Evil Abounds

 In my long time on this planet, I have borne witness to a lot of evil. However, at least in my memory, the more egregious nefarious acts people perpetrate on their fellow humans used to be somewhat sporadic in nature. In between wars and insurrections, there were troughs of civility. Either that or I am romanticizing a past that never really existed.

Today, thanks to the ubiquitous, near-instant coverage of world events, we have windows on a world that seems increasingly ugly, ungoverned by the rules that used to cast at least a veneer of civilization over our inhumanity. If someone, be they individuals or countries, did something wrong, there was an accounting. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

Take the following, murders openly committed by Israeli border police:

To anyone of normal values and sensibilities, the above depicts outright murder. Yet those possessed of hatred for "the other' see it differently:

The shooting on Thursday evening, which was also witnessed by journalists close to the scene, is under justice ministry review, but has already been defended by Israel’s far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who declared that “terrorists must die”.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a statement admitting two men were shot during a joint IDF operation with the Israeli border police around Jenin. It said the shooting “is under review by the commanders on the ground and will be transferred to the relevant professional bodies”.

 Even in conflict, the execution of unarmed prisoners is a war crime.

The increasingly toothless UN human rights office offered its condemnation:

“We’re appalled by the brazen killing by Israeli border police yesterday of two Palestinian men in Jenin in the occupied West Bank in yet another apparent summary execution,” said the UN human rights office spokesperson, Jeremy Laurence.

“The execution documented today is the result of an accelerated process of dehumanisation of Palestinians and the complete abandonment of their lives by the Israeli regime,” said Yuli Novak, the executive director of the B’Tselem human rights group. “In Israel, there is no mechanism that acts to stop the killing of Palestinians or is capable of prosecuting those responsible.”

Anyone who regularly follows the actions of Israeli forces knows that the above is not an isolated event but rather part of a much larger pattern of abuse, violence and murder perpetrated against Palestinians. Sadly, however, the Jewish state has no monopoly on that market.

One thinks immediately of the murders perpetrated by the U.S. against alleged drug smugglers.

US strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean have been under way for months, along with a US military buildup in the region, and Trump has authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela.

They have carried out at least 21 strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific since September, killing at least 83 people.

The president told military service members this week that the US would “very soon” begin land operations to stop suspected Venezuelan drug traffickers.

Something tells me that the targeting of Venezuela, and the executions of people in boats allegedly ferrying drugs has little to do with interdicting cocaine supplies and more to do with regime change, given that Trump doesn't like President Maduro. And perhaps the even greater evil here is that Congress has surrendered its legislative monopoly on declaring war to their mad king.

Strangely, but not surprisingly, this apparent Trumpian passion against pushers has sharp limits. How else can one explain this?

President Trump announced on Friday afternoon that he would grant “a Full and Complete Pardon” to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who, as the center of a sweeping drug case, was found guilty by an American jury last year of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States.

The news came as a shock not only to Hondurans, but also to the authorities in the United States who had built a major case and won a conviction against Mr. Hernández. They had accused him of taking bribes during his campaign from Joaquín Guzmán, the notorious former leader of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico known as “El Chapo,” and of running his Central American country like a narco state.

In the end, Mr. Hernández was sentenced to 45 years in prison in Federal District Court in Manhattan, capping what prosecutors had presented as a sprawling conspiracy.

Mr. Trump’s vow to pardon such a high-profile convicted drug trafficker appeared to contradict the president’s campaign to unleash the might of the American military on small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that his administration says, without evidence, are involved in drug trafficking. 

It seems pointless to try to plumb some logic from this bizarre pardon, yet it is, once again, an example of the disappearance of even a semblance of morality in a world ruled by the morally insane and all who support them.

Setting The Record Straight

 I'm still in a bit of a writing slump, so I'll let others do the talking for me.

H/t Moudakis

A  Globe and Mail letter-writer weighs in on the F-35 versus Gripen question.

Canada should adopt a fighter jet which best meets the need for one that is cost-efficient, works well in our northern climate and falls within our control for easy maintenance and software.

I appreciate that some military officials favour the F-35 and believe while the U.S. administration is antagonistic to Canada, close co-operation with the U.S. military is possible. I think that trust is misplaced.

There is concern over a mixed fleet, but many of our allies have such arrangements. The air force currently operates more than 20 varieties of aircraft, so objections to adding Gripens to this fleet seem puzzling.

The Saab proposal to manufacture them in Canada sounds like a win-win that would allow us to rebuild our aeronautical capability. The F-35 does have better stealth capabilities, so buying the number already committed to may have merit.

Beyond that, I think the Gripen better suits Canada’s overall interests.

Carey Johannesson Victoria

 And a Star reader reflects on the hypocrisy of Pete hoekstra

Why the U.S. ambassador is wrong about his criticism of the Ronald Reagan tariff ads, Nov. 24

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra was not merely hypocritical for blaming Canada for “political interference” because of American propaganda seeking to influence politics abroad, as Éric Blais points out. The U.S. has, through use of military — either covertly or overtly, with or without allies — tried to force political change in other countries. In this century, America has exercised at least some level of political persuasion in Afghanistan (2001-2021), Iraq (2003-2011), Libya (2011), Syria (2014 to present), Pakistan (2000s to 2010), Yemen (2002 to present), Somalia (2007 to present) and the Philippines (2001 to present), not to mention Venezuela. There are dozens more examples if we go back through the previous century, including covertly supporting or waging actual violence against democratically elected regimes (Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973).

And let’s not forget the gratuitous insults against our head of state when U.S. President Donald Trump referred to Justin Trudeau as very dishonest and weak, two-faced, and “governor” while challenging Canadian sovereignty.

Hoekstra has opposed reproductive rights, gay adoption rights and gay marriage, parental leave for federal employees and expanding health care for kids. He has an A rating from the NRA for opposing gun control. He’s a true Trumpian, including the staggering hypocrisy he shows in his criticism of an ad that was simply truthful.

Barry Kent MacKay, Markham, ON

No doubt the questions will rage for some time, but the bottom line has to be that we can only retain our sovereignty by making assessments and needs that reflect our country, not the whims, passions and prejudices of foreign entities.

Thanks For Your Input

My previous post centred around that loud-mouthed 'diplomat', Pete Hoekstra, and his incessant nattering which, I guess, is supposed to put us in our place. When Uncle Sam's emissaries speak, we are supposed to listen and click our heels, no matter how much threatening, bellicose nonsense they may spew.

Well, many take issue with both the content and the tone of Hoekstra's delivery when talking to Canada. Here is a measure of their displeasure.

Future of trade talks depends on Canada’s purchase of American fighter jets,” Nov. 19

It’s time to stop giving U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra a platform and a voice to malign and threaten his host country. He is not living up to his post as Ambassador which includes promoting his nation’s interests through diplomacy, trade, and cultural exchange. Not “f-bombs” and schoolyard bullying.

In any other circumstances and from any other country, this man would be declared “persona-non-grata” and thrown out for his egregious behaviour. But of course, since we’re walking on the eggshells that U.S. President Donald Trump has strewn before us, our politicians have to be the adults in the room and behave with tact and clearer heads.

The only thing we can do, and should do, is shut him up by ignoring him completely and not inviting him to ever address another audience in Canada again.

Bonnie Beaudry, Burlington, ON

U.S. wants us to buy American arms, not defend ourselves

Ambassador Pete Hoekstra’s insistence on Canada buying U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets confirms a suspicion I’ve had for some time. U.S. President Donald Trump wants us to massively increase our military budget, not so we can defend ourselves, but so that we’ll spend lots of money on American arms.

Elizabeth Block, Toronto 

Let’s renew CUSMA before we buy any jets

Here’s the deal Ambassador Hoekstra: No decision regarding further purchases of your F-35 fighter jets until AFTER the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement is renewed.

Robert Woodcock, North York

Canadians traditionally have been a very reasonable, accommodating people. Clearly, Mr. Hoekstra and the mad king he works for have misinterpreted that national characteristic as a weakness inviting rampant abuse. One hopes the unfolding of events ultimately convinces them otherwise.

Time To Rip Off The Band-aid

 

I don't know about you, but I am growing tired of seeing an obese bully kicking sand in our collective faces. My national pride demands a real response. To mix the metaphor, it is time to rip off the Band-aid.

The obese bully, of course, is that vulgarian who 'leads' the U.S., Donald Trump, along with all of his enablers, chief among them his ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra. Said 'diplomat' delivers his master's message with relish, his contempt for our country obvious to anyone who can stomach listening to him. In my view, he personifies "the ugly American".

In his latest broadside against Canada, Hoekstra issues a warning that if we don't play nice with his country, there will be no trade deal. And playing nice means not even thinking about buying a competitor's military jets.

... we’re actually waiting to see exactly where the Canadian government is going to come out on this,” he said, pointing directly to the F-35 purchase review, and questioning what it means that Canada is shopping elsewhere for its fighter jets, and seeking to make its defence industrial base less reliant on the U.S.

Clearly, Hoekstra was not pleased to learn that Canada is thinking for itself when it comes to military procurements.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly told reporters the current F-35 contract doesn’t provide adequate jobs or other economic benefits to Canada.

“We believe that we didn’t get enough when it comes to the F-35,” Joly said Tuesday.

“The industrial benefits are not enough. There needs to be more jobs created out of the F-35 contract. That’s clear to me and clear to this government.” She added the government believes it can “use military procurement to get more.”

Joly was speaking as the  Carney government engages in talks to possibly buy Swedish Gripen E fighter jets as part of his quest to wean Canada off its overreliance on the U.S. for economic and national security. 

While we have committed to buying 18 of the F-35s, with an option to buy more, the Grippen offers several advantages to Canada. It was, for example, made for rigorous northern patrol, and it promises an economic boost to our country.

Joly underscored that Sweden-based Saab is promising to create 10,000 jobs. “We’ll see how concrete (that is), and at the same time, we’re looking at (whether) Lockheed Martin can do more,” she added.

Hoekstra pushed back, saying Canadian suppliers have benefited for years from helping to build parts for the F-35, a fifth-generation stealth fighter jet.

His 'solution' to all of this?  Essentially, it is to give up any pretense of sovereignty and align policies with Uncle Sam.

He said Canada and the U.S. should deepen co-operation, and Ottawa should align its trade policies with Trump’s in order to shut out cheaper Chinese-made products, such as steel, that he said are dumped into North American markets.

“You can put in place the same barriers that we have in place. And you know, the primary target is probably China, OK, because they’re dumping steel, but you can put in place the same kind of protections that we have. And part of what we were looking at was harmonizing the barriers to unfair competition on key materials and products so that it would be fortress North America.”

Fortress America may have a nice ring to it for American acolytes of Trump and his thugs. However, I suspect the majority of Canadians would see that not as a protective shield as much as a prison which, once entered, would be hard to escape from. We must never forget while it may be about military procurements today, tomorrow it will be about something else. A bully can never be appeased.

A Major Mistake?

Does anyone remember the last time a minority government decided to act as if it had a majority? Well, it was in 1979, when the Progressive Conservative government, led by Joe Clark, decided to gamble with its budget and lost. That government lasted a mere few months, and subsequently lost the next election.

The lesson: when you have a minority government, it is not wise to work without a net.

Now, why is this pertinent, given that the Carney government did indeed roll the dice and has thus far won in its efforts to pass its budget? It is because it has steadfastly refused to try to build any kind of coalition with the opposition, save for a vague promise to Elizabeth May to 'honour' their climate change commitments. And the fact that their were abstentions on the part of both the Conservatives adn the NDP is hardly indicative of future performance.

In what I consider to be an ultimately boneheaded move, they rejected any outreach to the NDP, rubbing their noses in the notion that they don't need their support, offering not even a soupcon of allyship.

The opposition NDP wanted the minority Liberal government to devote roughly $10 billion to affordable housing, pharmacare and other priorities, but was rebuffed ahead of Monday’s crucial budget vote, the Star has learned. 

{A} source said the NDP wanted the funding to come from new revenue, as well as by shifting planned spending from areas like national defence, to which the budget devotes almost $82 billion over the next five years.

Now, no one would expect the government to simply acquiesce in the NDP request, but something other than a complete dismissal might have laid the groundwork for future collaboration. Was it arrogance that informed this rejection?  I think so, and it may presage a time in the future when the Liberals might need opposition support and won't have it. Consider this:

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet slam[ed] the government for failing to clinch support from another party. He alluded Tuesday to many battles to come before the Liberals presented a massive, 637-page omnibus budget bill that will have to travel through the minority Parliament in the coming weeks. 

Blanchet suggested the general election averted in Monday’s vote could now occur as soon as next spring. 

“At each step of this long process, including the committee, they will have to start all over again because they were not good partners for anybody,” Blanchet said. 

“They exploited the momentary weaknesses of everybody and this is not how policy should be done, so I believe it will come bite their ass.” 

It would also appear that not all Liberals are onside with the government's intransigence, one MP arguing they

didn’t spend enough time trying to attract support from other parties ahead of Monday’s vote. Instead, the MP said the government seemed preoccupied with floor-crossers, after Nova Scotia’s Chris d’Entremont defected to the Liberals and a second Tory — Edmonton’s Matt Jeneroux — abruptly announced he will resign his seat. 

I think one of the problems with this current iteration of the Liberals is that they are led by a technocrat who fails to appreciate the fact that politics is the "art of the possible." One hopes that before it is too late for his government, Mr. Carney will learn that hard fact of life.

Alberta Bound?

Whether your answer is "yes" or '"no" to the title question will likely depend upon your political sensibilities, values,  and capacity for discernment. The following ad, from a group called Rise of Alberta, can serve as a litmus test for where you stand. If you find yourself nodding in agreement with it, you may consider making the move. If, however, you discern considerable hyperbole and a paranoid suspicion of Ottawa, you might want to remain where you are.

The Democrats Do It Again

Well, it was good while it lasted, but as they are often wont to do, the U.S. Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Eight of them (technically seven and one independent who caucuses with the Democrats) voted with Republicans to reopen government after a lengthy shutdown. In my view, it is a big mistake.

Daily were Americans buffeted with news of the toll the shutdown was taking - long delays and cancellations at airports, federal employees going without pay, food assistance (SNAP benefits) ended, etc. All of this was taking place as the Democrats finally seemed to have found their footing - an issue that affects about 24 million Americans: The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and the subsidies that keep it affordable.

Long a foe of anything faintly smelling of socialism that benefits the people (as my late father-in-law would say, "Socialism only for the rich; capitalism for the rest), Republicans far prefer to see masses of Americans either pay much higher insurance rates or go without. In other words, the health and lives of those they purport to serve mean little to them. And the key fact here is that the majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown.

My own sense was that the Republicans were feeling real heat. Seeing reports of the delays, lineups and cancellations at airports led me to conclude that they would never allow the shutdown to extend to their Thanksgiving, which, next to Christmas, is the busiest time for air travel and a holiday that seems almost sacred to Americans.

Despite that, the aforementioned eight voted to reopen government. And what did they get in return? A 'promise' to hold a Senate vote on the subsidies in December. Here's how Nevada's Democratic Senator Jackie Rosen put it:

"Trump and his Republican cronies on Capitol Hill do not give a damn about hurting working people, and their conduct over the last month has been nothing short of appalling," she said. "The concession we've been able to extract to get closer to extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits is a vote on a bill drafted and negotiated by Senate Democrats. Let me be clear: I will keep fighting like hell to ensure we force Republicans to get this done." 

How charmingly or willfully naive. There is nothing to indicate that a vote would succeed in extending the subsidies, given the composition of the Senate. As well, there is the troubling matter of the House of Representatives. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La, hasn’t agreed to a matching House vote on the issue, making the chances of an extension increasingly bleak.

As well, the Democrats who voted to reopen government have exposed fissures within the party, reinforcing the notion that they are a party not yet ready for prime time politics.

The fury at eight Democratic-aligned senators who voted with Republicans to end the longest-ever government shutdown highlights the dramatic shift in the Democratic Party less than a year into President Donald Trump’s second term, as voters and lawmakers argue the party needs to adopt more ruthless tactics to counter the president and claw its way back to power.

The reaction to the two votes on Sunday and Monday, which provide a pathway for the government to reopen after more than 40 days, was fierce. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) called for Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer to be replaced, suggesting he was an ineffective leader even though Schumer opposed the government funding measure. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries blasted the eight senators and said House Democrats would not support a government funding bill that did not include the health care measures the party has demanded. Democratic advocacy groups, politically vulnerable lawmakers, potential 2028 presidential candidates and voters all followed suit, lambasting those in their party they saw as caving.

All of this also reinforces the reality that America is a country in steep and rapid decline. To willfully abandon those in need is yet another look at the man behind the curtain, who answers to the highest bidders, not the average citizen.