why the white working class has finally turned up in the Republican column. It is because the left repaid the loyalty of the working class -- won 150 years ago -- by leading it into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with tribal labor unions and replaced mutual aid and fraternal associations with government welfare. So the white working class ended up dying of despair in the Rust Belt, and liberals didnt care. In fact New York Times columnist Charles Blow seems to think that the white working class had it coming.

You may have noticed that President Trump is clearly making a bid for the votes of African-Americans. I say he has a sporting chance, given that liberals have repaid the loyalty of African-Americans -- won 70 years ago -- by leading them into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with identity politics and Black Lives Matter. No wonder African-Americans are angry -- the First Black President seems to have done nothing for them.

Now let us talk about women, that seem to be beside themselves after having got out the champagne to celebrate the First Woman President last November. Id say that someday, after the liberals have left them in the wilderness of divorce, sexual revolution, abortion, no children, and a boring nine-to-five job with no Promised Land of a work/life balance in sight, that even the liberal women presently besieging their therapists will realize that they have been had. And hell hath no fury, etc.

Have you noticed? What I have just written about the working class is called, by our liberal friends, classism; what I have just written about African-Americans is called, by our liberal friends, racism; and what I have just written down about women is sexism.

You may wonder why that is so, but I do not. I have stopped wondering about that sort of thing. There is only one answer to the vile accusation of racism, sexism, or homophobia: We Dont Care.

God bless our liberal rulers for doubling down on their represent-the-unrepresented politics. It may be the only thing they know, it may lead millions of people into the wilderness, it may be brutally divisive and neo-feudal, but at least they believe in it, and at least they are consistent.

Maybe Im missing something, but I dont see a lot of Americans voting for the party of illegal immigration and religious war.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

Read more:
It's Official: Liberals Care Only About Illegals and Muslims - American Thinker

The happy, confusing ending.

Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Before Sunday nights Oscars had even begun, there was a sense that the show would be predictable: lots of fiery political speeches paired with a sweep by La La Land, the apolitical homage to Technicolor Hollywood musicals. Well, thats why you actually have to watch the damn show.

Willa Paskin is Slates television critic.

The 89th Academy Awards did not play out as expected: instead of being an explicit rebuke of Donald Trump, full of Meryl Streepstyle barn burners, the show was an implicit but relatively quiet rebuke of Donald Trump until the wacky, wild ending, in which La La Land appeared to have won Best Picture, only to have lost Best Picture to Moonlight. Sorry to all the tourists who rolled up to the Academy Awards in a tour bus: Your 15 minutes of fame lasted exactly until whatever happened with Warren Beatty and that envelope. Instead of being what, for nearly four hours, this broadcast seemed to bea low-key celebration of Muslim, foreign, and black talent capped by a predictable win for a sexual harasser and a message-free box office juggernautthe Academy Awards suddenly became the fantasy metaphor so many liberals have been longing for. (Whether La La Land was unfairly cast in that fantasy metaphor is a question for another, clearer-headed time.)

The producers of the Oscars, rather than the winners of the Oscars, seemed to be expecting an openly provocative show. Despite starting with Justin Timberlakes performance of Cant Stop the Feeling, an enticement to an escapist good time, host Jimmy Kimmels monologue took shots at Trump, including I want to say thank you to President Trump: I mean, last year, remember when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? It wasnt just the monologue. Later in the evening, Kimmel Tweeted at Trump, u up? and #Merylsayshi. There was a lengthy montage of foreign moviegoers talking about their favorite American films. Even the most ambitious bit of the evening, in which a busload of tourists was given a surprise trip to the Oscars, seemed to be in direct, if confused, conversation with the notion that Hollywood is out of touch with regular people. The bit was overly long and awkward, but it was perhaps intended as a rejoinder emphasizing that regular folks are, instead, pretty enamored with Hollywood (or at least Denzel Washington).

But the winners had other, mellower ideas, mounting a slow and inexorable assault on Trumps vision of America without talking too much about him at all. Mahershala Ali, who won the first Oscar of the night, is the first Muslim actor ever to win an Academy Award. Later in the evening, the winner for the Best Documentary short, about the White Hats, quoted a verse from the Quran. The most political speech of the night belonged to Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, who won Best Foreign Film for The Salesman and didn't attend because of the travel ban on his country. His eloquent statement, read in absentia, including the observation that Dividing the world into the us and our enemies categories creates fear. Meanwhile, in other Oscar categories, Italians, a Frenchman, Hungarians, and a Swede won awards. Viola Davis won for Best Supporting Actress and Ezra Edelmans O.J.: Made in America won for Best Documentaryso that by the time Barry Jenkins and Tarrell Alvin McCraney won for Best Adapted Screenplay, the Oscars had set a record: the first to feature more than three black winners. The cumulative effect was a show that was deeply anti-Trump, without being all that vocally or entertainingly anti-Trump.

By the time La La Land was announced as Best Picture winner, the night seemed to be a tepid rejoinder to Trump, if a substantive response to #OscarsSoWhiteand even still, there was Casey Affleck beating out Denzel Washington in the midst of a seeming La La Land sweep. The evenings most interesting moment wasnt some controversial speech that liberals could love and be embarrassed by, and that conservatives could hate and torture us with. At that point, the highlights, if you can call them that, of the show included the bus bit, Kimmels habitual running-down of Matt Damon, and the Oscars now-annual attempt to feed famous people. (Why has this become a trope? Stars, they eat food? Stars, theyre just like usthey eat candy rained down upon them at the Academy Awards in little parachutes?)

Why had the broadcast been so apolitical up to this point? Were the winners and presenters skittish about saying much at the Oscars, a much bigger show than the far more political Globes and SAG Awards? (At the Independent Spirit Awards, which took place just the night before the Oscars, Casey Affleck gave an anti-Trump speech, while doing no such thing when he won tonight.) Were they expecting others to do it, except only Gael Garca Bernal actually did? Does the Oscars unique structure, in which the majority of awards are given to low-profile winners, play a part? Whatever the reason, Barry Jenkins remarks during his Best Adapted Screenplay speechand all you people out there who think theres no mirror for you, that your life is not reflected, the academy has your back. The ACLU has your back. We have your back. And for the next four years, we will not leave you alone. We will not forget.were the high-water mark of resistance, beside the Farhadi speech.

But then, the ceremony running more than half an hour over, La La Land was announced Best Picture, seemingly crowning a dull night, but, in fact, inaugurating a crazy one. The ending of the show completely overshadowed everything that came before it, even as it undermined any coherent sense of trajectory. Moonlight didn't get to revel in its victory so much as deal with the weirdness of the circumstancesbut those circumstances were so much more abundantly theatrical than everything that had come before.

Read the original:
The 2017 Oscars Transformed From a Tepid Rejoinder to Trump Into a Full-Fledged Liberal Fantasy - Slate Magazine (blog)