Benen notes, “the new health care law in the United States creates a system that isn’t similar to the Canadian system at all, so condemning the Affordable Care Act by pointing to Canadian budget problems doesn’t make sense.”

Yes. But even if it is similar, it’s still better than no system at all.

Yes. But even the underlying premise that something that needs work is something that shouldn’t exist, is completely stupid. When brakes go in a car, you get new brakes, you don’t say “Ha! Told you cars were a bad idea!” Because you’d sound like an idiot. Because you would, in fact, be an idiot. Conservatives are idiots.

While we’re just picking numbers out of hats.

I’m thinking at least half of Rossi’s jobs have to be imaginary. That is, they’ll exist in his mind, but nobody will be doing them.

First off, I’m not sure where 9.6% comes from, but that’s fine. That may be the number for the actual city of Toronto. But then there aren’t 250,000 people looking for work in actual Toronto.

The article notes that “Rossi did not explain the formula he used . . . to come up with the 250,000 figure.”

OPTION ONE
Take population of Toronto (somewhere a bit over 2,500,000), multiply by apparent unemployment rate (9.6%), round up, equals 250,000. Which is patently ridiculous (a. it’s impossible to create a job for every single unemployed person, b. there aren’t actually 250,000 unemployed people in Toronto because at any given time about a third of the population (kids, retired people, the hopeless) aren’t looking for jobs). Therefore, Rocco Rossi is ridiculous.

Unless… OPTION TWO
Forget about just Toronto. Consider the Toronto CMA. This includes Ajax, Aurora, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Brampton, Caledon, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Halton Hills, King, Markham, Milton, Mississauga, Mono, New Tecumseth, Newmarket, Oakville, Orangeville, Pickering, Richmond Hill, Toronto, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Whitchurch-Stouffville. (NB: Most of these places are not voting for the mayor of Toronto.) Here there are a shade over 300,000 people looking for work. Create a job for 80% of them, equals 250,000. Of course, this would reduce the unemployment rate to about 2%. Which is economically impossible. Therefore, Rocco Rossi is ridiculous.

Unless… OPTION THREE
What he’s really thinking is that his policies will create jobs throughout all of Ontario. In this case there are say, generously, 650,000 people looking for work. Figure you can make jobs for about 40% of them, equals 250,000. Of course, this would reduce the provincial unemployment rate to 5.5%. Which would be well below where it’s ever been before. Therefore, Rocco Rossi is ridiculous.

CONCLUSION
Rocco Rossi is ridiculous.

So let’s call that “baseline stupid.” Anything other than “Sure, here are the records” is going to be at least baseline stupid. And then there’s the next level:

“She is an employee of the house,” Liberal MP Scott Andrews said. “We appoint her. So why would she audit the people who appoint her?”

Oh god.

Either he doesn’t have any clue what he’s doing, in which case he’s completely insane and should be transferred to a tollbooth or the back of a KFC (along with everybody who takes seriously the words that leave his face), or he does know exactly what he’s doing, in which case he’s hilarious (and everybody who takes seriously the words that leave his face should be transferred to a tollbooth or the back of a KFC). I try so hard to think it’s option 2.

The thing is, it’s the people most likely to be prejudiced who are also the most likely to be unquestioningly misinformed about general events.

You have to resign. You have to say “Sorry, I was drunk when I wrote that, I’m not actually a horrible person, I apologize to anyone I’ve hurt, I have had stresses in my life and will spend some time trying to recalibrate with my family. I am retarded. Oh shit, I shouldn’t have used that word, I’d better go.” shed tear

Dan Gardner writes, “The essential problem advocates of the bilingualism-on-the-bench bill have is that the court functions just fine. It is internationally admired. It is respected at home. If the presence of unilingual Anglophones is a practical problem — not merely a symbolic one — it doesn’t show in the court’s decisions. And in the end, the decisions are all that matters.”

I’m not making a point here about whether Supreme Court judges should be bilingual or not. I’m just saying the above statement is patently ridiculous. If we banned [insert ethnic group here] from [insert profession here], that particular [insert occupation here] wouldn’t suffer at all. But it would still be racist. It would still be wrong.

What is this, grade four? Who writes this stuff is one thing, but who publishes this crap? What the fuck?

“Who mistook this crap for genius?”

Assuming approximately 1/4 lies, 1/4 half truths, 1/4 hard to say, and 1/4 truths, at least some of those recollections (i.e. about half of that last ingredient) may do unfortunate things, like reminding rich white people that 9/11 actually happened under Bush’s tenure.