They Are Contemptible

As I have written before, there seems to be no bottom to the depths to which Republicans in general, and one in particular, will descend. In the aftermath of the killing of right-wing star Charlie Kirk, this is what Trump, fulminating with righteous hypocrisy, had to say:

You don't need me to discuss the implication of his speech, but it certainly sounds like, in politicizing Kirk's killing (something Republicans always accuse Dems of during after school shootings), Trump intends to bring a new reign of terror and repression upon Amerika, especially with regard to free speech, political and media opposition to his agenda, etc. 

And his fury seems quite partisan. As the NYT observes, 

Mr. Trump made no mention of attacks on Democrats, including Melissa Hortman, the former Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, who was killed in June.

The question in my mind is how the Democrats will respond to this. My suspicion, given their spinelessness, is that they will condemn the violence but be very wary of criticizing Trump's speech, their shrinking political fortunes uppermost in their mind. 

In other words, there will likely be no one to oppose what is to come.

No More 'Good Guys'?

When we look at the world today, it is undeniable that the most powerful countries are led by evil men. Russia's Putin, Amerika's Trump and China's Xi  JinPing readily come to mind, as does Benjamin Netanyahu leading the nuclear State of Israel. And I think it would be to declare the obvious that none of the aforementioned care about their people, except as means to certain ends.

While we expect authoritarian rulers to see their people as fodder, I have never really had a sense until now of a specific war being waged against the people of the U.S. by its government. To be sure, almost all American governments have cruelly abused their poor, their disenfranchised, their minorities. And of course that demographic has always provided the bulk of fodder in all of Amerika's post-WW11 military misadventures. However, one could almost have believed the abuse was rooted in the American disdain for the downtrodden (see the American Dream) as well as its historically racist nature.

However, to me it now appears that a wider battle is being waged by Amerika against its general population,  a kind of social eugenics, in which a wide swath of a credulous population will be gradually eliminated, While it might seem a conspiratorial thought, there is evidence to support my odd thesis.

Consider, for example the changes at the National Institutes of Health, led by the unhinged Bobby Kennedy Jr. Unqualified ethically, morally, intellectually or temperamentally, Kennedy, with the tacit permission of Trump, is doing his damndest to undermine the health of Americans. Claiming he wants to make America healthy again, he has systematically cut all manner of research grants.

Between late February and early April 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) executed an unprecedented wave of grant terminations, impacting a total of 694 active grants. 

The broad distribution of terminated grants demonstrates a systemic reshaping of NIH’s research portfolio. Nearly every institute experienced cutbacks, but the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) bore a disproportionate share of the reductions, accounting for 30% of the total funding loss. This notable concentration of cuts suggests targeted policy shifts or budgetary realignments that may adversely affect ongoing efforts to address persistent health disparities among minority populations.

Then, of course, there is Kennedy's broad undermining of confidence in vaccinations, recently claiming, for example, that healthy people have no need of vaccines. It is a position that led to him being excoriated this past week during a senate hearing over his tenure thus far:

The Senate’s second-highest ranking Republican, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY)—a physician—delivered a blistering rebuke of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., accusing him of advancing vaccine policies that undermine public health. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy—also a physician—also harshly questioned the HHS chief.

“Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearings, you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines,” Senator  Barrasso began. “Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned.”

"The public has seen measles outbreaks, leadership with the National Institutes of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines, the recently confirmed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired. Americans don’t know who to rely on,” Barrasso exclaimed.

How many more will die or become permanently disabled because the NIHS is led by a lunatic?

And that lunacy is filtering down to the state level. Florida, under the banner of freedom for all, has made a decision.

Florida will move to end all vaccine mandates in the state, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced Wednesday.

The move would make Florida the first state to end a longstanding – and constitutionally upheld – practice of requiring certain vaccines for school students.

The state health department will immediately move to end all non-statutory mandates in the state, Ladapo said at a news conference. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was also at the event, said state lawmakers would then look into developing a legislative package to end any remaining mandates.

Ladapo [a Black man] said that every vaccine mandate “is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery.”

Now, there is much more evidence I could adduce to support my contention, but let's cut to the chase. Who benefits if there is a substantial die-off of Americans? It is the real movers and shakers of society, the powerful elite, who neither respect nor need "the masses" and really don't care for the 'burden' of taxation to take care of them. With large numbers ultimately eliminated, that burden will be much reduced.

You might quite legitimately ask, "But what if substantial numbers of MAGATS perish? Who will vote for Trump or his successor if not the credulous? To that I can only say such a question is predicated on the belief that meaningful elections will continue in Amerika. That is an assumption I am not, at this point, prepared to grant you.

The Return Of Gunboat 'Diplomacy'

I haven't had a lot of spare time of late to write, and today will see but a brief post to observe the following: as the U.S. continues its transition to domestic fascism, it is not forgetting the rest of the world in the process.

News comes daily about the sight of soldiers in the streets, with the national guard this past summer in Los Angeles and currently occupying D.C. Herr Trump promises, despite the legal obstacles, to dispatch them to Democratic cities like Chicago and Baltimore, despite plummeting crime rates. Of course red states are currently being ignored, many of which have higher murder rates.

But not satisfied to subjugate the domestic populace, the mad king is bent on imposing his rule on the world. Tariffs are assuaging part of that imperialistic impulse, but he certainly plainly intends to use his mighty military toys where he deems fit.

Having already labelled Venezuela a narco state and repository of terrible gangs such as Tren de Argua  (Orwell's Goldstein of the current era), it seems that all force is now being legitimized to stop this scourge, as evidenced by by the American ships positioned off of that South American country's shores. 

But what fun is having such military might if you don't use it? The Yanks answered that one quickly enough, firing upon a boat purportedly carrying drugs bound for America.

The president said in a Truth Social social media post that 11 people were killed in the U.S. military operation, and he posted a video of a small vessel appearing to explode in flames.

"The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States," Trump said in the posting. "No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America."

Now, I have no sympathy for drug cartels and their trafficking, but several questions need to be raised here: 

• how did the Americans know the boat was carrying drugs?
• how did they identify the Tren de Aragua gang as the occupants of the boat?
• why did they not simply stop the boat and arrest the alleged culprits?

Ultimately, the most important question is the one involving due process. While many Americans may mindlessly cheer the obliteration of drug smugglers, they also need to recognize that the elimination of due process is happening in their own country, as we see in the mass deportations currently underway. 

But then again, perhaps the mindless, aka the MAGATS, are okay with that too.

Amerika: Truths Its People Refuse To Acknowledge

The following was sent to me by a friend, and, set in hard relief against other countries, it defines its true nature.

“AMERICA IS A GUN” by Brian Bilston

England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun.
Brazil is football on the sand.
Argentina, Maradona’s hand.
Germany, an oompah band.
America is a gun.
Holland is a wooden shoe.
Hungary, a goulash stew.
Australia, a kangaroo.
America is a gun.
Japan is a thermal spring.
Scotland is a highland fling.
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.

---

Paul Millicheap, who writes as Brian Bilston, is a British poet and author. Born in Birmingham, he studied at the University of Wales, Swansea,

The following was sent by another friend, and serves the same purpose as the above.

Rewriting History

Carrying the self-proclaimed title of 'the greatest country in the world' must be an onerous task, yet not one Don Trump is flinching from. After all, such a country bears unusual responsibilities in arenas such as truth, morality, culture, science and history.

The problem arises when you have a president that embodies no virtues, only a full-throated abuse of power. That power is seeing Ameika's rapid devolution into a fascist state where the only truth is that promulgated by the leader. Now, American museums are under attack as Dear Leader attempts to rewrite history.

U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday he will pressure the Smithsonian Institution — a premier museum, education and research complex for American history and culture — to accept his demands, just like he did with colleges and universities by threatening to cut federal funding.

When asked if Trump would threaten funding cuts to the Smithsonian based on the findings, a White House official said, "President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable."

The White House said last week it will lead an internal review of some Smithsonian museums after Trump earlier this year accused it of spreading "anti-American ideology" and raised alarm among civil rights advocates.

Here is what the oaf wrote on his Truth Social vanity project:

"The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

You can learn more about his crackdown here.

Amerika has always been an intolerant country with an addiction to myth rather than truth, but at least some have tried to alter its worst propensities by learning about its history. Thanks to Don Trump, that will become much more difficult from hereon in.

 

A Small Victory In A Much Larger Battle

While many see the victory of CUPE and Air Canada flight attendants as a major achievement (and it is), perhaps it is better to see  the win within the context of a much larger battle, one that will be fought on many fronts and over many years. There are several issues this labour conflict opened up, from the far too cosy relationship between government and corporations to corporate contempt for customers to massive efforts to undermine, perhaps even eliminate, the bargaining process.

There are many things to speak of in today's post, but I'll start with what we know thus far about the deal struck between Air Canada and its flight attendants. CBC reports the following:

... the tentative deal secures Air Canada flight attendants at least 60 minutes of ground pay, for their time before each flight, at a rate of 50 per cent of a flight attendant's hourly rate, with that rate increasing five per cent each year.

The airline is also proposing immediate pay increases of 12 per cent for flight attendants with five years or less of service with Air Canada, and eight per cent for those who have worked at the airline longer than that. Salaries would increase three per cent in the second year, 2.5 per cent in the third year and 2.75 per cent in the fourth year.

CBC News has learned that the only thing that the flight attendants will vote on are the proposed salary increases.

While not as generous as many would have hoped, the tentative deal at least represents a start on the road to wage redress. More intractable, however, are other issues, one of which this letter from The Star examines:

Make no mistake, Air Canada management was at fault

CUPE says Air Canada strike to continue, defying order, Aug. 18

I am a retired senior who is sick and tired of the manner that big business and big government get away with bullying ordinary folks and depriving them of their rights.

Air Canada had no intention of bargaining in good faith. They decided to precipitate a shut down by walking away from the table and locking out their employees to force the government to act. There seemed little attempt by the airline to address the most egregious aspects of their offer to their employees.

I think it’s time for our government to act more responsibly on labour issues instead of arbitrarily ordering workers back to work with mandatory arbitration as requested by an employer. What they have done is to try force workers to accept what the airline dictated until an arbitrated settlement is imposed; most of which have favored the employers position in almost every case over the last several years. Employers are using the government to avoid bargaining in good faith. This is not negotiating.

It’s time for the government to show some backbone and let employers know this is not a legitimate negotiating tactic. There should be penalties for either party that fails to negotiate in good faith, especially when arbitration is solicited by one of them. Employers like Air Canada and the government have both violated workers’ rights to a negotiated settlement under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Robert Holden, Keswick, Ont.

The letter-writer's observations are echoed in a Star editorial, which castigates the Carney government's response to the strike, which 

showed the folly of a federal government that not only overreached, but also showcased a callous disregard for those fighting the scourge of unpaid work, further inflaming an already volatile situation.

The editorial acknowledges there may be occasions for government intervention,  

 ]b]ut the threshold should be extremely high, and governments should be extremely reluctant. Ottawa’s haste here was both unseemly and counterproductive.

Hajdu invoked Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code, directing the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to order the flight attendants back on the job and sending the dispute to binding arbitration in the name of “industrial peace.” In so doing, she made a mockery of the collective bargaining process in this country. Once again, a federally regulated employer could treat a labour dispute without any urgency knowing the federal government would jump in and provide them with cover. Why negotiate in good faith?  

There are ongoing challenges to Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code, but they will take time to wend there way through the courts. The government's precipitous invocation of the section now guarantees a harsh spotlight on it. Canadians, as a rule, do value fairness.

I'll end this post with one final observation. The strike, and people's consequent efforts to book on other airlines, laid bare the nature of unfettered, predatory capitalism. There were numerous media reports of 'surge' pricing as demand for tickets on othe airlines grew. One expert I saw on television news said that is simply the market functioning as it should: it will charge whatever people are willing to pay.

I am not the only to find this practice offensive, the absence of any ethical/moral considerations deeply disturbing. A customer

shared photos of a one-way ticket on Aug. 22 from Edinburgh, Scotland to Toronto for over $2,500, while the same flight is usually available on WestJet and other Canadian airlines for under $1,000.

“Let’s never forget that when Air Canada was shut down, the other airlines didn’t help. They instead price gouged Air Canada’s customers. You could have gained customers for life, instead you price gouged them four–five times the fare value. WestJet, this is despicable and short sighted,” the customer said on X. 

As the post gained traction online, WestJet then responded in the comments, claiming that prices automatically go up with increasing demand, which is a standard practice for all airlines. 

A standard practice, eh? Maybe, but hardly a defensible one. But of course, it is only the average person who is most affected by such gouging, so I guess all is well in the world that corporations and their captured governments move in. 

NEW UPDATE: Is This The Solution?

I continue to be befuddled by the fact that airlines can mandate unpaid work for its flight attendants. A check of the Canadian Labour Code shed no light, as it would seem the only ones excluded from the payment are interns, who are not considered employees under the code.

The answer would seem to be to legislate whatever changes are necessary to eliminate this gross inequity. And if you clicked on the link in my previous post, you will know that David Climenhaga is advocating such. And given the attendants' adamant refusal to go back to work, despite a Canadian Industrial Relations Board order to do so, immediate action is required.

Let's be honest here. The Carney-led Liberal government has no one but itself to blame for the imbroglio. In a CBC report dated August 13, before the strike, 

flight attendants from a number of carriers have been calling on the federal government to make changes to the Canada Labour Code to address unpaid work.

"It's not a huge ask, really. All people are asking for is to be paid for their time on the job," CUPE spokesperson Hugh Pouliot told CBC News.

"It's a very problematic situation, not just for Air Canada flight attendants, but flight attendants across the board."

And I suspect that last sentence represents one of the sticking points for the government. As I wrote in the past many times, under Justin' Trudeau's leadership, there was nary a corporate entity the Liberals didn't love. If the same holds true of its current leadership, they will be loathe to do what must be done to end the dispute: promise to pass legislation as soon as Parliament resumes that will rectify the egregious exploitation of labour currently practised by all Canadian airlines, i.e., corporate entities, and make it retroactive to the time they return to work. Such a good-faith gesture, I think, would be well-received by the union, the CUPE leadership and, most importantly, the Canadian public, which strongly supports the attendants' cause. 

For their part, a majority of Canadians are calling on the airline to pay up before the planes tilt up and compensate service crew for the full breadth of their flight duties.

We also have to remember something.

Both the Conservatives and NDP introduced bills last parliamentary session that would have changed the Labour Code to ensure flight attendants are paid for pre- and post-flight duties. But both bills died when the House was dissolved earlier this year.

 Pouliot said it's encouraging to see opposition parties supporting the changes, but said it's "tragic and confounding" that the Liberals haven't backed the move.

"I think you would be looking at a fundamentally different situation at Air Canada right now if the Liberals — a year and a half ago — had decided to play ball with the other parties," he said.

However, there is evidence to suggest the government isn't that keen on ending airlines' modern slave practices. Again, before the strike actually began, 

When asked by CBC News, a spokesperson from Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu's office didn't comment on whether the Liberals would support changes to the Labour Code to address flight attendants' concerns. But they encouraged Air Canada and CUPE to reach an agreement.

The damage to the government's reputation cannot be minimized, especially given that the other parties see the present situation as iniquitous. 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Conservative labour critic Kyle Seeback wrote a letter to Hajdu last week calling for the Liberals to make the Labour Code changes.

"No other federally regulated worker would accept being on the job without being paid and neither should flight attendants. It's time to end this outdated and unfair practice," their letter reads.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner reiterated her party's stance.

"As somebody who is a frequent flyer, I think they should be paid for [pre- and post-flight duties]," Rempel Garner told reporters on Parliament Hill.

"I hope that the union and management can come to an agreement on this, but certainly the principles that were contained in that bill last year are things we stand behind as a party."

Unless the Liberal government wants to continue to be schooled by the Conservatives and condemned by both the air attendants and the flying public, they must act with dispatch. 

UDATE: Is this the amateur hour? Is this really the best the Liberals can do here? Is it an admission of gross ministerial incompetence? Was Hadju absent from the last session of Parliament when two parties introduced bills to change the Labour Code? Or is it just another example of the contempt government has for the people it 'serves'?

 

Patti Hadju is planning to investigate allegations of unpaid work? Lord, save us from these duplicitous, benighted fools!

LATEST UPDATE: It appears, after negotiating throughout the night, that a tentative deal has been struck.

CUPE, which represents more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants, said that after nine hours of talks with the assistance of the chief mediator appointed by the federal government, the deal struck will be presented to its membership, who will have an opportunity to ratify it.

Among the sticking points for the union was the issue of pay for work performed while planes are on the ground. While not elaborating on the issue, the union said in a statement provided to CBC News that "unpaid work is over." 

 

UPDATED: A Craven Capitulation To Corporate Canada

To say I am beside myself with disgust and loathing for our 'new' Liberal government would be an understatement. That is not to say, however, that I am the least bit surprised, except perhaps by the speed with which it capitulated to its corporate overseers.

By now, I'm sure most know that the back to work/compulsory arbitration order came from Jobs Minister Patty Hadju a mere 12 hours after Air Canada flight attendants struck. This ensures that the employees will continue, for the time being, working for free for the carrier while on the ground until the arbitration process is complete. And that process will likely leave unpaid work, the major element of the strike, unresolved.

Cupe has responded by accusing the of Liberal Party of "violating our charter rights". They allege that forcing a bargain to end the strike will "ensure unresolved issues will continue to worsen by kicking them down the road".

Also noteworthy is the justification Hadju used for so precipitously ending the job action, a justification that eerily echoes the kind of rhetoric and rationale Trump uses to legitimize his illegal tariffs on the world. 

Trump, you may recall, justified his unilateral imposition of the import duties by declaring a national economic emergency. Hadju mimicked him in her own justification:

"This is not a decision that I have taken lightly but the potential for immediate negative impact on Canadians and our economy is simply too great," Hajdu said at a news conference in Ottawa Saturday. 

And reminiscent of the old Groucho Marx line,  "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes," Hadju states:

"I absolutely reject the notion that our government is anti-union," she said.

"In a case like this, where multiple efforts have been made to conclude an agreement that satisfies both parties, and it is clear that they are at an impasse, it is very clear they need some help in arbitrating the final items."

Many are not buying this: 

"It really is a troubling development," said Barry Eidlin, an expert on labour and social movements at McGill University.

"Section 107 basically just allows the labour minister this unilateral power to intervene to order workers back to work against their will. And that is extremely concerning."

And the crux of the matter is this:

"We have a real concern that employers are getting the message that they can simply surface bargain, let the issues run to impasse and at that point the government will intervene," said Chris Roberts, director of social and economic policy at the Canadian Labour Congress.

So there we have it. Yet another iteration of the Liberals as Conservative Lite. If I were PP and his pals, I would be starting to despair about any hopes of early return to power.

BREAKING NEWS: Well, things are getting very interesting. 

Air Canada flight attendants will defy the back-to-work order and remain on strike after the federal government ordered binding arbitration to end the work stoppage, the Canadian Union of Public Employees told Radio-Canada on Sunday.

The union, which represents the 10,000 flight attendants, has accused federal Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu of caving to Air Canada's demands.

"I don't think anyone's in the mood to go back to work," Lillian Speedie, vice-president of CUPE Local 4092, told CBC's News Network at a picket line outside Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga on Sunday.

"To legislate us back to work 12 hours after we started? I'm sorry, snowstorms have shut down Air Canada for longer than we were allowed to strike."

 CUPE maintained it opposed arbitration, instead preferring to solve the impasse through bargaining. It said her decision "sets a terrible precedent."

"The Liberal government is rewarding Air Canada's refusal to negotiate fairly by giving them exactly what they wanted," the union wrote...

Stay tuned for whatever happens next. 

UPDATE: David Climehaga does his usual excellent work at Alberta Politics. Take a look at his latest post to see his take on the entire issue.

 

UPDATED: Will They Or Won't They?

No doubt, the temptation is great. With a stroke of a pen, the Liberal government could curry massive favour from both powerful corporate forces and the flying public, ordering striking Air Canada flight attendants back to work pending binding arbitration, whereby the labour dispute is put before an arbitrator for final resolution.

Such a decision would be a massive mistake and a grave injustice to collective bargaining in general and the striking personnel in particular, yet I fear that is precisely what our 'new' government will do. 

Consider the powerful forces calling for arbitration: Air Canada itself, which estimates a revenue loss of $50-60 million dollars per day. As well, 

[b]usiness groups have meanwhile warned of the damage a protracted dispute will do to the economy and have called on the government to consider all its options for ending the dispute — including imposing binding arbitration.

The request for  arbitration was sent to Jobs Minister Patti Hadju, who, for now, wants the two sides to keep bargaining. But how much real bargaining can there be if the hope/expectation is for government intervention?

The previous government, led by Justin Trudeau, ordered binding arbitration for both striking railways and B.C. port workers; in both cases, it could be argued they did so in the national interest, given the role both play in the economy and. that they exist almost as essential services. The same, however, cannot be said about air travel, especially when alternatives to Air Canada exist.

Brock University labour professor Larry Savage has this to say about the threat of arbitration:

“Management at Air Canada is taking a strategic cue from employers in the ports and the railways,” said Savage. 

While he said there is “a long tradition” in Canada of government intervention in labour disputes, Savage said the increasing reliance on Section 107 of the labour code is “troublesome” because it allows the minister to take action without any parliamentary debate, as would be necessary for governments to pass back-to-work legislation. 

“It also highlights how easily collective bargaining rights can be trampled on,” said Savage. 

“When the government swoops in only at the behest of employers, it undermines our entire system of labour relations.” 

The response from CUPE, the flight attendants union, was unequivocal.

The Air Canada Component of CUPE has respectfully urged Employment Minister Patty Hajdu not to intervene pursuant to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code thereby permitting collective bargaining to continue and allowing the parties to negotiate a resolution.

The integrity of the collective bargaining process depends on allowing the parties to reach a resolution through free and fair negotiations, without undue interference.

Rather than continuing to negotiate in good faith, Air Canada appears to have anticipated government intervention and has opted to suspend meaningful discussions, contrary to its legal obligation to bargain in good faith.

On August 12, 2025, Air Canada unilaterally declared an impasse and withdrew from the bargaining table. It has not returned. On August 12, 2025, unbeknownst to the Union, the Company made an extraordinary and premature request to the Minister seeking the application of section 107 to prevent a strike or lockout.

It is clear from Air Canada’s submissions to the Minister that it had planned to withdraw from bargaining and ask the Minister to interfere with the bargaining process.

The mere prospect of ministerial intervention has had a chilling effect on Air Canada’s obligation to bargain in good faith. Air Canada’s request for intervention should be denied. Such a decision would reaffirm the principles of free collective bargaining and compel Air Canada to return to the bargaining table – where it ought to be – and engage meaningfully in negotiations, where it is likely that the Parties may be able to reach an agreement.

You can read the full statement at the link above.

Finally, I leave you with a satirical video, a link to which a commentator left on my previous post that perhaps puts things into their proper perspective:

UPDATE: Well, they did. Captured as they are by big business, the Carney government has announced the end of the strike by mandating binding arbitration. You can read this pathetic tale using the link.

We Condemn Slavery, But Also Kind Of Like It

No person in his or her right mind would favour slavery. Other than white supremacists and Christian nationalists (neither of who meet the criterion of the first sentence), no one sees anything benign about exploiting people's labour and paying them little to nothing in return.

Yet many also kind of like it. Consider how we so readily will summon Doordash, UberEats, etc., likely with the full knowledge that the couriers of such are living on subsistence wages. Of course, that is not really slavery, since some remuneration is granted, however paltry.

There is, however, one field of endeavour that comes pretty close to meeting the definition of slavery. Who is being held in bondage? Air flight attendants.

On my last flight, there was a 3:40 delay taking off. Despite my efforts, thanks to an Air Passenger Bill of Rights as porous as Swiss cheese, we received no compensation. The true victims of this delay, however, were the Air Canada flight attendants. During this protracted delay, they had to deal with cranky passengers and try to meet their needs, all while receiving absolutely no compensation. As you probably know by now, attendants are paid only for their time in the air. Passenger seating, safety demonstrations, etc, are duties conducted gratis.

And it is this iniquitous inequity the Air Canada attendants, represented by, CUPE, are prepared to strike over.

Air Canada says it will begin cancelling flights on Thursday ahead of a potential strike that could see more than 10,000 flight attendants walk off the job this weekend.

The country's largest airline said the gradual suspension of flights — which would see more cancellations on Friday, before a complete cessation of flying by Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge by the weekend — would allow for an orderly shutdown.

About 130,000 customers a day could be affected by a disruption, according to Air Canada.

Air Canada, like many other major airlines, doesn't currently compensate its flight attendants for the work they do before boarding and after deplaning, according to CUPE. Ground tasks include things like safety protocols and assisting passengers.

The starting salary for the attendants could most charitably described as abysmal, and their paid work, on average, amounts to 75-80 hours per month.

According to the union, entry level pay for a flight attendant is about $1,950 a month.

And the 'free labour they provide is extensive: 

They are not reimbursed for assisting people who have mobility problems, running the boarding process, helping with deplaning, or even pre-flight safety checks, work the union estimates comes out to an average of 35 hours a week for which the average flight attendants is not paid.

Now much is being made about how the carrier has requested arbitration which the union refused. As well, they are being offered a 38% increase over four years, which is misleading, as that figure includes improvements to pensions and benefits. The real sticking point in all of this, however, is the issue of unpaid work, for which the carrier has offered an anemic response:

The carrier has proposed paying flight attendants 50 per cent of their wage for work done on the ground, but the union is asking for 100 per cent.

"Air Canada is not an anomaly in this, but coming out of a 10-year deal, this is something that we're trying to correct," said [Wesley] Lesosky [president of the Air Canada component of CUPE], adding there's been a "big push globally" for this kind of compensation to become the standard.

The literalist may say there is no slavery here, since all cabin attendants are there by choice. That's one way to look at it. But on the other hand, one could say that about many workplaces where people toil but have little influence over their conditions. For the sake of survival, they labour there. After all, almost everyone needs to work. If we are lucky, we land in a congenial company, but that is not the case for many. 

Is it really such a revolutionary thing to suggest all, including cabin attendants, are entitled to both fairness and dignity in their place of work?

The American Taliban

 I'm not a white nationalist; I'm not a fascist;  I'm not a racist; I'm not a misogynist.

- Doug Wilson, senior pastor of Christ Church in Idaho

None of what follows should be at all surprising to those who regularly follow the devolution of the United States into an autocratic/theocratic state. Also not surprising is that Pastor Doug is a favourite of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has gone on record as saying that women have no place in military combat roles. As it turns out, he sees little place for women in any role outside of housewife and baby-maker, as evidenced by his full-throated endorsement of Wilson.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reposted and praised a video interview of a self-described Christian nationalist pastor whose church doesn't believe women should be allowed to vote.

Doug Wilson, senior pastor of Christ Church in Idaho, said during the interview with CNN that, "Women are the kind of people that people come out of."

"The wife and mother, who is the chief executive of the home, is entrusted with three or four or five eternal souls," he continued.

 In the CNN interview, Wilson also defended previous comments where he had said there was mutual affection between slaves and their masters. He also said that sodomy should be recriminalized. The Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in 2003.

In his repost of the interview on the platform X, Hegseth added, "All of Christ for All of Life."

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told NPR in an emailed statement on Saturday that Hegseth is a "proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches," which was founded by Wilson.

"The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson's writings and teachings," Parnell also wrote.

Should you have the inclination and the stomach, you can watch the CNN interview here. 

In response to this, Hillary Clinton responded:

You know how people called women hysterical for predicting the right wing would take down Roe v. Wade (which they've done) and then attack access to birth control (which they're doing)? Hear me when I say that women's very right to vote is next.

I've always held the view that everyone is entitled to his or her perspectives and opinions, as long as they don't infringe upon others. Clearly, however, the Christian nationalist movement has its forceful designs on all of America; indeed, they ape the Taliban in their fervour to suppress women, and they see it as their holy mission to convert the nation to that retrograde position. 

One cannot help but remember another holy mission of an earlier time. It was called the Crusades.