So apparently, the biggest story in healthcare right now is a nurse in B.C. getting sanctioned for being openly transphobic. Really? That is the scandal? Our system is slowly getting Americanized, healthcare workers have to do more and more with less and less, while a few more people get to profit from suffering. And this is what we are showing you? This is the headline?

Here is the thing. For every Amy Hamm who gets blasted across the headlines, there are five *guys* in white coats, usually in positions of authority, who make their transphobia known. They are like landmines for every other healthcare worker - you just gotta avoid them. These guys have the confidence of a man who has never been told no. They are untouchable. They say whatever they want because they know no one is going to pull their scalpel out of their hands.

But who gets picked for the news? A nurse. A woman. It is the perfect cherry picked character to stir things up. Look everybody, even your friendly neighborhood nurse has gone rogue. It is not an objective report, it is a cultural wedge.

I'm talking about transphobia so let's segue into sports. You notice how anytime people want to justify being a transphobic sack of shit, they drag sports into it?

They do not talk about housing, or jobs, or healthcare access. No, it is always, “What about the girls’ swim team?!” Like suddenly everyone in the country is an expert on high school relay races. They do not care about the sports, it is just the easiest way to make the prejudice sound like common sense. It is a marketing move.

And Amy Hamm? She is the same thing. She is not the story, she is a story that works. She is the wedge they can put on the table and go, “See? Even nurses are against this!” It is strategic. Pick the case that generates the most friction, blow it up in the media, and suddenly trans rights are back in the hot debate column.

Meanwhile, the evidence shows most of the truly vocal transphobia comes from men in power, not from women like Hamm. But those guys? They are invisible. They do not get sanctioned. They do not get front page stories. Because a surgeon mouthing off does not make for a good cultural flashpoint. A nurse does.

So let us stop pretending this is news. It is not about accountability, it is not about healthcare standards, it is about running the same wedge issue playbook they have been using with sports for years. Pick a case, blow it out of proportion, and let the culture war circus roll on.

Don't be a clown.

I want to stop seeing news items like this. They are an insult. We are smarter than this. Political announcements that are vague, non-binding, and heavy on “exploring options", are a red flag.

This news article should have been about how Carney walked in with a hollow, developer-friendly outline he tried to sell as an affordable housing plan, and how a room full of actual journalists tore it apart.

"We don't do that here."

*Sigh*

Instead, it’s… well, I can’t hear you when your mouth is full.

Yep. I went there. Because this is gross.

We know that if an affordable housing plan does not start with:

Binding affordability targets tied to incomes

Permanent affordability covenants on public land

Funding primarily for co-ops, non-profits, and Indigenous housing providers

Shovels in the ground this year, not after years of program design

…then it is not an affordable housing plan. It is a plan to transfer public wealth into private hands under the cover of a crisis.

Doug Ford did the exact same thing.

The headline promises relief. The fine print delivers subsidies to the wealthy, low-interest loans to developers, and valuable land to the wealthiest players in the housing market. And the people who actually need affordable housing get “consultations” and “explorations” while prices keep climbing.

Lots of houses will get built and the profit margins will be just wonderful for the builders, but there are no requirements built-in to pass that down to the buyer and actually make housing more affordable.

In an Oligarchy, Liberal and Conservative are the same.

Yep. I went there, too. Because this is gross.

Carney’s affordable housing plan feels like Doug Ford’s:

Promise to open land for housing

Hand it to a small group of connected developers

Deliver minimal or no affordability

Override local planning to push their projects through

Carney is bending over backwards to:

Promise affordability without defining it

Build a framework that makes it easy for private developers to capture public benefits

Leave affordability conditions vague and temporary

Spend months or years in “consultations” that developers heavily influence

Call it out. Share it. Reject it. Demand better. Because we have seen the playbook, and we know exactly what’s going to happen - and what’s not going to happen.

Where the fuck is Rachel Gilmore?

While they erase, they tell the rest of us it’s about “security” or “efficiency” or “tradition.”

But what it’s really about is reminding us who gets to exist with dignity and who doesn’t.

It’s about telling the working class: stay in line, pick a side, and don’t question the system.

Because if you do, you’re next.

__

When the Carney government quietly falls in line behind a pathetic U.S. executive order, erasing non-binary identity from cross-border documentation like Nexus, this isn’t about bureaucratic compliance or legislative cowardice. It’s about the gesture. The spectacle.

Because this isn’t about policy. It’s about managing perception, reinforcing power, and letting marginalized people take the hit so that capital can proceed unbothered.

It’s a perfect move for those in power. It costs them nothing, and it stirs up just enough outrage to keep people arguing about identity instead of asking who benefits, who profits, and who stays in power.

Qui bono?

Make no mistake. The impact on real people is sharp and immediate. But the policy itself is performative. A disposable decree that changes nothing for the ruling class while reinforcing all the right narratives:

That trade matters more than lives

That dissent is dangerous

That people who don’t fit neatly into categories should sit down and stay quiet

That security requires obedience

That bureaucracy is neutral

And what do we get? A news cycle. Drama. Distraction.

Meanwhile, the corporate class keeps its fast lane, and the rest of us are told once again that justice must wait.

That dignity is too expensive.

And that now is not the time.

Yes, two immigration lawyers called it out. That's the whole "balanced" spin of this news story. But we know how this plays out.

There will be no meaningful protest. No parliamentary challenge. No organized resistance.

Not because people don't care, but because they are meant to feel like it’s not worth it.

That’s the brilliance of the design: make the cruelty look like a clerical adjustment, and make the outrage look like noise.

That’s what’s cowardly. Not just the policy, but the architecture of silence that surrounds it. The way it hits hardest while pretending to be minor.

The way it disappears people while hiding behind procedure.

Lock in now.

See through the performance.

Name it for what it is: a sad tool of control, not governance.

Refuse the narrative that says this is about practicality. It’s about power.

And when they use bureaucracy to erase people, to divide workers, to distract us with outrage while they profit in peace, call it what it is.

Not a glitch.

Not a mistake.

But a perfectly executed, chicken-shit move by a system that survives by keeping us compliant, divided, and fighting for scraps while it feasts.

Silence is not neutral.

In moments like this, silence sides with power.

And centrist complicity makes the system feel normal as it erases, excludes, and harms.

Andrew Zajac is a healthcare professional, diatonic harmonica customizer, committed opponent of privilege, and hopelessly foulmouthed advocate for meaningful change.

Let’s peel back the propaganda and get to the bones of the matter.

"Canada backing statehood for Palestine makes it ‘very hard’ to negotiate U.S. trade deal."

Now stop right there. Lock in.

We’re being told, conditioned really, that our economic future depends not on productivity, not on justice, not on fairness, but on our loyalty to empire. That to even recognize the sovereignty and suffering of an oppressed people is to jeopardize our trade relations with the United States. That’s not diplomacy. That’s extortion.

And we’re supposed to swallow that without blinking.

We're told we live in the land of liberty. Free speech. Free enterprise. Free choice. But in this context, freedom means obedience. It means bending to the interests of those who control capital flows and military power. It means calibrating our moral compass to suit Washington’s foreign policy. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean standing with the dispossessed, because that would make Wall Street nervous.

Freedom? Let me ask you: What kind of freedom demands you look away from apartheid? What kind of democracy tells you that your economic well-being hinges on the continued suffering of another people?

We are bathed in what I call the rituals of democracy, the voting, the debates, the flag-waving pageantry, but beneath the spectacle is the iron logic of imperialism. And it doesn't just crush Palestinians. It trains us to internalize that cruelty. To rationalize it. To defend it, even. We become not just complicit, but invested in domination, because we’re told that our comforts depend on it.

But let’s be clear: the problem isn’t recognizing Palestine. The problem is a system that makes that recognition an economic threat. That’s not a bug. That’s the blueprint.

So when you hear that a Palestinian flag in a Canadian diplomat’s hand might cost us a few basis points on a trade agreement, know what you’re really hearing: that our economy is wired to empire, and our morality is held hostage by markets.

And still they have the nerve to call that freedom.

Andrew Zajac is a healthcare professional, diatonic harmonica customizer, committed opponent of privilege, and hopelessly foulmouthed advocate for meaningful change.

Alberta premier Danielle Smith just banned a bunch of books including one work by Alison Bechdel.

Standing up to unfair or controlling systems takes more than just voting or reading the right books. It means stepping out of our comfort zone, asking hard questions, and speaking up when something doesn’t add up - even if it comes from voices we admire. That’s what real critical thinking looks like.

___

When Heather Cox Richardson recently invoked the phrase “The only way out is through” in a short video about resisting controlling political movements, she was not engaging in literary attribution. She was using a widely recognized saying to highlight a moral truth: that getting through hard times, both politically and socially, requires resolve, collective effort, and a refusal to look away.

And yet, in response, a commentator took issue with her apparent misattribution of the quote to Harriet Tubman. The phrase, he explained, originated with Robert Frost, sort of, and Richardson, as a historian, should have known better. He called it an avoidable myth. He framed his correction as a defense of truth and an act of critical thinking in what he called a “post-truth society.”

But let’s be honest. This is not critical thinking. It is critical deflection.

Richardson’s message was about the spiritual and civic path through the rising dominance of concentrated wealth and political power. The phrase she used was simply a vehicle for that message, not the destination. Focusing on the exact source of the quote, especially in a 60-second video about resisting fascism, is like walking up to a group of people fighting a fire and saying, “Excuse me, there’s a typo on the laminated instructions for that extinguisher.”

It is not just tone deaf. It actively shifts the conversation away from what really matters.

The same commentator then went further, placing Richardson’s quote in a lineup of “heroic exemplars” that included Tubman, Frost, Jack Kornfield, and Winston Churchill. At first glance, this may seem generous or intellectually broad. But in context, the comparison reveals a deep misunderstanding.

Tubman risked her life to help dismantle a system of racial slavery. Churchill, though rightly credited for standing up to Hitler, was also a man who opposed independence for colonized people, enforced brutal colonial rule, and undermined democratic movements in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. He may have opposed fascism in Europe, but he often embodied authoritarianism, inequality and violence in the parts of the world Britain controlled.

To pair Tubman and Churchill as equally heroic defenders of democracy, and to tie them both to a misquoted inspirational phrase, misses the point completely. It reflects the very problem Richardson was warning about: a loss of moral clarity, a lack of historical perspective, and a casual rewriting of what real democratic resistance looks like.

This is where critical thinking actually matters. It is not about catching someone in a small mistake. It is about telling the difference between what is meaningful and what is not.

To think critically means asking questions like: What is the purpose of this message? What is really at stake? Whose version of the story is being told? What might be getting left out? And sometimes, yes - What the fuck is your point??

Getting hung up on quote attribution, even in a scholarly tone, becomes a kind of distraction. It creates the appearance of thoughtful critique while avoiding the harder truths underneath.

What we need right now is not nitpicking or intellectual point-scoring. We need clear thinking, honest dialogue, and the courage to confront power directly.

The only way out really is through, not by focusing on trivia or pretending all voices carry the same weight, but by facing the truth, calling out contradictions, and refusing to look away. That was Richardson’s message. And it is one we cannot afford to ignore.

Andrew Zajac is a healthcare professional, diatonic harmonica customizer, committed opponent of privilege, and hopelessly foulmouthed advocate for meaningful change.

Addendum:

When challenged about bringing up Churchill, the commentator eventually told me to "Forget about Churchill. He's an afterthought. I'm happy to stipulate...that he has next to nothing to do with the main point of my post"

That's hypocrisy.

Richardson’s misquote was a passing reference, not central to her message, yet it became the focus of critique. Meanwhile, Churchill was presented as a moral exemplar, but when challenged, he was dismissed as an “afterthought.” If we’re serious about truth and critical thinking, that scrutiny should be applied evenly. When it’s not, it becomes performative critique.

Nothing on any major news outlet about The Madleen - the vessel that was carrying humanitarian aid for blockaded Gaza and sailing under a United Kingdom flag when it was forcibly seized by Israeli commandos early this morning. Nothing. As if it was covered by a gag order.

Instead, I get disgusting news that Carney will now ramp up military spending (we are funding the genocide in Gaza). Apparently, under cover of the unreliability of the USA, we will spend more taxpayer money to fund the oligarchs that sell us military equipment.

They don't even try to hide it. The a full 2/3 of the article is about Defence and Security Industries. They are happy. The article mentions closed-door meetings with top industry leaders.

I feel safer already.

And don't worry about taxes! This won't raise them one bit. You can count on services being cut instead.

This is an antisocial plan to increase the upwards redistribution of wealth by being complicit in genocide.

One last red flag. Carney said “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security” but we all know they have been doing that since the 80s. Carney is an expert among experts - he knows how ridiculous that statement is. It's not about the truth.

It's about a plausible excuse to give billionaires more money.

Don't fall for it.

Ask questions. Ask why none of the popular networks are featuring what's going on in Gaza. And put pressure on your electeds to ensure the safe return of the activists who were abducted by the Israeli military.

“We’re going to say there’s a difference between spending and investment,”

Okay. But what do you mean?

“We have been clear. We’re going to spend less. We’re going to invest more. We’re going to build Canada tomorrow.”

Okay. But that's not clear at all.

"I’m very much focused on the other side of the equation, which is the investment" .... to “build the economy for resiliency to have a strong economy.”

Okay, now this is starting to sound like tax cuts for the rich. Which we know doesn't offer any return on investment for the government budget.

Pressed repeatedly on how the federal government will accomplish fiscal responsibility, Champagne wouldn’t answer directly, but insisted “it’s a very different frame.” “We’re going to be very transparent with Canadians."

Trickle down economics confirmed. But with support for Carney being so high, everybody is asleep.

Wealthy people don't create anything.

And they don't trickle.

The company made sixty-five billion dollars in PROFIT since 2020 and they just now had one bad fourth quarter.

"Chevron to lay off up to 20% of global workforce. Weak margins in the production of gasoline and diesel also hurt Chevron's fourth quarter earnings, as its refining business posted a loss for the first time since 2020"

The axing of workers will send another one billion to shareholders.

The CEO's job is on the line so the solution is to eliminate 8000 workers: The people who actually do the work and create the wealth.

But we all want the wealthy to be in charge of things because they create jobs!

There are no American billionaires. There are billionaires who hold american citizenship and get tax breaks and access to markets, but they sell out the US any and every time it makes them money. Think of outsourcing, polluting, exploiting workers, hiding assets, and even influencing the government.

When wealthy people talk about putting the US or any other country first, it's mostly bllusiht. Nationality or citizenship doesn't really matter to wealthy people.

All American billionaires hold citizenship as a strategic tool rather than a matter of national identity. They care about tax rebates, mobility, access to markets and other safety nets. But they don't care about putting any country first.

Any billionaire earns A LOT of income from foreign countries and often keep most of it in in international investments. Like Swiss bank accounts. Read up on the Panama Papers and how little the leak actually did to make things more fair.

Anyway, the chaos caused by the recent tariff is for a reason. It's not for the economy. It's not because of undocumented immigrants (not many come from Canada) nor Fentanyl (Americans smuggle most of the fentanyl into the US).

It's not for nationalism or against globalism. FFS, Musk is a South African who first got Canadian citizenship to avoid military service, then illegally immigrated to the USA his student visa expired.

It's a distraction for something probably worse - pay attention to how the oversight mechanisms are being taken down. Any chaos in the markets, egg prices, and gas prices will hurt workers but the more wealthy people will do well. They'll buy low and sell high. And whatever comes next will not benefit you or me either.