Yet another Air Canada story, with a special twist

For a long time after the government of Canuckistan privatised the former TCA (Trans-Canada Airlines, aka Tin Can Airlines) and renamed in Air Canada, it enjoyed a pretty good reputation for on-timne performance, customer service, safety etc. Within living memory it was voted the best North American airline. But not lately.

AC has been struggling since it got "woke", because the push for DEI (Diversity, Equity and Includsion) has forced the airline to hire staff based on how many boxes they check on the woke list, instead of merit. And there's a whole slew of employees now whose job is to ensure compliance with the wokeness mandate.

One of those employees is Stephanie Cadieux (woman, French-Canadian, disabled), whose lofty position is that of Chief Accessibility Officer -- the first of her kind in Canada. Recently, Mlle/Mme/Ms Cadieux (Walt isn't sure which honorifc applies) complained on X-formerly-known-as-Twitter that the airline had forgotten her wheelchair. Here's the photo she posted of Herself waiting in front of an AC service desk in a replacement wheelchair. 

Ms Cadieux left YYZ (Toronto) on Friday, October 20th, and arrived at the Vancouver airport (YVR) without her wheelchair. In her post, she wrote "I'm now without my essential equipment. Independence taken away. I’m furious. Unacceptable." ["Unacceptable" is the liberals' go-to expletive for anything they don't like. Ed.]

Unlike most helpless Canadian travellers, Ms Cadieus is in a position (maybe) to do something about the "unacceptable" service. After all, she's entitled, having been appointed Chief Accessibility Officer in May 2022. Before that, she was a member of B.C.’s legislature from 2009 to 2022 and has held several ministerial positions. 

In response to her post on X, Air Canada said that what happened is “certainly not the level of service we strive to provide” and said they would certainly do something about it, if she would just provide more information to the customer service department by filling in this form yada yada yada. Rotsa ruck, Stephanie.

"We can be great again!" - The retired general's anti-woke speech the "legacy media" won't let you see

Here's the headline and the lede from an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on November 15th. 

Canadian Forces officers applaud speech slamming Canada's climate change policies, cancel culture, weak leaders

Serving senior Canadian military officers gave a standing ovation to a speech by a retired general who criticized everything from the removal of historical statues and apologies to victims to government climate change policies.

Did you note the date? November 15th. The speech referred to was made by Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) Michel Maisonneuve as he received the Vimy Award, a top Canadian defence award, on November 9th. Excerpts from his anti-woke speech appeared "below the fold" in some of Canada's lickspittle media a day or two later, but no video of the speech itself can be found. Believe me, Ed. has looked!

Nor has a full transcript been published, until today, when the editors of Canada's National Post summoned up the courage to run the full text, which apparently was submitted to them by the general, in response to popular demand. We've copied the whole thing, without permission, and believe Lt.-Gen Maisonneuve will be glad we did so. He wasn't talking just to hear himself, eh!

Lt.-Gen Maisonneuve is a decorated veteran of 35 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and another 10 as Academic Director of le Collège militaire royal [Royal Military College] de Saint-Jean. He is a huge advocate for veterans, and served as the first Chief of Staff of NATO's Supreme Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk VA. In his November 9th speech, he pulled no punches in describing what he thinks needs to be done to make Canada great again. The emphasis is mine.

The Vimy Award. How humbling; what a tremendous honour. With this honour comes the opportunity to accept this award with a speech that acknowledges the spirit of Vimy and shares with you my vision for Canada today and for the future.

Canada — once we were great. We stopped the Americans in 1812, we gave the world Billy Bishop, Alexander Graham Bell and Lucy Maud Montgomery. We isolated insulin, invented the zipper and the snowblower. 

In World War One we mobilized 620,000 troops. We were victorious at Vimy Ridge. In World War Two we were brave enough to land at Dieppe, and we secured our beach on D-Day. The Devil’s Brigade remains the template for special forces the world over. Our small country boasted the world’s third largest navy at the end of that conflict. We became internationally recognized peacekeepers and more than 80,000 of us served on missions during the Cold War.

We beat the Russians on their ice in 1972 and a young man named Terry Fox continues to inspire us all with his unparalleled courage and determination. We gave the world the Canadarm in space; we won a world series. When the world changed again on 9/11, Canada stepped up — first to join the coalition of the willing and send in ships and JTF 2. Serving with distinction in Afghanistan — we still mourn the loss of our 159 men and women. Canada was a great nation and though we are faltering today I believe we can be great again.

Since this is my speech, I get to share what I believe Canada needs to do to take the world stage again; to be thought of first when it comes to seeking alliances, to be seen as a serious country once again. What will it take? Well, I believe it will take leadership and service. These two crucial foundations of greatness for any nation have somehow become secondary — lost in these days of entitlement, “me first”, “not my problem” and endless subsidies and handouts.

Let me start with leadership. Leadership applies in all pursuits and at all levels. Great leaders are distinguished by the success of those they lead and the entity they lead — be it a country, an army, a corporation or a sports team. When that entity succeeds, we recognize its leader … and when that entity fails, misses, or misses the playoffs, the leader must — should — take responsibility. 

History has given us many great leaders. Ask yourself: would those leaders have been as successful in today’s world? Well, let’s see; today’s world, where social media captures every move and word spoken — taken in context or not. Where cancel culture still flourishes and there is no call for redaction or amendment even when accusations are proved false. Truth is not a requirement; once cancelled, you are done.

Today’s world, where balanced journalism is difficult to find. The practice of presenting the facts — a truthful illustration of an event, a personality or issue that allowed the reader to form their own opinion — is no longer compulsory in mainstream media. The line between "news" and op-eds has blurred and too often we are subjected to sermons written not by seasoned journalists but by first-year graduates of woke journalism schools. Unbiased reporting seems to have died with Christie Blatchford and Matthew Fisher.

Today’s world, where extremism — once the almost exclusive purview of religious zealots — seems to be flourishing in all aspects of our lives, on the right … and on the left. Some of the most popular "causes" and beliefs of today are embraced by all manner of extremists with no thought of how to achieve this utopian ideal in a responsible or plausible manner.

For example, Canada’s prosperity is being sacrificed at the altar of climate change as opposed to being used to help the world transition to clean energy. Throwing soup and paint at the world’s art treasures is as heinous as it is useless. The perpetrators should be punished, not celebrated.

Today’s world is also where taking personal responsibility for our own actions has disappeared from the landscape while the phenomenon of collective apologies flourishes in our country. Individuals and groups fight over who gets to wear the coveted victim’s cloak. But any role they may have played in their own fate or in injuring others is dismissed as learned behaviour, inherited flaws or generational oppression.

So I am not here to debate whether those great leaders of yesteryear would be as successful in today’s world. But nor will I judge the decisions they made in their time against the standards of today. Enough statues have been toppled; erasing our history is not the solution. 

I believe that the most important leadership skills have not changed and are even more so today than ever. Number one is communication — it is more critical than ever in this world of sound bites and mic dropping. A good leader ensures his followers know where they are going and how to get there. A great leader makes them want to go there. A great leader can take a seemingly insurmountable objective and make it possible to achieve in the hearts and minds of their followers.

Thankfully these leaders still do exist in today's world and there is no better example than Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In his nightly address he clearly, continuously, and passionately articulates the mission to his fellow Ukrainians. Dismissed early on as "an actor, a comedian, a dancer," President Zelenskyy has rallied the world to his just cause. He surrounded himself with good people, made difficult decisions and by communicating, has captured our hearts and souls with Ukraine’s plight. God speed Mr. President and Slava Ukrainii.

Secondly, cohesion, acceptance and tolerance. Today's leaders must stop dividing those they lead! Hasn't history shown us that success as a leader demands cohesion, unity and respect of all those they lead — not just those who agree wholeheartedly with them? Can you imagine a military leader labelling half of his command as deplorables, fringe radicals or less-thans and then expect them to fight as one?

Today’s leaders must find a way to unite; not divide. Leaders lead. There is a difference between making a good decision, based on research and consultation, and making a decision because it is popular or it polls well. The best decisions are those made for the good of the whole — not just good for friends of the leader. Today, special interests have trumped the collective good. Making decisions for the collective good requires strength of character, the communications skills to explain, and a great deal of courage.

Courage remains one of the most important qualities of a leader. The courage of ideas, courage in the face of criticism, the courage to guide and lead. The courage to create a vision for the good of all. The courage to recognize a mistake and accept responsibility — personal — for that mistake.

The second key to bring Canada back to prominence is service. Just a short two months ago, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, queen of Canada, died. It would be impossible to find a better example of service. On her coronation she promised that she would dedicate her life, whether long or short, to the service of all. Over the next 70 years, in good times and in bad, she placed the care of her realm and subjects above all else. She exemplified character and duty and provided us all with an example of dedication to service. She kept her promise. May she rest in peace.

The idea, the concept of service seems to be forgotten in our "me-first" culture. Service to others, to one's country, to humanity must be a noble aspiration. The obligation to give back in gratitude for a life filled with blessings, peace and good fortune should not be innovative. It seems that Canadians have lost the desire to serve and the need to serve their country.

The military — being in the service of one’s country — used to be a most highly regarded profession. Today, I see a military woefully underfunded, undermanned and under-appreciated; a force where uniforms have become a means of personal expression rather than a symbol of collective pride and unity: uniforms are no longer uniform. The idea of serving in our armed forces is getting little traction. Could it be because the moral contract under which our military serve is broken?

Members of the Armed Forces fulfill their side of the moral contract that exists between them and Canadian society — they serve and are ready to serve in dangerous missions at home or abroad to protect our country and project Canadian values. But Canada should also be holding up its end of the contract: providing them with the state-of-the-art tools they need, the best leadership, equipment, education and training to be safe and successful, and looking after them when they become veterans.

In my opinion, we are failing. Because for Canadians generally, the Armed Forces are not important until there is a crisis, and successive governments’ support of the forces reflect that mindset. Our troops who have dedicated their lives to serve this country deserve better.

We are in Veterans Week, commemorating those who exemplified the concept of service by putting their life on the line for us, and honouring those who gave up their tomorrows for our todays. Let's use them as our example to serve.

If more inspiration is required one need not look far: let’s remember the words of two of the finest leaders of our time: Margaret Thatcher believed "There’s no such thing as entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation." And of course, JFK most famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

Soon the festive season will arrive; a season of generosity and benevolence. In the name of service, I challenge us. Offer to volunteer, no matter where: an animal shelter, home for the homeless, seniors or veterans. The most important gift we can give is our time. I challenge us all to donate — instead of selling that surplus coffee maker on Kijiji, let’s donate it to Mission Services or Goodwill or the Salvation Army. I challenge us to be compassionate: give the panhandler enough cash for a warm meal but also ask them their name, wish them well and shake their hand.

I believe we can make Canada better. To find common ground with our neighbour and to unite our country rather than divide it. To apply our leadership and service; to live with compassion, tolerance and patience — but most of all to be proud of Canada and everything we once stood for.

We Canadians live in the greatest country in the world with almost unlimited resources, a tolerant and diverse people, and an educated population who can aspire to the greatest heights. We should be prepared to serve our country and be proud to do so. And our leaders must share this vision. "If not us, who? If not now, when?" Because, as Satchmo has told us, in spite of it all … it is a wonderful world.

I thought the last line was kind of lame, but I understand the sentiment. Take out the reference to Queen Elizabeth and a few others which Americans wouldn't get, and Lt.-Gen. Maisonneuve's address would make a fine campaign speech for... errr... whoever you think could deliver it with a straight face and be believed.

VIDEO: Every skinny white airline passenger's nightmare

This is a coincidental follow-up to "Why Walt doesn't fly any more - 'Allahu akbar!' in the air", WWW 25/1/19. I must admit that, no matter how useless you think the TSA is, you don't find yourself on the plane with a fanatical Muslim all that often, at least not in North America. But the scene in today's video is all too real, and happens all that often because of the fattitude of average Americans -- the kind you see on Judge Judy. Check this out.



On January 2nd, the unidentified white woman seen in the video booted off a United Airlines flight from Las Vegas to Newark for having the audacity to complain -- not to the airline but to a friend on the phone -- about being seated between two very large black people, who she said were "squishing" her. The video was shot by the BBW on the woman's left, a nurse named Norma Rodgers, who subsequently posted it to FB to proclaim the couple's victory over fat-shaming and "negativity".

The lamestream media reports say it was Ms Rodgers who was subjected to verbal abuse, which is what she claims in her complaint to the flight attendant. What I heard the white lady say was "Oh my goodness! I don't know how I'm going to do this for the next four hours. This is just impossible cause they're squishing me. Like, friggin' just unbelievable. At least they’ll keep me warm. I can't sit here because they're both so big on left and right. I can't even sit here."

Sounds to me more like a statement of fact, rather than abuse, and please note the white lady's saying it not to Ms Rodgers but to whoever's on the other end of her cellphone conversation. It's the BBW who stops chewing on her cud to say, "Bitch, please. OK?!" Who's aboozin' whom? And Ms Rodgers is the one who says to the FA, "I will not be verbally abused by anybody. I'm not tolerating it!"

The flight attendant asks the woman if she would like to wait in the rear while they see if there is a free seat, and the offer is accepted "Thank goodness." That's when other passengers decide to confront the lady because, obviously, she's white and she doesn't want to sit with the black folkses.

One gentleman, who appears to be of the coloured persuasion, shouts that the woman's complaint is really all about MAGA. The woman tells replies that she's "not politically correct" and adds, "Why don't you try and sit between those two big pigs?" Notice that she didn't say "black" or any other race-related word. Nor did she say "fat". It's the BBW who shouts "Bitch, kiss my fat ass!" as the white lady is led away.

Such is the state of interpersonal relations in the "post-racial America" which was ushered in by the (first) election of the Prez. How wonderful to be alive in America now. Just don't count on the "friendly skies" being as friendly as they once were.

VIDEO: Bill Whittle talks about white privilege and black disadvantage

Just saw, and want to share with you, this video posted near the end of July by William Alfred "Bill" Whittle. Mr Whittle talks about what "white privilege" really means. Spoiler alert: it's not having anyone to blame your failings on. He also talks about "black disadvantage", or perhaps we should say the "disadvantage" that anyone of any colour who's lazy or stupid can say is the reason why they don't have a better job, a better house, no criminal record, yada yada yada. Running time 10:36.



Mr Whittle must be prescient, because, in this video (posted on July 28th) he offers some advice to the SJWs: Be careful about starting a fight with people who take the word "warrior" seriously.

If you'd like to see and read more commentary by Bill Whittle, check out his blog which (Bill sez) "offers something lacking in the mainstream media: common sense."

Redistributing wealth won't save us

The fiscal cliff, the 1% vs the 99%, taxing the middle class out of existance... What it all comes down to is the wisdom of the Almighty State taking from them as has to give to give to them as has not.

There's no doubt the State can do so if it wishes. But is it the smart thing to do? Can the government legislating the "poor" into prosperity? Walt thinks not (lifetime pct .984) and argues from the record of two great empires.

Consider the mighty and long-lived Roman Empire. History tells us an important factor in the slow demise of Rome was excessive welfare. This was mandated by Roman senators to buy voter support. They feathered their own nests while keeping the poor quiet with bread and circuses. Not much has changed in two millenia, has it.

Now think about Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by American atomic bombs in August of 1945. Nothing left. But look at them now! The two cities -- indeed the whole country -- have redeveloped beyond anyone's imagination.

How did the Japanese become so prosperous so quickly? They do not have a welfare system. You work or do without. Which caused more long-term destruction: the A-bomb or government welfare programmes created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

What we're talking about, dear readers, is the importance of incentives. Walt will explain in five sentences.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

That's not intended to be an argument for no taxes. The Romans had taxes. The Japanese have taxes. There will probably be taxes in hell. It is, however, an argument for a flat tax, an idea whose time has come... and gone... again and again. But keep it in mind as you listen to the wrangling about who's going to pay for all the entitlements and social programmes that the vote-hungry politicians and lamestream media tell us we must have.