Ayami Sato first woman to play on a professional Canadian men's baseball team

Kudos to Toronto for signing up - and actually playing - the first women to play for a professional men's baseball team in Canada. 

Just so you know, this was not the Toronto Blue Jays in Major League Baseball, mark you, but the Toronto Maple Leafs Baseball Club, the rather confusingly-named team in the Intercounty Baseball League.

Ayami Sato is widely regarded as the best female pitcher in the world, and is a six-time Women's Baseball World Cup champion with Japan. She struck out one and did not allow anyone on base in the first two innings of the Maple Leafs game against the Kitchener Panthers yesterday. The Leafs ultimately lost the game 6-5.

This is maybe not on the scale of Jackie Robinson's first game for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 (the first Black man to play in Major League Baseball), but it is nevertheless a pretty big step, and an inspiration for thousands of young Canadian girls who idolize Sato.

Every vote counts - we have proof!

Never scoff again when someone tells you that every vote counts. 

A recount in the Montreal area riding of Terrebonne yielded an almost unbelievable result: after the initial count found that the Bloc Québécois has won the riding by an ultra-slim margin of 44 votes, a recount found that, in fact, the Liberals scraped in by just one single vote! 

After the recount, Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné of the Bloc garnered 23,351 votes, while Liberal Tatiana Auguste registered 23,352, the closest result in recorded history. The swing gives the Liberals 170 seats in parliament, still two short of a majority.

The recount is a process that automatically clicks in when a result is within 0.01% of the total votes, considered the margin of potential error. Three other judicial recounts are underway in other close calls, but none of them give the Liberals a path to a majority.

This would probably have caused riots in the USA, so it's a testament to the robustness of the Canadian system that the revised result (and the recount itself) has been accepted with good grace. I wonder how Ms. Sinclair-Desgagnè is feeling today, though?

Alberta is rich, so why are they still whining?

I have never understood Alberta's vociferous and ongoing complaint that they are being unfairly targeted by Canada's equalization system.

Equalization was brought in to provide "reasonably comparable level of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation", i.e. to ensure that all Canadians benefit from all of Canada's advantages, and that those provinces that are richer (through accidents of geography, geology, etc) subsidize those that are poorer. It's not a perfect system, but it's surely a laudable goal.

Intra-provincial equalization payments are calculated according to a formula and, while you might quibble about some of the details, it is broadly designed to make sure that there are no egregiously have-not provinces, through no fault of their own.

But the big thing is, equalization is a federal program. The government of Alberta has not paid over a single cent to any other province, despite what Danielle Smith implies; all equalization payments come from federal coffers through federal taxes. If Albertans (as opposed to Alberta) can be said to have paid more than residents of other provinces, that is only insofar as Albertans have higher incomes than the national average. This doesn't make it unfair, except in the eyes of Danielle Smith and the Alberta First crowd.

Because the bottom lime is: Alberta is a rich province, both in absolute GDP and particularly in per capita terms. The province's own economic dashboard admits - nay, boasts - as much. They should expect to be paying more than Nova Scotia or Manitoba. They are not struggling, they are not unfairly treated. They are living in La La Land compared to most Canadians. And the rest of Canada is pretty sick of their constant whining.

Did UK get a good trade deal with USA?

Surprisingly, both for them and for the rest of the world, the UK became the first country to agree a tariff and trade deal with Donald Trump's USA.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been waxing lyrical about the deal, calling it "fantastic" and "historic". and even the BBC seems to think it a good deal and a "significant achievement" (for Starmer at least, even if not for the UK). 

Others, however, are not so sure. The Independent calls it "lipstick on a pig", and The Guardian is equally, well, guarded, likening it to "a bit part in Trump the Musical".

In some ways, a deal with the UK was low-hanging fruit for the Trump administration. For one thing, the US actually has a small surplus in its trade with the UK, which can therefore hardly be said to be taking advantage of the US. And the UK is desperate for a deal with pretty much ANYONE since leaving the EU and is therefore willing not to drive too hard a bargain. (Trump is also quite desperate for a deal, to make his wacko tariff policy look a little less dismal.) Plus, Starmer needs a win of any sort after a rather disastrous local council election.

Starmer kept up the deluge of flattery he has employed since he started dealing with Trump, which arguably is the only way to make a deal with the man, however much it may pain the flatterer. But he received some flattery back too. When Trump himself starts to compliment you, it's probably time to worry.

Anyway, what Starmer ended up with is a deal that leaves the UK only slightly worse off than before: a reduction on the 25% steel and aluminum tariffs, and a decrease on tariffs on cars from 25% to 10%, although only up to a certain quota, and still much higher than the previous 2.5% tariff. The deal increased UK access to US ethanol and beef (although why the UK wants US beef, laden with growth hormones as it is, is not clear). The US, for its part, wanted something on pharmaceuticals and technology and succeeded in that, although exactly what remains to be negotiated. The blanket 10% tariff on most UK goods entering the USA remains, though. This compares with an average tariff in 2023, for example. of just 3.3%.

So, even with its so-called "special relationship" with America, Britain still did not manage to get all the tariffs dropped, not even close. And, remember, this is not really a trade treaty at all, not like the recently-concluded free trade deal between India and the UK (which would require Congress' approval, and a lot more time). All this is happening outside of the official international trade channels, and it's not clear whether it needs to be approved by Congress or not (or whether Congress would in fact approve it). The deal, as even Trump admits, is not yet finalized, despite all the song and dance.

Being first to go is not always a good ploy. Other countries are certain to be deconstructing and analysing this deal, in an attempt to learn where points were gained and lost in the game. Because that's what this has turned into, a pretty high-stakes game. 

The UK is a much smaller trading partner with America than Canada, but this whole process gives a good idea of what to expect in future negotiations.

Actually, America does need Canada

Maybe it goes without saying, but a lot of the stuff Donald Trump says about Canada and Canadian-American trade is a load of cobblers. But if there's one thing that really gets my goat, it's his claim that America doesn't need Canadian goods. It doesn't need our oil, it doesn't need our cars, it doesn't need our lumber, etc, etc. "We don't need anything they have", he says, repeatedly.

If that were true, then why do American companies import $421 billion of good from Canada every year (2024 figure). The top few categories are: fuel, oil and derivatives; vehicles and auto parts; machinery, nuclear reactors and boilers; unspecified commodities; plastics; wood and wood products; aluminum; electrical equipment; aircraft and spacecraft(!); etc.

America could try doing without us, and that is Trump's stated goal, but it would be very tough.

New American Pope - what should we expect?

Robert Prevost, an American, is now Pope Leo XIV. He was born in Chicago, to parents of Spanish and French-Italian descent, but has spent most of his working life as a missionary in Peru and as a functionary and insider  in the Vatican, so he's actually not THAT American. An Italian newspaper calls him "the least American" of the US cardinals.

The significance of his Americanism is lost on no-one (including Donald Trump, who was quick to claim him as one of his own), although he has already proved himself critical of some of Trump's recent actions (including the deportations of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to an El Salvador jail, against a court order), and has specifically spoken about against JD Vance's "Catholic" justification of the same.

Indeed, some of the MAGA crowd are deeply suspicious of the new Pope. MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, not known for pulling her punches (or for common sense or truthfulness) calls Leo "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open border, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis". Ryan Selkis calls him a "new woke pope".

His adoption of the name Leo, too, may or may not be significant. The previous Leo, Pope Leo XIII, who was around over a century ago, railed against the American "heracy" of the time, as he saw it, as they were attempting to align American politcal values and cultural ethos with traditional Roman Catholic tenets 3and historical practices. Sound familiar? Leo XIII was also known, ahead of his time, for his concern for workers and social issues, and his criticism of both laissez-faire capitalism and state-centric socialism. Maybe the new Pope sees himself as carrying on that work?

Anyway, new Pope. Should we be excited? Meh, probably not. Leo XIV came up through the Augustinian order, and he was made a cardinal by his predecessor Francis, so it seems likely that he will continue Francis' pastoral and slightly radical trajectory. But, as I have argued earlier, Popes these days are not that influential in the wider world, and we shouldn't really expect any concrete impacts on the world as a whole. 

World Junior Hockey players trial will help define "consent"

The ongoing trial of five members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey team is likely to be a watershed case in what constitutes consent and what constitutes sexual assault.

It is a particularly important case because the defendant, known as EM, then an awkward 20-year old university student, said and did some things that might have been construed as providing consent for the group sex that ensued. She was much the worse for alcohol, as were the young men, and admitted that she may have appeared permissive and compliant during the incident, even taking on the persona of a "porn star", but that she saw that as a kind of coping mechanism "just to get through" the ordeal. She has also testified that she tried to leave the room several times, sometimws in tears, but was persuaded, although not forced, to stay. 

There is apparently even video evidence of her saying that "it was all consensual" and that she "enjoyed it", although it is still not clear whether the video will be allowed as evidence.

But throughout the extended incident, she says that "I felt like I had no control", and was on "autopilot", almost separated from her body. She did what she did because she felt like she had no choice. Plus, she was so inebriated that she says, "I don't recall how I was acting", and "I don't know exactly what what I was doing". She was not even entirely sure she could identify which men were involved, because they "all looked the same" to her, and she actively misidentified a couple of them.

EM has a whole load more cross-examination to go through, having her credibility questioned, and I really don't envy her. (Court proceedings ended early yesterday, after EM broke down in tears several times.) I'm also glad I'm not on the jury. But the outcome of the trial will create an important precedent on what consent really means, and how much latitude women should be allowed in how they express it (or don't).

Where conflicts are concerned, don't believe everything (anything?) you see online

Deutsche Welle (DW) does a good job of fact-checking some of the more lurid political claims doing the rounds of the world's social media. Most recently it has looked into the videos being circulated by both Pakistan and India about their growing military spat over incursions into  and retailations over, Indian-held Kashmir.

Perhaps not surprisingly, DW concludes that almost all of the video propaganda being promoted by both sides is in fact false. 

For example, footage purporting to show Indian missiles raining down on Pakistan, shared at least 5 million times by outraged viewers, was in fact taken over 7 months ago and actually shows Iranian missiles hitting Israel. A picture showing a wrecked Fench-designed Rafale fighter plane was indeed Pakistani, but actually shows a Mirage 5 plane that crashed during training exercises three weeks ago. In some cases, video of purported Indian air attacks actually turns out to be footage from a popular video game!

There's an awful lot of fake photos and videos out there on the Internet, particularly in this age of AI. Where a war is involved, everything gets amped up a notch or two further, to the extent that it's pretty hard to trust anything you see online unless it comes directly from a highly reputable source. And even then it pays to be pretty sceptical.

Thus begins another major armed conflict in a time of renewed conflicts across the world.

Danielle Smith is at her politicking again

I don't like to give Danielle Smith - and Alberta in general - any more attention than necessary. She tends to make my blood boil, which is not good for me medically. But she does keep making announcements that, well, make my blood boil.

The latest, in the aftermath of a federal election, in which "her" party failed to win but all but swept the board in Alberta and Saskatchewan, is more whining and victim-playing about how badly Alberta is being treated by the federal government (by which she means the rest of the country that voted them in). It just so happens that Ontario and Quebec have bigger populations, and so they often decide elections - that is not a flaw in democracy, that's the way it's supposed to work. And sometimes those large populations will vote overwhelmingly Conservative, just not this time.

Ms. Smith has a way of speaking that particularly grates, and which usually requires translation into the language that the rest of the country speaks. She is at pains to appear straight-talking and reasonable, but hides a barb behind almost every statement she makes.

For example, she talks of "hostile acts" from Ottawa, meaning policies that the rest of the country approves of, but that happens not to benefit Alberta, with its 20th-Century attitudes to oil and gas among other things (most things she says have a link to Alberta oil on some level). 

She says that Albertans are "deeply frustrated" at the election of another Liberal government, indeed that they are "crushed" by it. Well, maybe, but so probably are NDP voters, but you don't hear them whining in the same way. That's just the way democratic elections work: the party with the most seats gets to form a government. Does she want to change that system?

And she is still talking about "Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada", whatever that actually means, as she has for some time now, all while doing her level best to foment divisiveness and fanning the flames of an independence vote. How does that help United Canada? She tends to blame Ottawa (i.e. Liberals) for threatening national unity by their policies (i.e. the ones she happens not to agree with), but she is the one almost single-handedly destroying any national unity that may have existed with her words and her actions.

She says " we will no longer tolerate having our industries threatened and our resources landlocked by Ottawa". Furthermore, "Alberta didn't start this fight, but rest assured we will finish it". Fighting talk indeed. So what is she going to do about it?

Well, with that in mind, she has put forward Bill 54 that would make it easier for a potential secession referendum to be brought forward by Alberta citizens, lowering the threshold from 20% to 10% of voters. She says the timing of this, just after a Liberal election victory is coincidental. 

She is careful to to stress that SHE will not be the one to bring such a separation vote - in fact she says, in very clear language, that "I do not support Alberta separating from Canada" - but if enough Albertans want to, then so be it, what can she do? She even points out that polls suggest that most Albertans don't want to separate from Canada, but she is nevertheless doing everything she can behind the scenes to encourage it. She visibly bristled when a reporter suggested she was being disingenuous in these apparent contradictions.

So, there you have Danielle Smith. Firebrand activist? Principled statesperson? Sneaky backroom wheeler-dealer? You decide. Meanwhile, though, Alberta's economic credibility is taking a hit. Secession remains a highly implausible scenario, but the very fact that the government is even talking about it is enough to put the willies up current and potential investors.

Australian election follows the Canadian trajectory

In an extraordinary parallel to the recent Canadian election, Australia has seen a dramatic late turn-around in their general election too.

Just as with Canada, the Australian Liberals (right of centre, despite the name) were expected to roll over the incumbent Labour Party (left of centre, and the equivalent of Canada's Liberal Party - confusing, eh?)

On the day, though, after a short election campaign totally dominated by Donald Trump and who is best positioned to deal with him, just as in Canada, Australia's Labour Party came through with a comfortable majority, despite the Liberals' apparent dominance in the polls just two months earlier (just as in Canada). Liberal leader, Peter Dutton, lost his own seat, just like Pierre Poilievre did in Canada. Like Poilievre, the  hard-line conservative Dutton was considered too close to Trump for comfort, the kiss of death in the current circumstances.

Quite a turn-around - just as in Canada. It seems like Donald Trump is doing a good job of scaring the world away from hard-right governments.

Germany classifies AfD as "extemist", and USA declares a diplomatic row

Germany's BfV domestic intelligence (spy) agency has officially labelled the country's far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party as an "extremist" organization, publishing as evidence a 1,100-page report on the party's racist, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim profile, its activities in deliberately stirring up "irrational fears and hostility" towards individuals and groups, and its incitement to undermine democratic institutions.

This might not seem like a big deal, but the designation legally allows BfV to officially and unofficially monitor the organization, to recruit informants, and to intercept party communications. It open up the way to closer surveillance of the organization, even clandestine spying. Other political organizations classified as "extremist" in Germany include the far-right National Democratic Party, Islamic State and the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany.

Given that AfD is now one of Germany's major political parties, coming in second to the conservative coalition of Friedrich Merz in last February's elections, and even topping some current nationwide polls, the new "extremist" designation puts an unwelcome spotlight on the party and its machinations.

The AfD is predictably apoplectic at the announcement, calling it politically motivated and defamatory and "a blow against democracy". It has promised legal action, although it has already lost a court case in which it tried to challenge the BfV. 

Almost as predictably, that other right-wing extremist organization, the Trump administration in the USA, has condemned the move, setting off a major diplomatic row between the two countries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the BfV's announcement "tyranny in disguise", and Vice President JD Vance called it the rebuilding of the Berlin Wall by the German establishment.

*Sigh* When America feels obliged to publicly support such illiberal, anti-democratic organizations as AfD as a knee-jerk reaction, how far down that road has it already travelled itself? Is there any way back?

CUSMA-compliant auto parts are to be exempt from US tariffs - wait, what?

In his latest tariff flip-flop, Donald Trump is now saying that the 25% tariff that is to apply to auto vehicles and parts imported from Canada into the USA will not actually apply to CUSMA-compliant auto parts.

This is seen - on this side of the border at least - as a major carveout and climb-down. But it raises the question: which auto parts are, and are not, covered by the Canada United States Mexico Agreement of 2018? Is it not ALL auto parts? (If not, why not?) I have not seen a simple guide to what this exemption actually means in concrete terms for the Trump tariffs.

Given that auto parts can cross the Canadian and US border several times during production, as we know, it would be a logistical nightmare to identify non-American components of cars and their various parts. If there is a further distinction between CUSMA-compliant and non-CUSMA-compliant parts, the task becomes even more onerous. Is anyone keeping track of the time, effort and cost of the extra admin involved?

The big auto companies are already responding to the imposition of the tariffs, even before they take effect. For example, GM is eliminating one shift at its Oshawa assembly plant, driven, it says, by soft demand and trade uncertainty, involving cuts of over 700 jobs. Does this take into account the latest tariff carveout? Who knows?

Talk about chaos and uncertainty! The announcements are coming so thick and fast that even the people most affected can't keep track if it all. What a mess!

Mental health system not to blame for Vancouver tragedy

After a Vancouver man drove his SUV into a crowded Filipino cultural festival earlier this week, killing 11 people and injuring scores more, there have been many pointed questions about why it happened and why it was allowed to happen and, more specifically, what role the man's mental illness played in the tragedy.

Adam Lo is an involuntary outpatient under the care of a Vancouver mental health team following a forced hospital stint in 2024. He suffers from schizophrenia, paranoia and delusions, and is considered at high risk for his mental health to decline, especially given his occasional refusal to take medications. 

More specifically, Mr. Lo, like thousands of others, has been on what is known as "extended leave", where he has been released from a treatment facility for supervised, mandatory care in the community. This means that his condition is severe enough to warrant forced treatment (e.g. mandatory medication injections), but not so severe that they must be held at a mental health facility. In this way, it is argued, he gets the treatment he needs, but without too much of an infringement of his civil liberties (hence, Mr. Lo still has a valid drivers license, for example).

Lo's Vancouver Coastal Health care team has commented that there was no change to his condition or his non-compliance with medications before the incident that might have warranted involuntary hospitalization. He seems to fit squarely into the parameters for extended leave, with nothing suggesting the need for enforced sequestering in a mental health facility. His act came out for the blue, with no possible way of predicting it.

Many people are understandably angry, and looking for answers (and preferably a scapegoat). But, however much people are looking for somewhere to lay blame for the tragedy, all indications are that Vancouver's mental health system was not to blame.

Poilievre is offered a safe Tory seat

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, whom many Tories seem to look on as the Second Coming (of something or other), was soundly beaten in his own riding of Carleton in last week's federal election, and by a Liberal political neophyte at that.

But so convinced are Conservatives in the man's value to the Party that they have prevailed on a long-time successful Tory MP to stand down and offer up his safe seat to Poilievre, who clearly cannot get himself elected any other way. 

It's an embarrassing climb-down for a party that has now lost to the Liberals in four consecutive elections. But Damien Kurek, who has easily won the Battle River-Crowfoot riding in Alberta since 2019, says he is more than happy to lend Poilievre his safe Tory seat. For he so loved his party that he gave his only begotten seat... If he'd had a sword handy, he would almost certainly have fallen on it.

"An unstoppable movement has grown under his leadership", quoth Kurek. "This is what's best for Canada, and is what's best for Battle River-Crowfoot". Well, except the movement just got stopped in its tracks in the last election, and Canada decided that the Liberals are best for it at the moment. How people get caught up in hype and propaganda!

This is a strange and embarrassing situation for Poilievre, although the man is not easily embarrassed. It's also a rather strange move for the Conservative Party, which lost the last election because (among other reasons) Poilievre is so unlikable, and because of his angry demeanour and tedious three-word slogans. Still, if that's what they want to do...

Poilievre is not humble man. "Sorry" or "regret" are not in his vocabulary. He has got to where he is today by being aggressive, acerbic and in-your-face; he does not do touchy-feely. It seems inconceivable to us outsiders that the Tories would even want to keep him as leader of the Party, especially given that his particular brand of divisive, populist politics has not yielded the results he promised, and he has brought the Conservatives no closer to power than Erin O'Toole and Andrew Scheer before him (arguably further away, given that the Liberals are now just a few seats short of a majority).

I wonder if this will play into the hands of the Liberals who are, as we speak, rumoured to be having talks with Conservative and NDP MPs with a view to getting a small handful of them to "cross the floor" to give the Liberals a majority in parliament.

And if Poilievre were to lose this by-election too? Well, wouldn't that be something?

Ukraine resources deal is morally very grey

I have mixed feelings about the recent minerals and resources deal struck between Ukraine and USA. But first, what's actually in the deal? 

What's significantly NOT in the deal is any mention of Ukraine paying back $350 billion in US wartime aid to Ukraine that Trump was insisting on when this was last publicly discussed (remember that embarrassing Oval Office interview streamed live to air for all the world to see). This, then, seems to have been a win for Ukraine, although of course Trump would never admit that publicly.

Specifically mentioned is that the deal should not hamper Ukraine's ambitions to join the EU. Ukraine already has a strategic partnership with the EU on raw materials, and the text of the deal acknowledges that and pledges that the US deal will not step on any European toes.

The wording of the deal is also distinctly more anti-Russian than the Trump administration usual employs (maybe the Trump-Putin bromance is petering out?) which will hearten Ukraine and its other allies. For example, for almost the first time, the deal calls out "Russia's full-scale invasion".

On the other hand, the deal as it stands also includes Ukraine's oil and gas, not just its strategically important rare earth minerals (in fact, Ukraine has hardly any rare earth minerals, certainly not as much as Trump thinks it does, but it does have significant reserves of natural gas, oil and coal - I guess someone explained that to him recently). This marks a step up from the US's previous ambitions, although the document states that the resources in question will technically stay "in Ukrainian ownership" (for what that's worth).

There are still no concrete security guarantees built into the deal, and technically the US could walk away from it at any time. Implicit in the agreement is the idea that the US would not want to walk away from it because it is in its own commercial interests. This is not a strong guarantee, but it may be the best that can be negotiated with this intransigent American administration. 

Of course, the payback for Ukraine for giving away a share of its precious mineral wealth, is a renewed commitment of military assistance from the US. However, this is not spelled out in detail, and it will probably not be on the scale of Joe Biden's previous commitments, even if it is the whole raison d'etre for the deal as far as Ukraine is concerned.

One interesting element of the agreement (or at least of an additional "technical" deal that is proposed to accompany it) is that, for its first ten years, the USA will forego its share of the proceeds, which will be fully invested in Ukraine's economy, either in new projects or reconstruction. This seems very generous and un-Trumplike, so let's see whether it gets included in the final deal.

So, the deal represents a strange hybrid of the expected cynical realpolitik from the Trump administration, and something altogether more humanitarian and unexpected. Of course, coming from Trump's America, I really would not trust it to come to fruition or be upheld without a bunch more last minute changes.

I'm also very unsure about this kind of hard-negotiation arm-twisting in order to provide something that was freely given for years under the previous administration. Equating Ukraine's existential issues with commercial transactions and "filthy lucre" seems morally reprehensible somehow. But you can see why a desperate Ukraine might be tempted to agree to it, when their very existence is on the line.

Doug Ford goes full Trump

Doug Ford has gone off on a rant again - he admits as much himself. Still smarting from an Ontario Supreme Court ruling that stops him from taking out a bunch of recently installed bike lanes in Toronto, which Mr. Ford finds inconvenient on his commute into Queen's Park, he has gone full Trump, painting the whole judicial system as full of "terrible, terrible, bleeding heart judges" who make decisions based on "ideology". 

This comes about a month after another Ontario judge ruled against Ford's ill-advised (and apparently illegal) plan to shut down all supervised drug consumption sites. So, maybe Ford's oversized ego is feeling a little bruised.

"I can't wait until they retire", he rants, "matter of fact, I'll pay them to retire early ... just get out of the system". He went further: "Let's start electing our judges, holding them accountable".

Of course, what Ford means is that he respectfully disagrees with their decisions, decisions made impartially on their own merits, based as they were on Canadian and Ontario case law and statutes. But that's a long way from what he actually said, and he overstepped his boundaries by a long chalk. Clearly, it is actually Ford who is acting on ideology. He is saying that these respected judges' considered decisions are wrong just because they don't jibe with his own political views.

And calling for American-style elected judges? - and we've seen how THAT is going - that is just beyond the pale. Maybe Ford was just having a bad, frustrating day, but a professional politician just doesn't say these things out loud, whatever they may say in the privacy of their own toilet. 

This was an unfortunate and embarrassing rant, and it even elicited a joint statement by Ontario's three chief justices, chastising Ford for his inappropriate outburst and defending an independent judiciary as "a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy", reminding Ford that "an independent judiciary protects the public, not just judges. It means a society governed by the rule of law."

For a guy who set himself up as a bulwark against the excesses of Donald Trump during the recent provincial election, he sure sounds like Donald Trump sometimes.