Three Canadian optical Illusions

Image: Optical Illusion


Three Canadian Optical Illusions

... Seeing only what we're told to see?

"It's life's illusions we recall; we really don't know life at all."
(Both Sides Now: Joni Mitchell 1970 - YouTube)


​1. Wayne Gretzky is a great Canadian hero

Wayne Gretzky was a really good hockey player. How did that benefit the average Canadian, especially when he mostly played for US teams?

Macleans: Why won’t Wayne Gretzky pick up his Order of Canada?

• The Great One was awarded Canada’s greatest civilian honour in 2009. But he hasn’t found time in his schedule to make the trip to Ottawa.

First of all, if you want to give someone a gift, you shouldn't tell them to come and pick it up. There should be free delivery.

Having said that, I can't help wondering who it was that nominated him for the award. The guy's a virtual American. He can't even vote in Canadian elections. But he can talk and he certainly talked up Stephen Harper and George W. Bush, including the war on Iraq!

Public awards say nothing about the true character of the person receiving them; that's what makes them so utterly meaningless.

2. The Royals Set A Good Example For Average Canadians

I was told by the author of "Canada's Governors General at Play"  - a former member of the Catholic clergy - that royalty sets a good example for ordinary Canadians to live up to.

So don't even think about the scandals.

CBC: Prince Charles at 70: Why he's been 'banging the drum' to make a difference, but says he won't meddle as king

• Opinion polls in the U.K. consistently rank Charles as among the least popular members of the Royal Family.

Let's face it, a person voted least popular royal figure is probably soon going to be King unless he does the sensible thing and abdicates, or, smarter yet, the monarchy is abolished.

Now certainly seems to be the time for Canadian "republicans" to get into high gear. Not that I would join a movement to oust the monarchy, mind you. Like Jagmeet Singh, I think the royals are irrelevant to Canada, so they should realize that and pack off of their own accord. If the Brits continue to want them, that's their mirage.

I've said it before and I'll say it now again, anyone who bends the knee to any other human being can talk about "freedom" all they like, but they will never experience it. Just think for a moment about how royalty views you as you grovel in front of them!

Think also about the character of an individual who would allow other human beings to do that.

They know how "commoners" need to be lied to, so they change their names to play down their country and family affiliations during war-times wherein only the commoners die while royalty remains virtually untouched -- and big business thrives by selling to all sides in the conflict.

It's occurred to me that one reason Russia is perpetually cast in a disparaging light by the West is that its royal family, whom the Revolution disposed of (albeit in an unnecessarily ruthless way), was related to both German and British royalty, and that they were exploiters of human inequality, the boot on the neck, so to speak. All in the family, you might say.

How many times does that have to be pointed out before people get it?

Recently a Canadian woman who was born in England expressed surprise to me that a recipe attributed to the British royals, that she had received from a British cousin, was an old German one. I replied, "The royals are German". That earned me a blank stare.

Yet no bones are made about it in the written media -- for instance, this line in a story about how and where the royals spend Christmas:

• "In keeping with the family's German heritage, gifts are given on Christmas Eve instead of Christmas Day".

But people don't read much these days; they watch TV.  And it shows.

Need someone to look up to, bow to, be led and exploited by? There are aspiring demagogues everywhere who'd love to shake your hand.

3. You Have a "Private Life"

Globe&Mail: Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households: poll

• ... and most would not consent to participating, according to a new Nanos Research survey.

I think we all could have surmised that for ourselves. Being Liberal today means taking all possible liberties, apparently.

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet repeatedly defended it this month in the House of Commons in response to criticism from opposition MPs.

The Cons' noses are out of joint. They wanted to be the ones to do that. No fair!

Remember when Harper shortened the census? He knew that better info could be got by other (more secret and invasive) means. Still, there were agencies and profiteers that claimed hardship by the move.

Back then, Maclean's decried a "Vanishing Canada" as a result of "Ottawa's War on Data". The article cites an example of a small town that has "vanished" from the federal records.

Yet that small town has a Mayor who, presumably, has access to town records - municipal taxes, employers, employees, home owners, renters, births, deaths, marriages, divorces, fishing licences, etc.  If that town needs something from the Province or the Feds, shouldn't part of the job of Mayor be to provide those stats without individuals having to be personally identified?

Or is it not about the needs of the municipalities, but those of Intelligence agencies and rabid business interests? How rhetorical is that, eh?
​