Utterances From A Moribund Giant (A.K.A. USA)

 

As an increasingly desperate Amerika rants and raves and deteriorates, its sense of exceptionalism largely remains intact in the minds of many. That can be the only explanation for the arrogant pontifications of the repugnant Trump envoy to Canada, Pete Hoekstra.

In his most recent upbraiding of Canada, he warned that the U.S. is watching us closely for signs of election interference:

Hoekstra warned Canadian politicians to keep their "nose out" of American politics in the weeks before the midterm elections.

Apparently, speaking truth to a nation increasingly allergic to any semblance of it is deeply offensive. Recently former prime minister Justin Trudeau displayed such temerity during a discussion at Brown University:

"There is a pattern here of doing things that are driving up prices for your consumers and not necessarily making anything better for America, by fighting with one of your oldest and best allies," Trudeau said during the conversation.

Hoekstra said if any actions by Canadians end up amounting to election interference, the United States will respond.

"We're monitoring it, we're evaluating it and if some of it becomes election interference then America will respond to it," Hoekstra said.

The Toronto Star's Andrew Phillips sees this as a classic case of projection, an example of which is a chronic liar thinking everyone else lies as well.

This is rich, coming from the representative of a president who’s made questioning Canada’s very existence (“51st state!”) into a cheap applause line at his campaign rallies. Whose own treasury secretary pumps oxygen into the Alberta separatist movement, and whose diplomats listen respectfully while those same separatists offer up Canada’s resources in return for support from Washington.

Classic projection: we’re meddling in your internal affairs (as we’ve done everywhere from Argentina to Hungary, not to mention Venezuela) so naturally we think you’re meddling in ours.

The other possibility, Phillips suggests, is that the tactics Canada has used, such as targeting red states with specific tariffs, are working. 

Canadian tariffs are hitting key industries in states like North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, Montana and Illinois. Most are so-called red states, i.e. reliably Republican, but they can see the link between Trump’s trade obsession and damage to their own economies, as well as the general inflation it fuels.

Other Canadian actions are having an effect, too. The boycott of travel to the U.S. has hit Las Vegas particularly hard. Democrats there are making much of the fact that Canadians, normally Nevada’s biggest source of foreign visitors, aren’t filling hotel rooms there. What happens in Vegas, in this case, doesn’t stay in Vegas: it spills into the midterm battle.

Phillips also suspects that Canada is being set up as a scapegoat to explain the drubbing Republicans will likely take in the mid-terms.  My own cast of mind, however, suggests something more might be at work. While lying awake early one morning, a vivid scenario came to me: after the midterms, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, refuses to allow the newly elected Representatives to be seated, citing election interference, ballot irregularities, and unsanctioned voting. He could very well say that until a full investigation is undertaken, he has a responsibility to  'protect' the integrity of the democratic process.

And his kind of election interference would be something only those who still believe in real American democracy could remedy.

MOS Guest Post: A.I. And Humanity's Future

 

Could AI really wipe us out? Sure, most of us anyway. When it comes to wiping us out we will even do the heavy lifting.

Look at it this way. When you get food what are the chances you first laid eyes on it in a supermarket? That's where we tend to get introduced to our food.

How hard would it be to derail the essential steps we don't even see? Some one has to raise the critters we love to eat. Someone else grows the crops that are transformed into our vegetables. There are essential steps along the way - production, harvesting, processing, finance, transportation. If any of those steps breaks down our grocery shelves are empty. Panic ensues. Remember when people hoarded toilet paper? Funny now but it wasn't funny then.

Could AI get to the point where it sabotages one or more aspects of the food chain on which our lives depend? We've already seen that AI can go rogue even lying to us. There's an element of malice to that. How are you feeling so far?

How long can we hold out without access to food? How strong or fragile is civil society?

Military historian, columnist and author, Gwynne Dyer, captured our dilemma in his book "Climate Wars" when he wrote that even the nicest village will slaughter its neighbours before it will allow its children to starve.

There you are.

Additional note: This MOS post seems especially pertinent, given the news that hackers were able to gain access to thousands of refrigerators in France, spoiling millions of euros' worth of food. Although this involved human agency, Given the recent warning by Anthropic that self-replicating "AI worms" could soon infest your "smart" home devices.

NAZA: Operation Elimination

My personal view for quite some time has been that Israel has every intention of exterminating the Palestinians, and a new documentary confirms what I and many others have long suspected: to madmen like Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, the Palestinians mean nothing. 

The film, produced by The Guardian, details Israel’s mass killing of civilians in Gaza, and has sent Netanyahu on a hunt for the "traitors' who were interviewed. He has demanded that various authorities, including the attorney general

“act urgently to uncover the identity of all those who are involved or appear in the libel film”.

Netanyahu also called for “the opening of a criminal investigation and prosecution for serious information security offences, criminal defamation, and harming Israel’s diplomatic and security interests”.

The filmmakers themselves are also facing substantial threats:

The Israeli government has fiercely attacked [Yuval] Abraham and [Rachel] Szor, threatening to strip them of their citizenship and accusing them of treason. Government supporters have vowed to hound the film-makers on their return to Israel and picketed Szor’s parents’ home in Savyon, chanting: “Death sentence to traitors.”

The Israeli government is, of course, following the playbook laid out by history's authoritarian regimes: suppression of the truth and persecution of the truth tellers, egregious violations of two of the most sacred principles of journalism:

 The protection of journalistic sources is a cornerstone of press freedom under international human rights standards and disclosure orders are permitted only under stringent conditions.

Ricardo Gutiérrez, the general secretary of the European Federation of Journalists, representing over 320,000 journalists, said: “These threats constitute a blatant act of intimidation against journalists who have simply been doing their job, in strict accordance with ethical standards and in the public interest. I am not surprised by this outburst, which confirms that this regime is prepared to do anything to cover up its crimes against humanity and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

As well, the Jewish state has launched a propaganda counter-offensive.

In recent days, the Israeli government has promoted an online film project that mimics the style of NAZA, in an attempt to challenge the real film’s findings. Ariel Averbuch, an Israeli attorney and army reservist who made NAZA: The Real Story, described it as an “offensive move” intended to shift the world’s focus from allegations about the Israeli military’s killing of civilians.

An old saying states, "Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie." The age in which we live, and the powerful people who commit great evil, would beg to differ. 

 

MOS Guest Post: A.I. And Humanity's Future

 

Could AI really wipe us out? Sure, most of us anyway. When it comes to wiping us out we will even do the heavy lifting.

Look at it this way. When you get food what are the chances you first laid eyes on it in a supermarket? That's where we tend to get introduced to our food.

How hard would it be to derail the essential steps we don't even see? Some one has to raise the critters we love to eat. Someone else grows the crops that are transformed into our vegetables. There are essential steps along the way - production, harvesting, processing, finance, transportation. If any of those steps breaks down our grocery shelves are empty. Panic ensues. Remember when people hoarded toilet paper? Funny now but it wasn't funny then.

Could AI get to the point where it sabotages one or more aspects of the food chain on which our lives depend? We've already seen that AI can go rogue even lying to us. There's an element of malice to that. How are you feeling so far?

How long can we hold out without access to food? How strong or fragile is civil society?

Military historian, columnist and author, Gwynne Dyer, captured our dilemma in his book "Climate Wars" when he wrote that even the nicest village will slaughter its neighbours before it will allow its children to starve.

There you are.

Yet Another Obscenity

 

Well, just as you wonder if the American nation can sink any lower into abject debasement, along comes Pete Hegseth with his newest plan to both provoke and briefly satiate the people's bloodlust.

I don't think there is much I really need to say about this. I'm sure my moral outrage over such an obscenity is shared by most of the world. And I doubt I would be correct in saying that the U.S. has finally hit rock bottom, given that Trump and his obsequious coterie have another two years in office.

Under normal circumstances, at my age two years would be  a very short time. In this case, however, that time frame seems well-nigh interminable.

Who Really Pays?

 

Although I haven't had a great deal of time lately to write, I always have time to think about things that affect our country. One of those things is the immense amount of money the Carney government is committing to, and spending on, defence and nation-building projects.

Given the obvious threat posed by an increasingly belligerent and imperialistic America, a compelling  argument can certainly be made that such expenditures are necessary. I fall into that category, but the question that bedevils me is who will wind up paying the bill? The obvious answer is the taxpayer, but that answer is perhaps too simplistic. Yes, the bill will always come due, but it would seem with Mr. Carney's latest inducements to investors means the corporate sector will be exempt in sharing that bill.

"Our goal is simple — to make Canada the most attractive place in the G7 to invest," Prime Minister Mark Carney said at the summit.

The program is an expansion of the government's earlier productivity super-deduction outlined in last year's budget, which initially extended to a limited selection of investments in things like equipment, machinery and technology. That meant only about 15 per cent of possible investments were covered initially, but the prime minister said the expansion means two-thirds of assets will now be eligible.

That now brings Canada's business marginal effective tax rate down to 6.4%. The G7 average rate, excluding our country, is 26%. This change rate reflects a huge loss in government revenue, one that cannot be replaced unless the government intends to raise tax rates for the rest of us. And that doesn't seem likely, given politicians' aversion to overtly antagonizing the people. One remembers the abandonment of changes to the Capital Gains Inclusion Rate as a useful example. 

No, the much more likely scenario is a cutback in various federal supports and programs. Please check this link to look at some of the things being 'deprioritized'. For additional information, please click here. Clearly, the cuts described will be substantial, all in the service of the government's announced priorities: defence and nation building, as discussed above. And, of course, what is on the cutting block disproportionately affects our most vulnerable. A quick overview of measures relating just to health render a vivid portrait:

The current Liberal government is in the process of making deep cuts to a long series of other federal health initiatives.

Among the health programs on Carney’s chopping block are: 

• the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); 
• the National Strategy for Drugs for Rare Diseases; 
• the Emergency Treatment Fund, which provides assistance to Indigenous communities and municipalities to deal with the opioid crisis; 
• a 10-year $6 billion federal contribution to home and community care; 
• and the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. 

There is, of course, much more involved, as you will see with the above links, but the inevitable conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Carney's nation-building program leaves little room for the development and maintenance of non-tangibles; concrete, steel and pipelines are the only things that seem to matter here.

So what is the answer to declining government revenues that will mean the gutting of much-needed programs? Unlike The Globe and Mail, which advocates for more income tax cuts and an elevation of the GST to 18%, a move that would, again, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable,  there is an elegant and simple solution to increase government revenues. It would modestly affect those most able to afford it: a 0.25% charge on stock and bond trading. Such financial transaction fees are hardly rare in the world, as this link illustrates.

How much revenue would this raise? Given the Canadian volume of trade in stocks and bonds, in theory it could be as high as $70 billion, but likely less for those who would perhaps move to other jurisdictions to avoid the fee. Nonetheless, it would be a substantial source of revenue for a government spending well beyond its means and also provide cash for people's programs that are being reduced or ended. And the beauty of the measure is that it would apply to those most able to pay it. For example, someone buying $100,000 in stocks would pay a mere $250 for the transaction,.

Sadly, I doubt such a move would be considered by our government, which seems to have mega-project stars in its eyes while being blind to the needs of the people who elected it.

 

Amidst The Tumult

 

Amidst the tumult of the trade war, it is easy to suspend one's critical thinking and simply join in the national fervour of support for Mark Carney and his initiatives. As I have written before, while I find much to applaud in the Prime Minister's initiatives, it is easy to forget that a blanket endorsement in not in anyone's best interests. 

The following letters to the editor point out a few of things we should be pondering.

A healthy economy comes from everyone paying their fair share

Doug Ford applauds Mark Carney’s new ‘mega’ deduction despite $2-billion hit to Ontario tax revenues, Sept. 16

It is correct corporate welfare isn’t working.

But why does the idea persist corporations should be taxed less?

Low corporate taxes can be seen as another form of corporate welfare. Why should Canadian individuals bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden?

This is a fallacy that needs to be challenged.

Corporations are not entities that need to be coddled. Their fundamental purpose is to generate profit. But they also depend on people — as workers, consumers and members of the communities in which they operate. They cannot generate profits without them.

Meanwhile, wages for ordinary workers have stagnated while executive compensation has risen dramatically over the past several decades. That raises a broader question about who is benefiting from the economic growth that corporate tax policy is intended to encourage.

The Fraser Institute is right that corporate welfare deserves scrutiny. But so does the assumption that keeping corporate taxes low is inherently good for society.

The real question is simple: Who should bear the tax burden, and what is a fair contribution from those who benefit from our economy?

If we’re serious about creating a prosperous economy we should be asking everyone who benefits from it to contribute their fair share — corporations and individuals alike.

Martina Wood, Mississauga

Writers from The Globe and Mail, in response to an editorial, chime in on the Carney attitude toward labour:

You applaud the Building Canada Strong Act because the legislation “rebalances” the power between unions and employers. Needless to say, employers are unanimously in favour of these reforms.

The new law would empower the government to terminate a lawful strike and impose arbitration by ministerial fiat, from behind closed doors. One would have thought any “balance” of interests would start with the fact that the government proposes to curtail a Charter right in favour of business efficiency and profit.

Moreover, the government already has the power to enact back-to-work legislation in Parliament after full public debate and discussion. Surely the existing parliamentary process brings far more transparency and accountability rather than a minister’s direction initiated by an employer’s initiative.

To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister who proposed this new law: Charter rights are not “written in pencil” to be negated by government upon the request of big corporations.

Paul Cavalluzzo CM, O.Ont, LSM; Toronto

In your support for the government’s proposed labour law reforms contained within Bill C-39, you argue that they would “only apply for disruptions with significant national impact.” Therein lies the rub.

Who gets to determine whether a strike has “significant national impact?” Presumably, the federal government will define “significant” as it sees fit.

That you cite, with approval, measures to limit the right to strike in the United States, where successive administrations have for decades rolled back the rights of both unions and workers, is downright scary.

David Bright St. Catharines, Ont.

It is easy to overlook things we don't like when we are in a battle against a deranged United States. The above letters suggest giving our government an uncritical pass is hardly in the national interest.