This Should Keep Them Out, Eh?

It puzzles me that people still choose to visit the United States. Each day offers a myriad of reasons to avoid that diseased country, and although the number of Canadians going there is significantly down, people still go. Perhaps there are elements of denial about reality in the tourism decisions people make. Perhaps some blithely assume that because they are not (yet) among the targeted victims of an increasing unhinged administration, they are safe. In any event, all should be aware that the number of 'undesirables' is increasing.

Tourists to the United States would have to reveal their social media activity from the last five years, under new Trump administration plans.

The mandatory new disclosures would apply to the 42 countries whose nationals are currently permitted to enter the US without a visa, including longtime US allies Britain, France, Australia, Germany and Japan.

In a notice published on Tuesday, the US Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) said it would also require any telephone numbers used by visitors over the same period, and any email addresses used in the last decade, as well as face, fingerprint, DNA and iris biometrics. It would also ask for the names, addresses, birthdates and birthplaces of family members, including children.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it abhorrent that the state can invade visitors' privacy to such a degree, the price to be paid for proving you are a 'worthy' visitor. And this has been in the works since Trump was re-elected, when he signed an executive order:

[T]he US president called for restrictions to ensure visitors to the US “do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles”.

The US has already started squeezing foreign tourism in other ways, slapping an additional $100 fee per foreign visitor per day to visit national parks, such as the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, on top of the regular admission fees. Nor will national parks have free admission on Martin Luther King Jr Day any longer: they will now only be free to visit on Trump’s birthday.

Now, defenders and supporters of this lunacy, i.e., the MAGATS, would undoubtedly argue that if you have nothing to hide,  what's the problem. Or, of course, they could say if you don't like it, don't visit. Many are, in fact, opting for the latter.

California tourism authorities are predicting a 9% decline in foreign visits to the state this year, while Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles reported a 50% fall in foot traffic over the summer. Las Vegas, too, has been badly hit by a decline in visits, worsened by the rise of mobile gambling apps.

Statistics Canada said Canadian residents who made a return trip to the US by car dropped 36.9% in July 2025 compared with the same month in 2024, while commercial airline travel from Canada dropped by 25.8% in July compared with the previous year, as relations between the two countries plummeted.

Who else is on the proscribed list?

As recently as last week, the administration told consular officials to deny visas to anyone who might have worked in factchecking or content moderation – for example, at a social media company – accusing them in blanket terms of being “responsible for, or complicit in, censorship or attempted censorship of protected expression in the US”.

I'll leave the final word with Sarah McLaughlin, a member of the free speech advocacy group Foundation For Individual Right and Expression:

“Those who hope to experience the wonders of the United States – from Yellowstone to Disneyland to Independence Hall – should not have to fear that self-censorship is a condition of entry” ...

 “Requiring temporary visitors here for a vacation or business to surrender five years of their social media to the US will send the message that the American commitment to free speech is pretense, not practice. This is not the behavior of a country confident in its freedoms.”

And as we are seeing, those freedoms are now more of an illusion than a reality. 

 

Good For A Giggle

I have absolutely nothing to add to this, other than to observe that America's debasement continues apace.

‪Republicans Against Trumpism‬

 ‪@rpsagainsttrump.bsky.social‬

· 1h

Trump, five days apart. A pathological liar.

Violence In The Classroom

I am a long-retired high school teacher who saw his share of unpleasantness in the classroom, but the events currently transpiring across the country are nothing I ever had to confront.

Recently, The Globe and Mail offered a detailed examination of widespread violence in  schools, and that includes violence perpetrated against both fellow students and teachers. Fortunately, because we are not a culture that worships the gun, as do the denizens of the Benighted States, most of that violence is physical and verbal, although dangerous weapons are not completely unknown.

Because the causes are myriad, there are no simple solutions. Poor parenting, frightened staff members, feckless administrators and large classes with few supports all contribute to the problem, and I shall excerpt just one paragraph from the piece that sheds some light:

The first step in addressing violence in schools is to puncture the culture of silence that surrounds it. Nobody on the ground wants to talk. Teachers are afraid they will be accused of incompetence or of betraying student confidentiality. Principals don’t want to alarm parents or to expose their own weakness as leaders. School boards worry about legal action. Victims fear retribution.

While those were problems even in my day, I can only imagine they have intensified. My retired teacher friends often lament the lack of institutional memory among today's staff, a memory that includes standing up to supine administrators and not being to afraid to make a fuss about problems. There were always firebrands amongs us, but today's staff, I suspect, are taught that having problems reflects badly on them and hence the impulse to let things fester. The norm has changed, and not for the better.

Globe and Mail readers offer some insights well-worth considering:

School of thought

Re “Violence in Canadian schools is reaching a tipping point. What needs to change?” (Opinion, Nov. 29): Schools are becoming more violent. Who is responsible? Well, everyone.

But it does start with parents who fail, often by example, to teach their children values such as empathy, compassion and respect for others. And it ends with parents, too.

As a former school trustee, here’s how I see that working: Teachers are unable to enforce discipline because they cannot rely on principals to back them up; principals in turn cannot count on support from administrators, who in turn cannot count on boards of trustees; elected trustees can be soft on discipline because of ideology or because they are terrified of voters, a great many of whom are parents.

This downward spiral will likely persist until those within the system get a grip and stop letting the buck be passed around. Instead, say “no” and hand it back.

Tom Masters Former Victoria school trustee; North Cowichan, B.C.

 

Before I retired, I taught in a school with a police officer stationed there on a daily basis (a school resource officer). He happened to be Black.

I witnessed the benefits as he broke down preconceived notions about the police, as well as prejudiced views about Black people. The students loved him and would often turn to him with their personal problems; he was like a big brother to them. There was no violence.

I witnessed the same interactions in a school where I did a stint as a supply teacher after retiring. That officer also happened to be Black. In both cases, the benefits were obvious.

I knew it was a big mistake when political groups insisted on terminating the program because of misguided concerns. The presence of these officers served not only to protect, but also offered fine role models for students.

Sheryl Danilowitz Toronto

It is said that the first step in solving a problem is acknowledging its existence. With so much evidence staring us in the face, it is past time to move on to the next step: addressing the violence in all ways possible. 

 

Competition For Word Of The Year

Despite the fact that rage bait has been named the world (phrase?) of the year by the Oxford University Press, I much prefer John Cleese's above word. It definitely is one for the times, eh?

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.