Number 16

Oscars Quiz 2026

2026-03-10T17:30:00.000-04:00

The 98th Academy Awards will be held on Sunday, March 15, 2026. The show will air live at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. on ABC and will take place at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, California. The ceremony will be televised live on ABC. This year's Oscars will be hosted for the second year in a row by Conan O'Brien. As you prepare for the big night, why not challenge yourself and try Number 16's 14th annual Oscars quiz. There are 11 questions. Good luck!

NUMBER 16 OSCARS QUIZ

1. Leonardo Di Caprio has been nominated for best actor this year for his performance in One Battle After Another. He has received eight Oscar nominations to date, including this year's. Leothe has only won an Academy Award once, although this year's result is pending. For which film did Leo receive an Oscar?

DiCaprio

A. Titanic

B. The Revenant

C. The Wolf of Wall Street

D. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

E. The Aviator

2. At the 2017 Academy Awards, Faye Dunaway mistakenly announced La La Land as the Best Picture winner. Which film was the actual winner?

A. Fences

B. Lion

C. Manchester by the Sea

D. Moonlight

E. None of the Above

3. Joan Crawford received one Oscar in her illustrious career. For what movie did she win an Academy Award?

Crawford

A. Humoresque

B. Autumn Leaves

C. Mildred Pierce

D. I Saw What You Did

E. Torch Song

4. Did Marilyn Monroe ever win an Academy Award?

A. She never won an Academy Award.

B. She won for Bus Stop

C, She won for Niagara.

D. She won for Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

E. She won for Some Like It Hot

5. Who is the only actor to win Oscars in both acting and directing categories?

A. Robert Redford

B. Sylvester Stallone

C. Clint Eastwood

D. Paul Newman

E. Gillermo del Toro

6. Which film earned Stephen Spielberg his first Academy Award as Best Director.

Spielberg

A. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

B. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

C. Jaws

D. Raiders of the Lost Ark

E. Schindler's List

7. Who was the first actor to refuse a Best Actor Academy Award?

A. George C. Scott

B. Marlon Brando

C. Woody Allen

D. Vanessa Redgrave

E. Robert De Niro

8. Chinese filmmaker Chloé Zhao is the second woman and the first woman of colour to win the Academy Award for Best Director for the film Nomadland (2020). This year she has been nominated as Best Director for a film that has been nominated for Best Picture. Which of these Best Picture nominees did she direct?

A. Sentimental Value

B. The Secret Agent

C. Marty Supreme

D. Hamnet

E. Train Dreams

9. Which of the following blockbuster films did not receive a Best Picture nomination?

A. Raiders of the Lost Ark

B. The Matrix

C. E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial

D. Star Wars: A New Hope

E. None of the Above

10. What was the first animated film to be nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award?

A. Frozen

B. Shrek

C. Finding Nemo

D. The Lion King

E. Beauty and the Beast

11. For which movie did Jack Nicholson win his first Oscar?

Nicholson

A. Easy Rider

B. Terms of Endearment

C. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

D. Five Easy Pieces

E. A Few Good Men

ANSWERS

1. B. The Revenant

Leonardo Di Caprio received the Academy Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Hugh Glass in the 2015 film The Revenant. His first Oscar nomination was in 1994 for Best Supporting Actor in the 1993 film What's Eating Gilbert Grape. He also received Best Actor nominations in 2005 for his portrayal of Howard Hughes in The Aviator, and for his performances in 2007 for Blood Diamond, in 2014 for The Wolf of Wall Street and in 2020 for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. He also won a Best Picture nomination for The Wolf of Wall Street.

2. D. Moonlight

Moonlight was the actual winner of the Oscar for Best Picture in 2017.

3. C Mildred Pierce

In 1946, Joan Crawford won an Academy Award for her performance in the 1945 film Mildred Pierce. She did not attend the ceremony, claiming to be ill. Instead, she accepted the award from her bed at home, with her hair and makeup done and reporters at her home to cover the event. She admitted later that her health wasn't the whole story. "I was afraid of losing," she told biographer Charlotte Chandler via the New York Post.

4. A Marilyn never won an Academy Award,

Marilyn Monroe was never awarded an Oscar during her lifetime, nor did she ever receive an Academy Award nomination.

5. C. Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood is the only actor to win Oscars in both Best Picture and Best Director categories. He won Best Picture and Best Director Oscars for Unforgiven (1992) and Million Dollar Baby (1995).

6. E Schindler's List (1993)

In 1994, Stephen Spielberg won his first Academy Award for Best Director for the 1993 film Schindler's List. He won another Best Direct Oscar in 1999 for the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan.

7. A. George C. Scott

Scott

In 1971, George C. Scott became the first actor to refuse a Best Actor Award for his performance in Patton (1970). Scott did not attend the ceremony. He sent a telegram to the Academy stating that he did not want to be part of a competition, which he described as a "two-hour meat parade." Nevertheless, the Academy proclaimed him as the winner. He never collected the statuette.

Marlon Brando declined his Best Actor Oscar in 1973.

8. D Hamnet

Chloé Zhao directed Hamnet.

9. B. The Matrix

Reeves

The Matrix, a 1999 science fiction action film starring Keanu Reeves, did not receive a Best Picture nomination.

10. E Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast (1991) was the first animated film to be nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. It received a nomination in 1992, but lost to Silence of the Lambs. Shrek won the first ever Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.in 2002. Toy Story 3 won Best Animated Feature Oscar in 2009. Toy Story 3 was also nominated for Best Picture, but lost. Up was also nominated for Best Picture, but did not win. An animated film has yet to win Best Picture.

11. C. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Jack Nicholson won a Best Act Oscar for his role as Randie McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest (1975). He received another Best Actor Oscar for his performance as an author with OCD in As Good as It Gets (1997). He also won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role as an aging playboy in Terms of Endearment (1983). Nicholson received Oscar nominations for his roles in Easy Rider (1969), Five Easy Pieces (1970), The Last Detail (1973), Chinatown (1974), Reds (1981), Prizzi's Honor (1985), Ironweed (1987), A Few Good Men (1992), and About Schmidt (2002).

- Joanne

My latest novel

2026-02-17T14:21:00.002-05:00

Are you looking for a good read? My latest novel, The Roving Reporter: Spanning the Globe in the 1990s, is now available on my author website. Just click on the link below.

Joanne Madden – Author

The Roving Reporter is a sequel to my second novel, The Missing Reporter. It chronicles the further adventures of Sandra McKay, a spirited journalist from Prince Edward Island. The novel takes place from 1990 to 1997, just before the Millennium and the digital age. After being abducted by ruthless mob boss, Bruno Rossi, Sandra travels to France to recover from her ordeal and to visit her cousin, Dennis Casey, a man with a secret. Dennis' friend offers Sandra a job as a foreign correspondent based in London. She travels around the globe, accompanied by Colin Purcell, a crusty English photographer. During her seven years as a world reporter, Sandra covers major stories in Britain, France, Italy, South Africa, Japan, Hong Kong. Mexico and Australia. Meanwhile, she finds herself targeted by the mob.

Thank you for your support. It means a lot to me.

- Joanne

Jeff Bezos and his shananigans

2026-02-06T14:22:00.001-05:00

Jeff Bezos

According to Forbes magazine. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was worth $239 billion as of July 2025. His current estimated worth is $244 billion. On June 27, 2025, Bezos married Lauren Sanchez in Venice, Italy. That obscenely lavish wedding cost between $47 million and $56 million.

Bezos the billionaire is trying to get into the good graces of the increasingly autocratic Donald Trump. He spent $40 million for the title of the recently released Melania movie and an additional $35 million for its marketing. That's $75 million in total. Just think how much better the world would be if that $75 million were spent on health care, education, the environment and foreign aid. Meanwhile, The Washington Post, which Bezos owns, is laying off hundreds of employees in what has been described as "among the darkest days of the newspaper's history."

In its glory days, two reporters for The Washington Post, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, were instrumental in uncovering the Watergate Scandal. Bezos is destroying the legacy of a great American newspaper. When he prevented The Post from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, many readers were furious and cancelled their subscriptions. How sad! Shed a tear for all those Post employees who have been served with a pink slip. They have to go home to their families without a job. This is a tremendous blow. As the Post's fortunes sag, more readers will obtain their news from unreliable and false internet sources.

The American media is becoming increasingly under the control of oligarchs and tech billionaires who bow to Donald Trump's every whim. They control more and more of the corporate media and it's no secret that they are fuelled by a burning desire for money and power. They are motivated by pure, unadulterated greed. They do not care about ordinary Americans who struggle with the costs of everyday living. They do not identify with those who have no health care coverage or are forced to use food banks.

Amazon, run by Bezos, pledged $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, as did Mark Zuckerberg's Meta. I'm sure Bezos and Meta wanted nothing in return. They donated the money out of the goodness of their generous hearts. Oh yes, Google and Apple also kicked in $1 million. It's time for the voice of the people to be heard. Stand up for democracy before it's too late!

- Joanne

Blue Jays still haven't filled some gaping holes in their lineup

2026-01-31T12:26:00.001-05:00

The Toronto Blue Jays have added some pitching depth this off season. That is commendable because you can never have enough pitching depth. Pitchers are always getting injured or having to undergo Tommy John surgeries. To bolster the pitching staff, the Jays acquired starter Dylan Cease,
starter Cody Ponce, and relievers Chase Lee and Tyler Rogers.

Cody Ponce

Tyler Rogers

Having said all that, the Jays haven't added a dependable closer to their roster. Jeff Hoffman still has the job, but he has not proven himself. He allows too many home runs. In his first season as a closer, he allowed 14 home runs in the 9th inning or later, the highest total of his career as a relief pitcher. He broke a franchise record. It's difficult to feel confident when Hoffman's on the mound. Yimy Garcy is returning from injury, but there is no guarantee that he will be able to do the job. Perhaps Tyler Rogers?

In addition to those pitchers, the Jays inked a deal with Japanese infielder Kazuma Okamoto. Okamoto was one of the top international free agents. He's played for the Yomiuri Giants in Japan for the last decade. We'll see how he adjusts to North American Major League Baseball. He should be a good one.

Kazuma Okamoto

There have been some significant offseason moves by the Blue Jays. However, the team's reluctance to fill the remaining holes in their lineup is frustrating. They need another bat badly. They did not succeed in signing Kyle Tucker or Cody Bellinger. That's not surprising because they never seem to be able to lure free agents from the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets. It seems that the Jays have been used as pawns so that the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets will offer more money to the most coveted free agents.

The Blue Jays should have concentrated on signing Bo Bichette sooner. They may have been able to swing a deal with him. They still have time to trade for a hitter. Anthony Santander was supposed to provide some hitting last season, but he had a a miserable year. Santander may turn it around in 2026. It would be great if he does, but there is no guarantee. The Jays need some insurance in case Santander struggles again.

I hope that the Jays make one or two more significant moves during this offseason. They need to if they are going for broke in 2026.

- Joanne

How should Canada react to Trump's threats?

2026-01-22T13:54:00.000-05:00

Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a powerful speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It earned him a standing ovation and much praise. His words should be heeded by concerned Canadians, no matter their political stripe. The future of Canada's place in the world as a middle power goes beyond partisanship. The time has come for liberals and conservatives alike to stand up for this country, to defend its sovereignty. One thing is clear. Canadians, not Donald Trump, should decide their own future.

I hope that a number of Americans read this. It deeply saddens me that Trump has so quickly damaged the relationship Canada had with its southern neighbour. Trump is obviously unstable and unwell. Yet extreme right-wing Republicans and billionaires will not call him out. His sycophants don't have the backbone to stand up to the bully. They bow down to him and kowtow to his every whim. They fuel his malignant narcissism. They refuse to shout out that the emperor has no clothes. They try to hide the fact that the American president is unhinged and unfit for office.

Canada has to stand up for itself in a volatile world, a world where leaders such as Trump and Vladimir Putin seek to replace the rule of law with the rule of power. They believe that might makes right. In this dangerous world, Canada's sovereignty is at stake. In fact, its very survival is at stake. That's why Canadians must be united as never before.

- Joanne

Here is a transcript of Prime Minister Carney's words.

Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.
But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states.

The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.
Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.
This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable – the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.
It won’t.
So, what are our options?
In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?
His answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He does not believe it. No one believes it. But he places the sign anyway – to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.
Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.
Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.
It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture of collective problem solving – are greatly diminished.
As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains.
This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.
Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.
The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls – or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.
Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid.
Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.
Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values. We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for a world we wish to be.
Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritising broad engagement to maximise our influence, given the fluidity of the world order, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next.
We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.
We are building that strength at home.
Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, capital gains and business investment, we have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond.
We are doubling our defence spending by 2030 and are doing so in ways that builds our domestic industries.
We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defence procurement arrangements.
We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months.
In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar.
We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.
To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests.
On Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security.
On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future. Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering.
We are working with our NATO allies (including the Nordic Baltic 8) to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and boots on the ground. Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve shared objectives of security and prosperity for the Arctic.
On plurilateral trade, we are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, creating a new trading block of 1.5 billion people.
On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply.
On AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.
This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.
And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.
Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.
We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.
Which brings me back to Havel.
What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?
It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, create institutions and agreements that function as described.
And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.
Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.
And we have the values to which many others aspire.
Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability.
We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.
Canada has something else: a recognition of what is happening and a determination to act accordingly.
We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
We are taking the sign out of the window.
The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.
But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just.
This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together.
That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently.
And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Rob Manfred's outlook for the future of Major League Baseball

2026-01-14T13:06:00.003-05:00

Commissioner Rob Manfred has some radical new ideas for the future of Major League Baseball. On Thursday, January 8, Manfred shared his vision for MLB in a studio segment of New York's WFAN. He discussed expansion and realignment. The league hasn't expanded since the Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Devil Rays joined in 1998. The commissioner, a long-time advocate of expansion, stated that he would like to see two expansion teams before he leaves office in January of 2029.

Here is Manfred's plan:

* Major League Baseball is currently balanced with both the American League and the National League having 15 teams and six divisions of five teams, each league having an odd number of teams. Manfred wants to expand the league to 32 teams and realign divisions geographically to lessen the travel burden on players. There would be 16 teams in each league and eight divisions of four. He stated, "Thirty-two teams would be good for us. When people buy your product, you oughta try to find a way to sell it to them."

* Manfred's plan would mean moving away from the traditional American and National Leagues in favour of East and West leagues. However, the commissioner did say he would keep two-team cities separate. The Cubs and White Sox, Mets and Yankees and Dodgers and Angels would remain in different divisions.

Manfred's plan makes sense from a travel perspective. MLB players travel very often, given the 162-game schedule. The commissioner discussed how difficulties with the first round of the playoff if it features a team from each coast. This makes the scheduling too late for fans in the east or too early for fans in the west, or sometimes both.

I have qualms about abandoning the American and National League formats. The traditionalist in me is strongly opposed to that. I think many fans would agree. I believe that the fans deserve a say in any major changes in the format of Major League Baseball. It's the fans who always get the short end of the stick. Yet, they buy the tickets and purchase the baseball regalia. The cost of attending games keeps rising and more and more games are being streamed online, instead of shown on network TV.

I am not a big enthusiast of expansion either. Too many teams are not to my liking. However, I would like to see a team return to Montreal, although I'm not optimistic about that happening anytime soon.

As a Toronto Blue Jays fan, I enjoy the rivalry between the Jays and the Yankees and the Red Sox. I would prefer that those three teams remain in the same division. With geographical realignment, who knows?

Major League Baseball does have some issues to overcome before it can even consider expansion. A new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the players will have to be reached during the next offseason. Otherwise, there will be a lockout, which MLB can ill-afford. A lost season would turn many fans away from the game, especially if they perceive both owners and players to be greedy and self-serving. Nevertheless, wealthy teams such as the Yankees, Dodgers and Blue Jays will be reluctant to have salary caps.

The stadium situations with the A's and Rays have not yet been completely resolved. Tropicana Field, home of the Tampa Bay Rays was significantly damaged by Hurricane Milton io October of 2024. The team is set to return to an updated Tropicana Field for the 2026 season, but plans for a new stadium seem to have been suspended. A new stadium in Las Vegas, set to be the home of the Las Vegas Athletics is under construction and expected to open in 2028.

- Joanne

Should the United States isolate itself?

2026-01-12T17:00:00.004-05:00

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

- John Donne (1571 or 1572 - 1631), English poet and scholar

Meditation XV11, Published in 1624 as part of Donne's essays and meditations

There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.

- U.S. Vice President JD Vance in a January 29, 2025 interview on Fox News with Sean Hannity

JD Vance

JD Vance is wrong. Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others.

- Pope Leo XIV

Pope Leo 1V

Obviously, Pope Leo strongly disagrees with JD Vance's concept of love. The teachings of Jesus also contradict Vance's notions about Christianity. Christ made it clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan that everyone is our neighbour. We are all members of the human race. We have an obligation to serve humanity. Isolationism doesn't work. The United States cannot separate itself from the rest of the world. As human beings, we all share the planet Earth. To vilify immigrants, migrants and refugees, whether legal or undocumented, is absolutely cruel and detestable. To unleash ICE agents on innocent people, and to take the life of a human being, Rachel Nicole Good, is an atrocity, an abomination. The 37-year-old mother was not a "domestic terrorist." She was a human being. She was shot three times by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota who called her a profane name. Trump and Vance, Ice agents and others, fail to realize that Rachel Good's death diminishes them because, in the words of John Donne, "Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind." They do not realize that the bell rings for them.

Therefore, the United States should not be cutting foreign aid. It should not be withdrawing from international agencies. America is not, and cannot be an "island unto itself." It will always be "a piece of the continent, a part of the main."

Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for the American presidency in 1940, had a very different view of the world than Trump, Vance and their supporters. After losing the wartime election to Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wilkie embarked on a seven-week tour of the world. In late 1942, he met with many of the Allies' heads of state as well as ordinary citizens in places such as Russia and Iran.

In April of 1943, Wilkie published a book called One World, inspired by his travels. One World became a bestseller. In fact, it spent four months at the top of the New York Times bestseller list. It sold 1.5 million copies during those four months.

A new edition of Wilkie's book should be published around the globe. It should be required reading for all members of the United States Congress, although it would be anathema to the MAGA base. One World advocates an end to colonialism and equality for non-whites in the United States. It challenges the doctrine of American exceptionalism. Wilkie's travels led him to the conclusion that the world is inter-connected and that isolationism is no longer possible.

When you fly around the world in 49 days, you learn that the world has become small not only on the map, but also in the minds of men. All around the world, there are some ideas which millions and millions of men hold in common, almost as much as if they lived in the same town.

- Wendel Wilkie, from One World

In his book, Wendel Wilkie stresses that the "reservoir of goodwill" towards the United States" is much stronger than toward other contemporary powers. He writes the following:

I found this dread of foreign control everywhere. The fact that we are not associated with it in men's minds has caused people to go much farther in their approval of us than I dared to imagine. I was amazed to discover how keenly the world is aware of the fact that we do not seek—anywhere, in any region—to impose our rule upon others or to exact special privileges ... No other Western nation has such a reservoir. Ours must be used to unify the peoples of the earth in the human quest for freedom and justice.

Wendell Wilkie

My, how times have changed since Wilkie's day! There is no longer a great deal of goodwill toward America after Donald Trump's tariffs and his ICE attacks. I can imagine what Wilkie would think about Trump's foreign policy and his unlawful attack on Venezuela. I'm certain that Trump would dismiss him as a radical leftist.

- Joanne

How two Canadians patented the light bulb before Edison

2026-01-06T01:06:00.000-05:00

So, you've always thought that Thomas Alva Edison invented the light bulb. Well, that's not exactly true. It's more accurate to say that Edison refined the light bulb. You see, two Canadians patented a design for an incandescent light bulb in 1874, preceding that of American inventor Thomas Edison by five years. The two Canadians, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans, are generally unknown, and according the Canadian Encyclopedia, their early work on the light bulb in Toronto has "gone largely unrecognized," even though it was "an important development in the development of electric lighting."

Matthew Evans

Henry Woodward

Thomas A. Edison

On July 24, 1874, Henry Woodward, a medical student, and his partner, Matthew Evans, a hotel keeper, filed a Canadian patent application for an electric light bulb. On August 3, the patent was granted. Their second patent, issued in the United States in 1876, was among those bought by Thomas Edison. It was Edison who refined their technology and created a long-lasting bulb. In 1879, his light bulb burned tor 40 hours.

Below is Woodward and Evans' Canadian patent.

Woodward and Evans were neighbours in Toronto. They performed experiments using a battery and an induction coil. On a winter evening in 1873, the two men observed the light created by the spark at the connecting pin. According to one report, the light was bright enough for Evans to see the time on his watch, "If only we could confine that to a globe of some sort!" Woodward speculated. "It would revolutionize the world."

Woodward and Evans eventually developed a prototype incandescent bulb with a carbon rod filament, similar to previous experiments by Sir Joseph Swan (1828-1914), an English physicist, chemist and inventor. In 1860, Swan had developed a primitive electric light. However, due to a lack of a good vacuum and an inadequate electric source, the bulb had inefficient light and a short lifetime. In 1880, after the improvement of vacuum techniques, both Swan and Edison assembled practical light bulbs.

Sir Joseph Swan

While their experiments contributed to the advancement of electric lighting, Henry Woodward and Matthew Evans fell into obscurity. They were unable to secure the money required to refine and mass produce their bulbs. The cost of materials was high and there was public skepticism about replacing oil lamps. After failing to find investors, they decided to sell their U.S patent rights to Thomas Edison for $5,000. When their project ended, Evans remarked that "the inventor never gets the reward of his labour."

SOURCES: Pinecone Diaries: Canada's Stories and History, "Shining a Light on Henry Woodward: Canada's Hidden Hero Who Beat Edison to the Lightbulb," by Craig Rourke, January 10, 2025; The Canadian Encyclopedia; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia

- Joanne

My 2026 Wish List

2026-01-01T00:47:00.000-05:00

Last year I posted my personal wish list for 2025. I promised to let you know which of my wishes came true and to write another wish list for 2026.

To be perfectly honest, very few of my 2025 wishes came true. Donald Trump holds on to power, although he is neither mentally nor physically fit to be president of the United States. He represents almost everything I find repugnant. However, I will not lose hope and I will continue to support democracy. Unfortunately, I believe that the whole world is in for a rough ride. Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump's buddy, is still the Israeli prime minister. He is facing corruption charges, but will fight tooth and nail to hang on to power. As for Vladimir Putin, he is a murderous dictator who will never willingly give up power.

In sports, I wished all the Toronto teams the best of fortune in 2024. Only the Toronto Blue Jays delivered. The Toronto Raptors didn't even make the NBA playoffs. After winning the Grey Cup in 2024, the Toronto Argonauts had a lacklustre 2025 season. The Toronto Maple Leafs were eliminated in the second round of the Eastern Conference playoffs by the Florida Panthers. The Panthers went on to win the Stanley Cup for the second year in a row, defeating the Edmonton Oilers in the final. The Toronto Jays, however, did the unexpected. They delighted their fans in Toronto and the rest of Canada by going all the way to the World Series. They gave us a thrill, despite their heartbreaking loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers. They brought some excitement and fun to Canadians during a grim 2025.

My wishes for 2026

I refer to Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu as the Unholy Trinity. They are all Alpha males in their 70s and they have caused an enormous amount suffering, death and destruction. All three pose a threat to world peace.

Israel's national election is officially set for October 27, 2027. However, there is a report that Netanyahu has asked his aides to prepare contingency plans for elections as early as June, about four months sooner than expected. If that happens, I hope the Netanyahu government is soundly defeated.

The U.S. midterm elections will be held on November 3, 2026, unless Trump stops them from being held freely. I hope that the Democrats win control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I am not a fan of Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta. However, the next provincial election is to be held on October 18, 2027. It may be called earlier. If that happens, I hope Smith's United Conservative Party government is defeated by the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Alberta, led by Naheed Nenshi, the former mayor of Calgary.

In sports, I hope the Toronto Blue Jays can finish the job and win the World Series in 2026. I'm a homer and I want all the Toronto teams to do well. Unfortunately, the Leafs seem to be just an average team this year. They may have to struggle to even make the playoffs. As for the Raptors, they have improved. The Argos need to have a better season than the last one.

The Winter Olympics will take place in Milano Cortina, Italy from February 6-22, 2026. I hope Canada does well, especially in hockey.

The FIFA World Cup will take place from June 11 to July 19 in North America. It will be jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States. I wish the Canadian team well. I fear that Trump's horrible immigration policies will turn the event into a fiasco.

The World Baseball Classic will take place from March 5-17, 2026 in Miami, Florida, Houston, Texas, San Juan, Puerto Rico and Tokyo, Japan. Of course, I'll be cheering for Team Canada.

Finally, I wish for a just peace in the Middle East and in Ukraine. In the Middle East, there must be a two state solution. There must be a Palestinian state and the Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist.

Russia must never gain control of Ukraine. Putin will never stop at Ukraine. He will attack other countries. Everything possible must be done by the liberal democracies to bring about a just peace to these troubled regions. It is unfortunate that the United States, under Trump, does not support its longtime European allies and threatens the sovereignty of Canada, its northern neighbour.

- Joanne

Reflections on the death of Brigitte Bardot, a pop icon with some vile views

2025-12-31T22:37:00.002-05:00

Last Saturday morning, I read about the death of Brigitte Bardot, the sultry French film siren of the 1950s and 1960s. Bardot was nominated for a BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Actress for her performance in Louis Malle's 1965 film Viva Maria! She was so popular that in 1969, her features were selected to be the model for Marianne, the national emblem of France and the the official Gallic seal. Her visage appeared on statues, postage stamps and coins. French President Charles described Bardot as "the French export as important as Renault cars." Although a cultural icon, she was a complex women who held some hateful views. She was xenophobic racist.

Bardot withdrew form the entertainment industry in 1973 and became s staunch animal-rights activist.

In 1977, she formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, during a mission to condemn the killing of seal pups and seal hunting on the Canadian ice floe. She was photographed lying down beside the seal pups. She also condemned the use of animals in labratory experiments.

In 1985, Bardot was awarded France's highest recognition, the Legion of Honour. In 1986, she founded the Brigitte Bardot Foundation for the Welfare and Protection of Animals. She became a vegetarian and auctioned off jewellery and personal possessions to fund the foundation. After appearing in more than 40 films and recording several music albums, the actress and singer used her stardom to promote the cause of animal rights.

In 2007, on her 70th birthday, Bardot made the following comments to The Associated Press: "Man is an insatiable predator. I don't care about my past glory. That means nothing in the face of an animal that suffers, since it has no power, no words to defend itself."

Brigitte Bardot passed away on December 28, 2025 in Saint-Tropez at the age of 91. When I learned of her passing, some thoughts passed through my mind. Bardot was a controversial figure, not only for her sexual openness and her militant animal-rights activism. She was also controversial because of her extreme right wing political views.

In 1992, Bardot married for the fourth time, to Bernard d'Ormale, a onetime advisor to Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the far-right National Front party. In 2011, when Le Pen stepped down as party leader, his daughter Marine, took over until 2021. In 2018, the National Front changed its name to the National Rally. Its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen died last January. In her later years, Bardot publicly supported the National Rally Party, She referred to Marine Le Pen as the "Joan of Arc" of the 21st century.

Bardot was convicted and fined in French courts for inciting racial hatred for her criticism of Muslims. She referred to residents of Réunion as "savages" (Réunion is an island in the Indian Ocean that is an overseas department and region of France within the African region). Sadly, her animal rights diatribes took on a more extremist complexion. She often denounced the influx of immigrants into France, especially Muslims, for their slaughtering of sheep during religious holidays. She claimed that she "never knowingly wanted to hurt anybody." She added that with regard to Muslims, "I think there are some who are very good and some hoodlums, like everywhere."

I find Bardot's impassioned support of animal rights difficult to square with her extreme right-wing views. Someone who is kind to animals is usually considered to be a benign person. One thinks of Saint Francis of Assisi. However, those who torture animals often turn out to be serial killers. The paradox of Brigitte Bardot is that she cared so much for the welfare of animals, but had such little regard for some of her fellow human beings.

When Brigitte Bardot died, French President Emmanuel Marcron stated, "We are mourning a legend." She was a legend with feet of clay,

SOURCES: CBS News, "Brigitte Bardot, French 1960s cinema icon and animal rights activist," December 28, 2025, Wikipedia

- Joanne

Reflections at Christmas 2025

2025-12-25T05:46:00.000-05:00

"Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace and goodwill toward men."

- Luke 2:14

"We hear the beating of wings over Bethlehem and a light that is not of the sun or of the stars shines in the midnight sky. Let the beauty of the story take away all narrowness, all thought of formal creeds. Let it be remembered as as story that has happened again and again, to men of many different races, that has been expressed through many religions, that has been called many different names. Time and space and language lay no limitations upon human brotherhood."

The New York Times, December 25, 1937

Today is Christmas Day. The year 2025 has been a difficult year for humanity and we desperately need a large dose of the spirit of Christmas. We are in dire need of the hope that Christmas bestows upon us. There are numerous trouble spots in the world, from the Middle East and Ukraine to civil war in Sudan. There is also an Unholy Trinity at work - Vladimir Putin, of Russia, Donald Trump of the United States and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel - inflicting untold suffering and death, especially among the most vulnerable - poverty-stricken women and children. These are cruel men and they cast dark clouds everywhere. They are destroyers, not builders.

People of all faiths and all beliefs should focus on what we have in common as human beings, not on dogmatic and political differences. Christians, Jews and Muslims are all children of Abraham. They are all children of God. Those of other faiths, and those of no faith at all, are also children of God. We are all members of one race, the human race.

Political extremism and religious nationalism are dangerous forces. Beware of those who claim to be true believers, those who think that everyone who doesn't agree with them is a heretic or an evildoer.. Be wary of religious nationalism, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other.

It was a right-wing Hindu nationalist who assassinated fellow Hindu Mahatma Gandhi in January 30, 1948. Gandhi,was killed by Nathuram Godse, a fanatic who believed that Gandhi, a man of peace, was too conciliatory to India's large Muslim minority.

Gandhi was nominated five times for a Nobel Peace Prize, but never received the honour. In 1948, the Norwegian committee considered awarding it to him posthumously but the idea never came to fruition.

Yitzhak Rabin, another peacemaker, was also assassinated. As prime minister of Israel, Rabin negotiated a peace deal with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). In October 1994, Rabin and King Hussein of Jordan, signed a full peace treaty between their two countries. That same year. the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East."

On November 4, 1995, Rabin attended a peace rally in the city of Tel Aviv. The rally was held to raise support for the Israeli-PLO accords. It ended with the assassination of Rabin by a fellow Jew. He was killed by an extremist named Yigal Amir, a 25-year-old far-right student at Tel Aviv's Bar-Ilian University. Peace in the Middle East has not progressed since that time.

Rabin

I was struck by the comments made by the late Rob Reiner after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Reiner, a liberal. stated per the HuffPost, "I don't care what your political beliefs are. That's not acceptable. That's not a solution, to solving problems." He also had something to say about how Charlie's wife, Erika. during his memorial service announced her decision to forgive her husband's killer: "And I felt like what his wife said at the service at the memorial they had was exactly right. I'm Jewish but I believe in the teachings of Jesus, and I believe in 'do unto others,' and I believe in forgiveness, and what she said to me was beautiful. She forgave his assassin. And I think that is admirable."

Merry Christmas to all who celebrate. Holiday greetings to everyone.

- Joanne

Goodbye to the U.S. penny

2025-12-04T19:26:00.002-05:00

Farewell to the Lincoln penny. The U.S. Treasury Department stopped production of the penny on November 12 after more than 230 years of minting America's smallest denomination. However, t he United States has kept its lowest denomination longer than many other countries.

Every U.S. penny costs 4 cents to produce, quite a bit more than its face value of one cent. The decision to phase out the penny is expected to save the U.S. government millions in minting costs.

I am Canadian and I am used to doing without the penny. Canada stopped producing pennies in May of 2012. The distribution of them ended on February 4, 2013 due to rising production costs.

The Canadian penny

As we move closer to a cashless society, coins have been abandoned around the world,, Here are some facts provided by the Department of Finance, Canada

* Australia removed the one-cent and two-cent coins from circulation in 1992.

* Brazil halted the production of one-centavo coins in 2005.

* Finland has not issued one-cent or two-cent euro coins since the Euro was introduced in 2002.

* Israel has not issued the one-agora coin since 1991. It ended production of the five-agora coin in 2008.

* Netherlands ceased issuing one-cent and two-cent euro coins in 2004.

* New Zealand removed its one-cent and two-cent coins from circulation in 1989 and its five-cent coin in 2006.

* Norway removed its one-ore and two-ore coins back in 1972. By 1991, it had also removed its five-, 10- and 25- ore coins.

* Sweden removed its one-ore and two-ore coins in 1971. By 1992, it had also removed its five-, 10- and 25- ore coins. In 2009, it removed the 50- ore coins from circulation.

* In 2006, Switzerland officially withdrew its one-centime coin from circulation in 2006. The two centime coin lost its legal tender in 1978.

* Britain removed the legal tender of the half-penny in 1984.

The lowly penny will always be remembered in word, sayings, song and folklore.

Pennies from heaven, song by Bing Crosby about the small joys in life

A penny for your thoughts.

Pennywise and pound foolish.

Penniless

Penny Arcade, song by Roy Orbison, about the attraction of an arcade and the nostalgia of childhood

A penny saved is a penny eared.

- Joanne

Language Corner: The definition of communism versus democratic socialism

2025-12-04T12:24:00.001-05:00

DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM: System where people have basic human rights and free elections, along with multi-party system. Taxes are high, but there are more public services. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, social democracy is a "political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society."

COMMUNISM (Encyclopaedia Britannica) "Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

Some right-wingers and Trump supporters tend to confuse democratic socialism with communism or Marxist-Leninism. The two are by no means the same thing. In many cases, however, the confusion is intentional. It is a way for many right-wingers to label all progressives as "commies." Democratic socialists are not revolutionaries. Democratic socialism is not authoritarian, bureaucratic and undemocratic in practice. It i rejects the administrative-command model formed in the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states in the 20th century.

Furthermore, democratic socialism is not totalitarianism. There is a world of difference between Fidel Castro or Chairman Mao and Bernie Sanders. In fact, it is the Trump MAGA Republicans who support the authoritarian government led by Trump.

Fidel Castro

Mao

Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders is a self-described "democratic socialist." He describes democratic socialism as a political ideology that emphasizes social ownership and democratic control of the means of productions, alongside a robust welfare state. His goal is to reduce economic inequality.

A social democracy is a democratically elected government. Social democracy exists in a capitalist economy. It collects revenue through taxes and spends on social programs.

Here in Canada, we have s democratic socialist party, the New Democratic Party (NDP}. It has formed the government in several Canadian provinces without turning those provinces into totalitarian communist states. The NDP has been voted in and out of office. In 1944, Tommy Douglas led the first democratic socialist government in North America when he became premier of the province of Saskatchewan. Douglas later led the federal NDP. He was the father of universal health care in Canada.

Tommy Douglas

If you are of the conservative persuasion, you obviously won't agree with the policies of democratic socialists. That is your democratic right. However, it is unfair and inaccurate to label them as "commies." or call them "comrades."

- Joanne

The Truth about Taxes

2025-11-20T17:41:00.000-05:00

I received the following article by Alex Himefarb. It was written about a decade ago, but it is very relevant in this age of far-right conservatism. I would like to share this piece with you. It is lengthy but well worth reading. It is thought-provoking and it makes sense. It provides an excellent analysis on the subject of taxation.

- Joanne

Why We Hate Taxes – And Why We Shouldn’t

By Alex Himefarb

About a year ago, my son Jordan, some friends and colleagues and I put together a book on taxes in Canada, Tax Is Not a Four-Letter Word. We had quite different views about how high taxes should be, what kinds of taxes are best, who ought to be taxed more and who less, but one thing we all agreed on: we in Canada, as elsewhere, were having a dangerously distorted conversation on taxes. Taxes had come to be seen as a burden, even a punishment, and so the less the better. We seemed to welcome every new tax cut promise—and just about every politician was offering us just that: more tax cuts, more change in our pockets. But we embrace these promises, vote for them, without asking ourselves or our political leaders just what we were losing with these cuts – tens of billions of dollars of federal and provincial cuts over the last 15 years. We haven’t asked about the costs to public services and future choices, to our resiliency and well-being, to the shape of our country.

Over the past months, thanks in part to the Metcalf Foundation and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I had the opportunity to talk taxes with communities across Canada. The intent was to make the case for taxes, but these conversations turned out to be more than I had reckoned on. Tax talk triggers intense reaction and not exactly as I had imagined.

Predictably, conservative pundits described us as tax apologists as though it took some nerve to challenge the benefits of tax cuts. And a minority, the Fraser Institute and a few like it, attack all and any taxes, whatever their level and whatever the benefits, as an unfair burden and a constraint to our freedom. Clearly a discussion of taxes does expose ideological differences in how we understand the role of government, how we define fairness, just how much inequality we are prepared to tolerate. But there’s no simple right/left divide.

Across all ideologies the tax discussion triggers widespread anger with government, almost universal perceptions of rampant waste and inefficiency, and a growing skepticism about the competency and capacity of government to tackle the big issues or even to deliver on its promises. A conversation about taxes, then, is inevitably a conversation about the kind of Canada we want but also about the kind of Canada we think is possible.

I don’t want to suggest that there was ever some golden time when we all just loved paying taxes, though in the past we were perhaps more likely to see taxes as an expression of our shared citizenship and mutual responsibility. Nonetheless, it’s probably safe to say that grumbling about taxes is about as longstanding a tradition as taxes themselves. Writing 500 years ago, Machiavelli advised the Prince to avoid being too generous to the people lest he have to raise taxes, not very popular then or since.

Getting the bill is probably never our favourite part of shopping. And taxes are, after all, the way we pay the bill for the things we have decided to do together because we cannot do them as well or at all alone. For my small-business-owning parents, tax grumblers though they were, those things we do together included safe communities and free schools and some old age security and what was to them the miracle of medicare. For much of the time that they were alive, raising a family and building a business, all manner of taxes were going up. And public services were improving. So they grumbled but they knew and liked what they were buying.

How is it that we don’t now ask of these tax cuts upon tax cuts: What will be the consequences for these public goods, goods that most of us continue to value, that demonstrably contribute to the general welfare? In part the answer may be that we devalue public goods because they are not priced and so we underestimate or simply take for granted their value. We surely don’t think very often, if at all, of how much it costs to light our streets, or ensure that clean water pours from the tap or that we can more or less trust the food we eat. But these are all things we buy with our taxes because together is the only way we could ever afford them.

Furthermore, public goods don’t give us any edge over our neighbours. Unlike the bigger house or the fancier car, our access to high quality education or healthcare confers no special status. Perhaps that is one reason that some, usually rich, Canadians insist that they should be able to buy their way to better or faster service even when the evidence is overwhelming that that would make things worse for the many. We ought to be asking whether more money to fuel the consumption race is really what we need, whether a little more change in our pocket is more important than strengthened public goods – better health care, affordable child care, first-rate infrastructure, access to justice…

Of course the rewards from a little more change in our pockets are immediate while the payoffs from some public goods—say, investments in scientific research or environmental protection—are pretty abstract or long-term. As University of Toronto philosopher Joseph Heath has argued, for all these reasons – competitive consumption, a preference for immediate payoffs, the invisible price of public goods – public goods and the taxes to pay for them typically get short-changed. We often go for the cash in hand.

In addition, the last 30 years have given us an almost constant assault on government. Since the 1980s it has become commonplace for politicians to describe government as the problem. In what is sometimes referred to as the neoliberal counter-revolution ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan, the answer to all our woes was less government, more market; less public, more private. For this new brand of conservatism, the way to reduce the role of government, the only sure way, was to cut taxes. While these ideas entered Canada more slowly and subtly – they were a harder sell here – their impact, especially recently, is undeniable. By last year the gap between the size of our central government (relative to the size of the economy)and that of the US had just about disappeared. The libertarian Cato Institute pointed to Canada as a model of limited government and low taxes. The 2014 federal budget figures projected spending and tax as a percentage of the economy to hit lows not seen for seventy years.

No doubt government—like all large institutions—needs reform, needs to be brought into the information age. Governments just about everywhere saw almost uninterrupted growth for about 100 years. And as they grew they became increasingly remote, opaque, authoritarian. Little wonder that people question government’s role and performance. But instead of focusing on reform, the new market rhetoric undermined the very idea of government, equating it with waste and corruption.

This in turn allowed politicians to claim that they could cut taxes deeply without any impact on public services. In the 1980s the claim was that the cuts would generate so much economic activity that they would pay for themselves—though the monstrously high debt loads these policies created soon put the lie to that promise. Now, the claims are typically that taxes can be cut without destroying public goods and services—simply by cleaning government up, ending the “gravy train,” cutting waste and enhancing efficiency.

We are right to be outraged at some of the excesses of government and to demand better. Wasteful or inappropriate spending fritters away not only public resources but also public trust. Nonetheless, our anger—and the extensive media coverage these incidents produce—lead us to exaggerate the extent of the waste. In fact, there’s never enough gravy to fund the cuts. The numbers never add up. Yes, there is waste and significant room for efficiency, but this almost always represents a smaller portion of the total budget than most of us assume or are deliberately led to believe. No organization – private, public or in-between – is perfectly efficient. Studies of the past few years of greater privatization remind us of the dangers of assuming that private delivery is necessarily cheaper or more efficient (not to mention the costs of market failures when government fails to harness the market to public ends).

But the belief that government is inevitably more wasteful and inefficient dies hard. For example, a recent extensive University of Toronto study concluded that Toronto has no spending problem but rather a revenue problem, that Toronto is under-spending on key infrastructure and services and there’s not much waste, not much gravy to be found. But when the media covered the study, readers’ online comments were adamant in their disbelief. It’s inconceivable, they said, that there isn’t huge waste, unthinkable that the city could possibly need more money.

The promise of tax cuts funded through ending the gravy train is what University of Toronto philosopher Joseph Heath has called a magic hat, wishful thinking. Successive parliamentary budget officers have told us precisely this. So we should not be surprised that the governments which for years promised painless – consequence-free – tax relief, now tell us that our most basic programs are unsustainable, that we have no alternative but to cut or privatize services and forego investments. New programs? Unthinkable. Of course tax cuts have consequences: in a word, austerity.

Austerity in Canada is certainly not as deep or brutal as in some parts of Europe. But even our slow motion version brings with it a vicious cycle of erosion and distrust. It leads to what game theorists call a social trap—when we don’t trust one another enough to do what we know is in our interest. Economist Hugh Mackenzie has been quantifying the value of the public services we buy with our taxes and has found that for the vast majority, taxes are one of the last great bargains. Most of us get more back than we put in, and that’s the case at every stage of the life cycle. But austerity undermines our trust in this bargain. Programs and services are increasingly targeted, serving only a few, or are starved of resources and slowly erode, amplifying our perceptions that governments can’t do anything right, further sapping our will to pay taxes. The family that celebrates tax cuts soon finds that the gains are dwarfed by what is lost—for example, in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, unavailable and more expensive child care, delayed old age security, higher tuitions, endless user fees including higher postage, and the end of home delivery. And then they hate government and taxes even more.

Austerity feeds short-termism. We today reap the benefits of public services built by previous generations more willing to pay taxes. But what will we be passing on to future generations? In the name of austerity we put off investments critical to our future. We also put off the maintenance of our existing infrastructure, our schools and hospitals, roads and bridges, the worst kind of false economy, passing on even more expensive problems to future governments, future generations, jeopardizing our economic performance, and exposing citizens to avoidable health and safety risks.

Austerity also leads to greater inequality, eroding our redistributive institutions and the programs that reduce and help mitigate inequality. The consequences of austerity always fall first and most heavily on the vulnerable—refugees, migrant workers, prisoners, the poor, people with disabilities, and on the young—a kind of trickle-down meanness.

When Margaret Thatcher said that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families, she captured the moral basis for fighting the unions and gutting labour protections and welfare programs. People, the argument goes, ought to take greater responsibility for themselves and their families and then their neighbours, and to stop looking so much to “society” to explain their troubles or to government for help. A search for root causes – “committing sociology” – is simply a search for excuses in this view, just as welfare supposedly saps people’s ambition and undermines responsibility. People should look to themselves for explanations and solutions. So, at the extreme, criminals are bad people, no excuses, and should be punished. And as for the poor, they ought to pull up their socks, work harder rather than look for handouts.

Some herald this as a victory for individual responsibility and freedom. But in the end this view undermines both by pretending away the role of social circumstances, uneven power and bad luck in shaping life chances and choices, and by discounting the role that our public services play in helping overcome disadvantage and tough times. At its worst this atomizing vision feeds selfishness and narcissism and justifies extreme inequality – and inequality most assuredly grew.

In fact, economic inequality, particularly the gap between the very top and the rest, is growing dangerously fast in Canada. A disproportionate amount of economic growth goes to the already rich while, at the same time, increasing numbers of Canadians are unemployed, underemployed or employed in precarious jobs that offer no benefits and certainly no security.

In The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, exhaustively document the costs: more unequal societies have more crime and violence, family disruption, sickness and conflict. Extreme inequality is corrosive, undermining our ability to find common ground and common purpose. It threatens democracy and social trust. Those at the top often come to believe that they deserve everything they have and oughtn’t to pay. And their voice carries great weight. Those at the bottom won’t want to play or pay if they come to think that the game is rigged. And extreme inequality eventually undermines equality of opportunity as the wealthiest pass on their privilege and the poor their disadvantage.

Taxes are not just about revenue; they are also about the fair distribution of economic benefits and about how much inequality we are willing to tolerate. The Canadians I have talked to over the past year are almost always surprised to learn how deeply taxes have been cut. Many say they don’t feel it and just about everybody thinks they pay more than their fair share. That’s in part because, as discussed, for most of us — except for the very rich — the costs of tax cuts obliterate the gains. For example, the monthly costs for childcare can be now as high as $1200 and the lack of regulated spaces means significant lost income for those who cannot find or afford quality care. A small tax cut is far less helpful to a young family than publicly funded childcare.

But beyond this, Canadians are not wrong to wonder who got most of the tax cuts. While taxes over the last decades have come down for everybody, they have come down most for the most wealthy. This is because changes to income taxes have made them less progressive, cuts to corporate taxes benefit shareholders most, and along with various loopholes, make tax avoidance for corporations and the wealthy easier, the beneficial rates on capital gains benefit those with the resources to invest, and we depend more than in the past on regressive taxes like the GST/HST and payroll taxes.

Income taxes are the key component of a progressive tax system. At the federal level and in most provinces, taxes on income are pretty progressive up to about the middle but anything but progressive at the top. With growing inequality it is increasingly unthinkable that someone earning, say $1-million or $10-million or more, should pay at the same rate as someone earning under $140,000. That’s neither fair nor economically sound. As our income rises, its marginal utility declines. Simply, if we were to tax all income at the same rate, as flat tax advocates would have it, we would be asking far greater sacrifice from those living pay cheque to pay cheque than those making millions—and we would also be setting tight limits on how much revenue we could hope to collect. It’s no coincidence that Alberta, the only flat tax jurisdiction in Canada and one of the few in the world, has high levels of inequality and even with its booming economy struggles to balance its budget, having run six consecutive deficits.

This is not to say that there is no place for value-added taxes such as the GST/HST. These are smart in that they do not negatively affect productivity, cannot be off-shored to tax havens, and provide a large base for needed revenue. So long as the consequences for low-income Canadians are offset through the tax credit and to the extent that the revenues are used for progressive purposes, such taxes will be an important part of the mix. (In the future, carbon taxes and financial transaction taxes may provide more socially beneficial approaches.) And tax policy has to take into account the incentive effects of changes in tax rates as well as the political receptivity to any change. But even the IMF has pointed out that Canada does indeed have room for higher income taxes particularly on the rich. And in the end, we all benefit if we restore greater progressivity to our tax system.

Growing evidence demonstrates that fair is smart, that progressive taxes, where those who benefit most pay the greatest share, make good economic sense. For a snapshot of the economic consequences of endless tax cuts and reduced progressivity we need only look at the current controversies surrounding tax reform in Kansas and Ohio. The unlikeliest sources, such as the rating agency, Standard and Poor’s, have cautioned that their deep cuts and especially the shift to “flatter” taxes are jeopardizing these states’ economies, not to mention their quality of life: first, because public revenues are too low; and second, because the poor and middle earners – the real job creators – don’t have enough purchasing power. Progressive taxes ensure that the benefits of the economy are at least somewhat more evenly distributed which, it turns out, is essential for a healthy economy.

Perhaps the most troubling consequence of the neoliberal counter-revolution – the tax cuts, the austerity, the inequality – is that it has stunted the political imagination and undermined our sense of what’s possible. Recent Ekos research found that many Canadians are losing trust in the future, in the idea of progress, in our ability to tackle our big challenges, climate change, inequality, aboriginal justice, eroding democracy. For the first time in living memory we suspect that our kids won’t have it as good as we did. One might say that the paradox of our times is that we have weakened our capacity for collective action just when our collective problems are most threatening. If a country is no more than a bunch of individuals and families born into and living in their “small platoons”, if we deny or underplay the connections that tie citizens and peoples together, how do we hope to find common purpose or to begin to tackle the problems that transcend our local milieux? How can we reassert the importance of the public sphere to our freedom and wellbeing? How do we rediscover our capacity to act together especially across the fault lines that now divide us?

It will no doubt take time and political courage to begin to turn this around. There’s still not much appetite for higher taxes or for bigger government. Preoccupation with tax cutting and the size of government are diversions, a conjurer’s trick that has us looking in the wrong direction as our real problems just get worse and harder to fix.

Still, we are seeing here and there some hopeful signs. Concern about austerity, inequality and their impact on social solidarity, democracy and even the economy is no longer solely coming from the left. The IMF, the OECD, rating agencies and countless others have started to raise questions, often challenging the advice they themselves had been providing.

And there’s movement at the municipal level. One of the ways federal and provincial governments manage tax cuts is to download responsibilities. Municipalities, then, inherit many of the negative consequences but have nowhere to pass them along. At the local level, the consequences are visible, concrete, close to home —homelessness, traffic gridlock, dangerously eroding infrastructure. Perhaps it’s at the local level that social and political trust can most easily be rebuilt. But municipalities have pretty weak tax instruments—largely property taxes and fees – so they need other governments to step up. Ironically flat-tax Alberta may lead the charge. Public Interest Alberta is driving a year-long campaign—“Alberta could…”—to inspire Albertans to think about what they might achieve – together – if they were to shift to a progressive income tax and raise corporate taxes. This could be the start of something.

The longer we wait the higher the human and financial price. With an aging population, which will put increasing pressures on public services, and with a smaller proportion of Canadians earning and paying the taxes to sustain those services, we have no time to lose.

Updated on February 14 2015 to link to the shorter version published by Alberta Views here.

Don't Americanize the Canadian Football League

2025-11-16T19:20:00.001-05:00

“Everyone who supports this league was blindsided by these substantial rule changes without any consultation with the fans or the players,”

- Patrick Land, the moderator of a Facebook group against the upcoming CFL rule changes

Today is Grey Cup Day and the Canadian Football League is at a critical juncture in its storied history. The planned new rule changes will only hinder the league. The CFL is special because of its uniqueness and its quirkiness. It is special because that uniqueness makes it quintessentially Canadian. It's ours, and ours alone. It is not a second-rate, paler version of the NFL. Why should fans watch a pale imitation of the NFL when they can just watch the real thing? The attraction of the CFL is that it is not the NFL, and it should not try to be. It has its own identity. CFL players are not multi-millionaires. They are not Tom Brady. One doesn't read about them in gossip columns.

The changes for the 2026 and 2027 CFL seasons include reducing the length of the field, moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone, and other tweaks.

The change to which I am most opposed is the reduction of the field from 110 yards to 100 yards, the same as the NFL. Two-thirds of avid fans disagree with the field changes set for 2027. What next? Four downs?

Sadly, the CFL is bleeding fans. It can't afford to lose any more. Only 16% of Canadians closely follow the CFL, down from 21% in 2014 and 2018. It is unlikely that the rule changes will attract many more fans. What I fear is that the league will alienate some of its most ardent supporters. Wake up, CFL! Why don't you listen to your tried and true fans? Why didn't you ask them before you made these decisions? Do you have a death wish?

As I write this, the 112th Grey Cup is underway in Winnipeg, between the Montreal Alouettes and the Saskatchewan Roughriders. It is not as glitzy and commercial as the Super Bowl. It is more down-home. I hope there are many more of this great Canadian tradition to come.

- Joanne

Reflections on the 2025 World Series

2025-11-07T21:45:00.000-05:00

For the weeks that spanned the Toronto Blue Jays' miraculous postseason run, it felt like all of Canada was holding its breath. The team did the impossible: It had us believing, with one comeback after another, each more cinematic than the last.

Streets were painted in blue, sports bars overflowed, and even those who once could not tell you the difference between a cutter and a slider were suddenly glued to their TVs. Then came Game 7, and the heartbreak that followed: a loss that felt like a national gut punch, as the Jays fell to the Los Angeles Dodgers, who repeated as World Series champs.

- Sadaf Ahsan, Yahoo Canada News, November 7, 2025

A week has passed since the Toronto Blue Jays' heartbreaking loss to the L.A. Dodgers in the seventh game of the 2025 World Series. Now that it's over, I've had time to reflect on this triumphant season and its disappointing finish. The Dodgers won the World Series, but the Blue Jays won our hearts. I live in Toronto, so I am biased, but I truly believe the Jays were the more likeable team. The World Series could have gone either way, but the Jays didn't get the breaks, and they fell short. In fact, they came within two outs of winning all the marbles. Victory was within their grasp. They were so tantalizingly close!

Not too many fans in Toronto, including myself, thought the Jays were going to accomplish very much this year. To be honest, I expected them them to finish fourth or fifth in the American League East division. Their dream season was a very pleasant surprise for fans in this city and the rest of Canada. At a very difficult time for our country, the Jays gave us some joy, something to cheer about. They were a unifying force and they brought Canadians together from coast to coast.

I still have mixed feelings, though. Yes, I am thankful for a thrilling World Series, but I am also disappointed. We had to eat the cake without the icing, the chocolate sundae without the cherry on top. However, I can always dream about next season. The key will be signing Bo Bichette. The 27-year-old played with an injury in the World Series, yet he still managed a batting average of .348 with eight hits in 23 at-bats.

Bo Bichette

I really hope Bo stays in Toronto. Bichette and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. are a dynamic duo. They have played side by side throughout their careers. It's only fitting that they should win a World Series together. So, it's wait 'til next year, Blue Jay fans. Maybe they'll be able to finish the job. How sweet it would be!

- Joanne

An accident caused by texting while driving

2025-10-30T11:06:00.002-04:00

Although there are campaigns against distracted driving, I don't think the campaigns are strong enough. Distracted driving is just as bad as impaired driving. It should not be tolerated. Last weekend I had a first-hand experience with a distracted driver, and it wasn't pleasant. It shook me up.

My husband and I were on our way to a family dinner celebration at a restaurant. I was sitting in the front passenger seat. Suddenly, I felt a jolt. Our car was hit from behind, but we were not seriously injured. There was some slight damage to our vehicle, which has to be repaired. The driver of the car that hit us was a young man, probably in his late teens. He was very polite and apologized profusely. He was also very accommodating and provided us with all the necessary information. Then, to my surprise, he admitted to me that he should have been more careful and that he had been texting while driving.

That revelation upset me greatly. I was angry at his negligence. I told him that I hoped he had learned his lesson and would not put anyone's life, including his own, at risk like that again. He assured me that he had learned his lesson. I sincerely hope so, but one can never be sure. The fact remains that he shouldn't have had to learn a lesson. He should have been aware of the dangers of distracted driving. He should have known that it is wrong to drive while texting. What he did was bad enough, but what if someone had been seriously injured or killed? It would have been too late for this young man to learn his lesson.

- Joanne

Blue Jays one win away from capturing their first World Series since 1993

2025-10-30T11:06:00.001-04:00

I am elated. The Toronto Blue Jays are one win away from capturing their third World Series crown. Best of all, they could win it right here in Toronto. They are on the cusp of victory., a victory that would be celebrated throughout Canada, from sea to sea. During these difficult times, Canadians could sure use a boost.

I have memories of 1992 and 1993, but many Blue Jay fans are too young to remember those unforgettable glory days. Younger Canadians are enjoying the ride and I hope they will also be able to enjoy the sweet taste of a World Series victory.

This team is likeable and resilient. They've been underestimated, but they've always come through when it counted. They appear to be a team of destiny. Let them body shame Alejandro Kirk and Vladdy. I would rather have them playing on my team than Aaron Judge and Shohei Ohtani.

I also can't say enough about Addison Barger. George Springer, Ernie Clement, Bo Bichette and the others. As for Trey Yesavage, he's been unbelievable. His meteoric rise from the minors to World Series stardom is unprecedented. He's a very cool and composed 22-year-od sensation.

Having said all that, I remain cautiously optimistic. The Jays still have to win one more game, and anything can happen in sports. It will be a Halloween to remember or we will have to play a seventh and deciding game on All Saints Day.

Go Jays go! Bring it home!

- Joanne

Why George Springer is the leader of the pack

2025-10-24T11:38:00.001-04:00

The Toronto Blue Jays are going to the World Series for the first time in over 30 years. I am ecstatic! I never expected the Jays to earn a berth in the October Classic in 2025. This has been a magical season. It should culminate in a fairytale ending with a victory over the Los Angeles Dodgers. I really hope that happens. I think that the Blue Jays are capable of winning it all. However, life and sports are unpredictable. The L.A. Dodgers have the best team money can buy, but the Jays have the most heart. They shown it time and time again with their comeback wins. We will have see if that's enough to defeat the Dodgers and their superstar, Shohei Ohtani.

The Dodgers are highly favoured to win, and that's okay with me. I prefer that the Jays are underestimated rather than overestimated. I prefer that they are the underdogs. It will make a World Series victory even sweeter.

Foe me, George Springer exemplifies everything a good team leader should be. He is a major reason why the Blue Jays are headed for their first World Series since 1993. George was born on September 19, 1989. The future Jay was was just three years old when the Jays won their first World Series in 1992. He was a mere four years old when they celebrated a repeat victory in 1993. George didn't grow up in Canada and he has no memories of the euphoria that swept Toronto and Canada back then. He is an American who was born and raised in Connecticut.

The 2025 season has been a sweet one for George. He played in 140 games and recorded a batting average of .309, 154 hits, 32 home runs, 84 RBIs and 106 runs scored. His 2025 stats are very impressive, but George brings much more to the team than his results on the field. He has veteran leadership experience. He sets an example for his teammates. He is the first to encourage them when they achieve something. He cheers them on, and he pats them on the back when they don the home run jacket.

It was only fitting that George hit the unforgettable home run that won the American League title for the Toronto Blue Jays. That Springer Dinger ranks right up there with Joe Carter's homer in 1993 and Jose Bautista's bat flip home in 2015. George's longball in the seventh and deciding game in the ALCS has earned a place in the pantheon of players who have provided the Blue Jays with their most treasured moments.

I'm very disappointed in the Seattle fans for booing George when he was injured. It's certainly all right for fans to boo players. That's part of the game, What is not acceptable is to boo a player when he is injured. It's cruel and classless.

Here's what I think would be a fitting ending to a World Series victory for the Toronto Blue Jays. Wouldn't it be great if Bo Bichette came off the bench to pinch hit in the 9th inning of Game 7 and hit a walk-off home run to win the game? Go Jays go!

- Joanne

My visit to Drew House in Elora, Ontario

2025-10-21T20:02:00.002-04:00

I've just returned from Elora, Ontario. where I attended a wedding with family members. We stayed at Drew House, within walking distance from the beautiful, historic village of Elora. The charming Drew House is a converted 19th century coach house, built before Confederation. It was designed for the family of George Alexander Drew (1826-1891), a lawyer, politician and judge, who served two terms as the Member of Parliament for Wellington North. He represented the riding as the Liberal-Conservative member of the Canadian House of Commons from 1867 to 1872 and from 1878 to 1882,

George A. Drew (1826-1891)

Drew's grandson, also named George Alexander Drew (1894-1973), became the youngest mayor ever of Guelph, Ontario in 1925 at the age of 30. He went on to serve as 14th Premier of Ontario from 1943 to 1948.

George A. Drew (1894-1973)

The original structure of the Drew House, located on East Mill Street, was built in 1857. Since then, it has been greatly expanded. It was originally a one-and-a-half-storey home. Since the 1870s, it has been an impressive two-storey stone structure. There haven't been many owners since the George Alexander Drew first lived there. It is now an inn for travellers to Elora.

During our two-night stay at Drew House, we were shown much hospitality by our hosts, Kathleen Stanley and her husband, Roger Dufau. The couple have been operating Drew House as a bed and breakfast since 1999. They made us feel comfortable and they served us hearty breakfasts. I wish to thank them for making our stay a pleasant one. If you happen to be visiting Elora, I highly recommend the Drew House. Thanks Kathleen and Roger!

Innkeepers Kathleen Stanley and Roger Dufau

For those interested in the heritage of Elora, a book about the history of Drew House has been written by Elysia DeLaurentis. It is titled A Grand and Storied Home: The Drew House of Elora, Ontario. It is available for purchase at Magic Pebble Books in Elora. and at Drew House.

- Joanne

World Series Quiz 2025

2025-10-17T13:35:00.001-04:00

BASEBALL AND WORLD SERIES QUIZ

The 2025 Major League Baseball post-season is in full swing. As we approach the October Classic, Number 16 is pleased to present a challenging baseball quiz for your enjoyment. How well do you know trivia about the Grand Old Game? Find out by completing the 11-question quiz below.

BASEBALL AND WORLD SERIES QUIZ

1. Who is the youngest player to hit a home run in a World Series game?

A. Mickey Mantle

B. Miguel Cabrera

C. Andruw Jones

D. Juan Soto

E. Tony Kubek

2. When was the first night game in World Series history played?

A. 1971

B. 1970

C. 1969

D. 1973

E. 1972

3. What is the longest game by innings in World Series history

A. 15 innings

B. 19 innings

C. 17 innings

D. 18 innings

E. 16 innings

4. Who is the youngest player to appear in a World Series game.

A. Mickey Mantle

B. Leslie Ambrose "Bullet Joe" Bush

C. Julio Urias

D. Evan Carter

E. Bret Saberhagen

5. When was the first modern World Series that featured two teams from the same city?

A. 1911

B. 1933

C. 1923

D. 1906

E. 1908

6. The New York Mets have won the World Series twice. In which years did they win?

A. 1968 and 1985

B. 1967 and 1984

C. 1969 and 1985

D. 1968 and 1986

E. 1969 and 1986

7. The Los Angeles Dodgers defeated the New York Yankees in the 2024 World Series. How many times have the L.A. Dodgers and the Yankees played against each other in the Fall Classic?

A. Ten times

B. 13 times

C. 12 times

D. 9 times

E. 11 times

8. In 1992, a World Series game was played outside of the United States for the first time. The Toronto Blue Jays won the Series against the Atlanta Braves, becoming the first franchise based outside of the U.S. to win a World Series. The championship returned to Canada in 1993. Which National League teams did the Blue Jays defeat in 1993?

A. The Oakland Athletics

B. The New York Mets

C. The Chicago Cubs

D. The Philadelphia Phillies

E. The St. Louis Cardinals

9. The New York Yankees were the last team to win back-to-back World Series until the Toronto Blue Jays accomplished the feat. In which two years were the Yankees repeat World Series winners before the Jays did it.

A. 1971-72

B. 1977-78

C. 1970-71

D. 1976-77

E. None of the above

10. In Game 6 of the 1993 World Series, with the Blue Jays trailing Philadelphia by a score of 6-5, Joe Carter hit a game-winning three-run homer in the bottom of the nineth inning, to clinch Toronto's second consecutive championship. This was only the second Series ended by such a home run since Bill Mazeroski's homer in the bottom of the nineth in the seventh game of the 1960 World Series. For what team did Mazeroski play?

A. The New York Yankees

B. The Cincinnati Reds

C. The St. Louis Cardinals

D. The Detroit Tigers

E. The Pittsburgh Pirates

11. The American League has won the most World Series titles, with a total of 68 championships. The National League has won 52 titles. The New York Yankees of the American League have the most victories with 27 wins. Which team holds the record for the National League?

A. The St. Louis Cardinals

B. The Chicago Cubs

C. The Oakland Athletics

D. The Pittsburgh Pirates

E. The Los Angeles Dodgers

ANSWERS

1. C

Andruw Jones

Andruw Jones is the youngest player to hit a home run in a World Series games. He was only 19 years old and 180 days when he hit two home runs for the Atlanta Braves against the New York Yankees on October 20, 1996.

2. A

1971

The first night game in Major League Baseball history took place on October 13, 1971 at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburg Pirates defeated the Baltimore Oriole by a score of 4-3 in game 4 of the 1971 World Series. The Pirates went on to win the championship four games to three.

3. D

18 innings

The Los Angeles Dodgers defeated the Boston Red Sox by a score of 3-2 in Game 3 of the 2018 World Series. The game was decided in 18 innings, the longest in World Series history. However, the Red Sox went on to win the Series in five games.

4. B

Leslie Ambrose "Bullet Joe" Bush

Bullet Joe Bush

In 1913, right-hander Bullet Joe Bush took the mound for the Philadelphia Athletics at the Polo Ground Game 3 of the World Series. At 20 years old, 316 days he is the youngest player to date to appear in a World Series Game. With the Series tied 1-1, Bush allowed just one earned run in a complete game victory over the New York Giants. The next day, a newspaper headline read , "Giants slain by mere boy." The A's went on to win the next two games and the championship.

In 1984, Bret Saberhagen became the youngest player to appear in a postseason game at 20 years. 175 days. In Game 2 of the American League Championship Series (ALCS), he allowed three runs (two earned) in eight innings for his Kansas City Royals against the Detroit Tigers. However, the Tigers beat reliever Dan Quisenberry, and went on to sweep the Series.

5. D

The 1906 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago White Sox was the first modern championship contested by two teams from the same city. The White Sox defeated the Cubs 4 games to 2. It was the White Sox's first World Series victory in franchise history.

The first time two New York teams played in the World Series was in 1941, when the New York Yankees defeated the Brooklyn Dodgers in five games.

6. E

1969 and 1986

The New York Mets of the National League were founded in 1962 to replace New York's departed teams, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants. In their first season, the Mets posted a record of 40 wins and 120 losses. During the 1960s, they never finished better than second-to-last until their magical season of 1969. The "Miracle Mets" won 100 games that season and went on to win the World Series over the Baltimore Orioles.

In 1986, the Mets won their second World Series. They defeated the Boston Red Sox in seven games.

7. C

12 times

The New York Yankees of the American League and the Los Angeles Dodgers of the National League have faced each other in the World Series a total of 12 times. The Yankees have won eight of those match-ups.

8. D

The Toronto Blue Jays won the 1993 World Series against the Philadelphia Phillies. The Blue Jays defeated the Phillies in six games, becoming the seventh franchise in Major League Baseball history to win back-to-back victories.

9. B.

1977 and 1978

The New York Yankees were the last team to win back-to-back World Series in 1977 and 1978.

10. E

Pittsburgh Pirates

Mazeroski

In the 1960 World Series, Bill Mazeroski led the Pittsburgh Pirates to victory over the New York Yankees four games to three.

11. A

The St. Louis Cardinals hold the National League record for most World Series victories with 11 titles.

- Joanne

In Praise of Immigrants

2025-10-03T15:32:00.002-04:00

Enough is enough! I am posting this because I am sick and tired of the vilification of immigrants, migrants and refugees by right-wing conservatives. It's sad that many Americans believe Donald Trump's lies. It's sad that they believe Fox News. It's tragic that they they buy the myth that caravans of "illegal alien" criminals are invading the United States. Have Americans forgotten the message inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty, which has welcomed scores of newcomers to the New World. As a reminder, here is that message. It needs to be heard now more than ever because if Trump and MAGA had its way, America would be a nation of Archie Bunkers.

The New Colossus

By Emma Lazarus

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
'Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent lips. 'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"

My grandparents were immigrants from Sicily. They eventually settled in Toronto, Canada, but in those days, newcomers from Southern Italy had to go to Ellis Island. My grandparents were some of the many who have contributed to the building Canada.

Here is a post from Caroline Codsi, a Canadian businesswoman, founder of Women in Governance & Party Certification, a non-profit organization, created in 2010 to assist women in accessing decision-making roles. Codsi writes about the value of immigration. It is worth reading.

For decades, from Eisenhower to Biden, U.S. presidents — both Republican and Democrat — have spoken with pride about what truly makes America strong: its immigrants.

They reminded us that diversity is not a threat but a foundation, that people come to the US not for handouts but for opportunity, that America’s greatness has always been built by those who came with nothing but determination.

From JFK to Reagan, from Bush to Obama to Biden, they all echoed the same truth: the United States is a nation of immigrants. That is its power.
And then came Trump…

Dear American friends, remember who you are. Don't let fear, ignorance, and cruelty rewrite the soul of your nation. Refuse to be dragged backward by those who thrive on division.

Dear Canadian friends, let’s stand firm in who we are. Let’s not allow the current U.S. administration to poison our values, our compassion, or the inclusive society we’ve fought so hard to build. Our identity is not up for negotiation.

Here is a quote from American-born Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's federal Green Party. After a vacation on Cape Breton Island, her family was inspired to make Canada their home.

Canada wasn't perfect, but it was -- and continues to be -- quite profoundly, a work in progress. I have always loved the Canadian narrative. The U.S. has the notion of a melting pot. Sure they'll put up with immigrants, but they're expected to emerge from that pot homogenized..

The building of the railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific was instrumental in bringing about Canadian Confederation. "The National Dream", as historian Pierre Berton called it, was completed in 1885. When British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871, the decision was based upon the promise of a railway to the Pacific coast. Canada would be a country from sea to sea. So, who was instrumental in building the national dream of a Canada from coast to coast. Foreign workers, that's who. Here are the facts according to the website government of British Columbia in an article entitled "Building the Railway."

* Over 17,000 Chinese men came to Canada to work on the Canadian Pacific Railway, with more than 70% of the Railway Workers being of Chinese origin.

* Difficult working conditions: Chinese workers were paid less than white workers and were often given the most dangerous tasks, such as handling explosive materials.

* Harsh living conditions: The work was dangerous and living conditions were poor, leading to the deaths of hundreds of Chinese workers.

Many of the Chinese workers were unprepared for B.C.’s harsh winters, especially at Port Moody where ice prevented supply ships from docking and, thus, providing the workers with some relief. It is estimated that more than 600 Chinese workers died during the building of the CPR—more than four for every mile of track. In 1891, a Chinese community association collected over 300 unidentified bodies to be flown back to China for proper burial.

- Asian Heritage Society website, "Chinese Labour on the Canadian Pacific Railway"

Note: According to some estimates, between 600 and 2,200 Chinese workers died during the construction of the Canadian National Railway between 1880 and 1885.

Canadian Pacific Railway workers

By the way, Chinese immigrants built the American Transcontinental railroad, which Abraham Lincoln described as the United States' most important goal.

"As a once Illinois railroad lawyer, Abraham Lincoln was convinced that railroads were essential to America’s future – drawing the nation together by trade, by travel, and by the defusing of yeomen farmers and immigrants, across the United States."

"Abraham Lincoln and the Transcontinental Railroad," from the official website of the Utah Department of Cultural and Community Engagement

This is not an argument for unrestricted or unfettered immigration. However, immigrants are no more responsible for crime than native-born Americans and Canadians. In addition, immigrants and migrants do work that most native Americans refuse to do.

"A lot of Canadians don't want to do the jobs that are so called low-skill of low-pay, which are things like processing your chicken, slaughtering your beef, or getting fish."

- Economist Armine Yalnizyan

Unfortunately, right-wing conservatives stoke fears that immigrants are taking jobs away from native-born Canadians. At the same time, immigrants are condemned if they are unemployed. They are accused of living off of Canada's social programs. It can't be both ways. The real threat to jobs is Artificial Intelligence (AI), not immigrants.

In a September 23, 2025 column for the Toronto Star, David Olive points out that according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, immigrants comprise about 26% of the Canadian workforce and they account for 35 per cent of commuter programmers, 43 per cent of engineers and 57 per cent of chemists.

I despise the term "illegal aliens." The correct term is "undocumented immigrants." They are human beings, many trying to escape persecution in their countries of origin. Others simply want to earn some money to help out relatives, They are not creatures from another planet.

Anti-immigrant sentiment is caused by ignorance. It is a fear what we do not know or understand, including people of different cultures and religions. The truth is that we all share a common humanity and we all want the best for our families.

- Joanne

Wise Advice for Parents

2025-09-30T18:10:00.000-04:00

Although I am not a parent, I believe the following words are some of the I wisest I have ever read about parenting. That is why I would like to share this advice it with you.

You're raising future adults, not eternal children. Every problem you solve for them is a strength they don't develop. Every consequence you prevent is a lesson they don't learn. Every struggle you remove is resilience they don't build. Through resistance, not rescue.

- Scott Clary

It isn't easy buying a parent these day. Children have to develop independence. They have to be allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them. It is impossible to protect your children from everything. They have to face the world on their own terms. They can't be what their parents want them to be. That is why they should be accepted for who they are. Too many parents try to live vicariously through their children. Assist them but don't control them, or they will end up resenting you. When they falter, be there for them, but don't rescue them. As difficult as it sometimes may be, allow them choose their own path. They will appreciate you for that.

- Joanne

Perversion of Christianity

2025-09-23T00:11:00.003-04:00

“I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them.”

- Donald Trump

Charlie Kirk memorial, September 21, 2025

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”

- Jesus Christ

Luke 6:27

"When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and violently as your can."

- Donald Trump

From How to Get Rich (2004)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

- Jesus Christ

Matthew 5:38-39

I am tired of the way Donald Trump and JD Vance and Mike Johnson pervert the true message of Christianity. They practice Christian nationalism, not Christianity. That is why I am calling them out. Christianity is not about vengefulness and hatred. It is not about vilifying immigrants, migrants and people of colour. It is not about mocking homosexuals or the disabled.

Trump recently expressed concert about whether he would go to heaven. If he really wants to inherit eternal life he should read the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

- Joanne

Americans have a right to know the true state of Trump's health

2025-09-20T00:05:00.000-04:00

Does this look like the face of a healthy man? His mouth is droopy and he can barely keep his eyes open. His behaviour is not normal. So, how much longer can Trump and his supporters endeavour to hide the truth? Their dear leader is a very sick man, mentally and physically. Republicans are trying everything possible to downplay Trump's condition, but his declining health is painfully obvious. The day will come when MAGA is unable to pretend otherwise. Is Trump going to have to collapse or have a public meltdown before Republicans play it straight with Americans?

Trump, 79, is in no condition to lead the United States of America. The American people have a right to know the facts about him. They deserve answers, not only about the state of Trump's heath, but about his connection to child sex trafficker Jefferey Epstein. The "Epstein Files" must be released, but don't expect transparency from the Trump regime. Trump has always hidden the truth about everything from his taxes to his health. Only someone with something to hide behaves this way.

The state of a leader's health is of paramount importance. It appears that Republicans willing to risk the safety and security of Americans in order to placate Donald Trump. Were they elected to serve the American people or to serve Trump?

This has to stop before it ends in abject tragedy for the United States and the rest of the world. Don't think that Putin and Xi and Kim Jong Un haven't taken notice of Trump's appearance. Why hasn't Trump's own family shown some concern for his well-being? They are probably being muzzled because in Trump World, poor health is a sign of weakness. They must cover up the state of Trump's health at all costs, even if it puts the well-being of the U.S. and the rest of the world in jeopardy. What complete and utter madness!

- Joanne