With Great Power Comes .... Great Abuse

 

It surely comes as no revelation that the United States, historically, has exercised less than great responsibility with its great power. Modern history is littered with examples of American-backed coups, assassinations, etc., most of which have ultimately blown up in the face of the American giant. 

However, Donald Trump's abuse of power takes it to a whole new level, given that much of it targets domestic victims. Think of the hideous deployments of ICE to murder and imprison American citizens, his throwing of suspected illegals into prison camps, his mass deportations to harsh countries, his general disdain for constitutional strictures, etc. to name but a few violations of law and decency.

It is, however, on the micro level that one is best able to see the man's depraved nature. One who often incites or encourages violence, he and his vampiric wife are yet again calling upon ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a harmless joke that dear Melania claims was an incitement to the kind of violence that erupted at the recent Correspondents Dinner. Such a stance is egregiously hypocritical and nonsensical.

Now one of Trump's poodles, FCC Chair Brendan Carr, is getting into the shakedown act, threatening the parent company of ABC, Disney, with the loss of its broadcast licences if it doesn't fall into line and terminate Kimmel. All in a day's subservience, I guess, for those who have sold their souls to the current highest bidder.

But to give the devil his proverbial due, one cannot help but be impressed /dismayed by the facility with which this dysfunctional administration responds to crises, such as the alleged assassination attempt that took place at the White House Correspondents Dinner. While it appears that the alleged assailant, Cole Allen, intended mayhem, the way it is being characterized by the administration and some media is a wonder to behold. As a retired English teacher always interested in the use of language, I was particularly taken by the description of the notes Allen sent to family members as a "manifesto." When I think of that word, I think of radicals, usually associated with left-wing radicals. To further reinforce this perception, the media were quick to point out that he had also recently attended a No Kings Rally and, most damning of all, had made a contribution to the Democrats. 

Americans are not known for their critical thinking capabilities, given as they are to reaction over cerebration. It is that national fault the Trump administration is counting on to win over or solidify hearts and minds, a daunting task indeed given Trump's plummeting polls.

To end this post on a positive note, I invite you to watch Jimmy Kimmel's defiant monologue following Melania's mendacious allegation. Even if you don't have time to watch the entire piece, check out the first few minutes of a comedian demonstrating that hs is unbowed and undaunted by the Trump administration's ongoing and egregious abuse of power.

Bears And Ad Hominems

 

It has been said that wounded bears can be particularly dangerous. They can lash out and put others in peril. Their rage often knows no bounds.

Something similar unfolded in the Ontario legislature this week. After a bruising week, our 'esteemed' premier, Doug Ford, was the wounded bear. Feeling very hard done by after reversing his decision to buy a $30 million jet, a reversal he attributed to not having more effectively communicated his need for the "gravy plane", he was particularly sensitive in the legislature on Thursday, resorting to that lowest of insults and violations of logic, the ad hominem.

Questioning him about the controversial Freedom of Information changes the latest omnibus bill contains, MPP Stephanie Smyth was the target of the bear's rage:

Said Smyth after the attack:

"You shouldn't talk to anybody that way," she said.

"There's a standard of decorum, of how you act. When we get in (the chamber) and we talk about issues and we ask questions, you don't go personal, right? That's not the place. You be parliamentary. You be classy. And that's not what is happening here with this premier at all."

Interim Liberal leader John Fraser and Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner say Ford needs to say sorry.

"What the premier said was so personal and so demeaning and so beneath the office of the premier that I believe the premier should apologize," Schreiner said.

Chubby Checker once famously asked in a song, "How low can you go?' 

The answer to that question as it pertains to Mr. Ford is still pending.

From Canada's Industrial Heartland

 

While I hardly expect that Ontario should garner much sympathy from the rest of Canada, every so often I can't help but write about our poor state of politics. Led by "Captain Canada," Doug Ford, the legislature spends far more in recess than it does in session. I suspect our 'leader' finds it an irksome impediment to whatever he does with his time, given his Progressive Conservatives command a clear majority that certainly puts a damper on accountability. That is, until he does something that provokes widespread public outrage.

While there is much to condemn in this heavy-handed government's rule, it wasn't until Ford's recent purchase of a $29 million jet that public hackles were raised. As a result, Ford has reversed his purchase, but even now he insists buying it was the correct choice; as with most hubristic politicians, Ford claimed it was not a failure of policy but rather a failure of communication. He didn't do enough to prepare the public for his extravagance.

Well, many people are having none of his nonsense about what has been dubbed his "gravy plane". The following letters to the editor amply attest to this:

Time for a premier who puts Ontario first

This is a typical Doug Ford move. He appears to be driven by self‑interest and a desire for personal attention.  This runs from ordering speed cameras to be removed, mixing up Toronto’s street traffic and  removing bikes and walkways, totally ruining Ontario Place, stating that he’ll expand the island airport for larger planes and spending millions on a new plane to fly himself around. Earlier he was only interested in building new country roads and pulling down country greenspace in order to build expensive homes. None of this does anything to improve Ontario.

Ontario needs intelligent improvements for Ontarians, Canadians and visitors. It’s time to make political changes.

Chris Andrews, Vaughan, ON

Doug Ford the salesman

Ford says Ontario has sold controversial private jet at no loss, April 22

Well, done, Doug! The plane is gone. Now you should terminate the island spa agreement and return Ontario Place to the public, remove the traffic calming barriers being installed in school zones and restore speed cameras. Next, ask your construction buddies to return any money regarding the Ontario Science Centre property along with  refunding any money spent on studies for the tunnel under Highway 401. Only then will it really feel like you have listened to the people. And, oh, one more thing … let Toronto voters decide on the future of the island airport.

Carolynne Canham, St. Catharines, ON 

There was no justification for a private jet for Ford in the first place

How did Doug Ford justify spending nearly $30 million dollars of taxpayer money on his own jet in a province where most locales can be reached on a propeller plane in one hour? And most northern communities don’t even have airports that support a jet!

At a time when our medical care is compromised and our school system is crumbling this huge expense, not just for the purchase of the jet but also for its maintenance, cannot be tolerated by taxpayers.

At least Ford heard the outrage and reversed course.

Ford never campaigned on the promise to buy himself a jet.

Dianne Ness, Toronto

I find it an incredible coincidence that after eight years of Premier Ford in power, the first time he raises the issue of jets using Billy Bishop airport coincides with his now quickly reversed decision to purchase a taxpayer-funded private jet, to the tune of $28.9 million.

Some estimates for the infrastructure needed to allow jets at Billy Bishop will cost in excess of $1 billion.

Ontario taxpayers deserve transparency. Just whose interests are actually being served by expanding the island airport for jets?

At least the premier did the right thing and grounded his jet.

Norm Di Pasquale, Toronto

The problem with winning three majority governments is that you think you are invincible. Ford fatigue has begun to set in. Perhaps it is time for the premier to do some serious, sober soul searching about seeking a fourth term, as he has recently mused about. 

A Strong Voice Of Condemnation

Unless we live our lives under a blanket, we are aware of the rapidly deteriorating conditions on earth thanks to climate change. Every day brings new horror stories of widespread destruction wrought by tornadoes, floods, wildfires, drought and life-threatening temperatures. Unfortunately, the corporate entities most responsible for the fact that our planet is dying conduct themselves with impunity and immunity, thanks largely to the control they have over our politics. As I pointed out in my previous post, Canada must be included in this sad state of affairs.

Former Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna is unflinching in her critique of the oil industry, especially for their continued despoilation of our environment as their emissions continue to rise.

Canada’s official greenhouse gas inventory was published last week. It showed that in 2024, oil and gas production was the only sector in the country to have increased its greenhouse gas emissions. 

“In Canada, we expect, Canadians expect everyone to step up and do their parts. But instead, we have oil and gas, which is largely foreign-owned, largely U.S.-owned, who aren’t doing their part. All they’re doing is increasing our emissions and demanding subsidies,” McKenna said in an interview while at Montreal’s climate summit last week.

She adds that oil companies are “demanding that Canadian taxpayers pay the bill for cleaning up the pollution they cause and building pipelines they won’t risk their own money on."

This is a state of affairs that should enrage all of us, yet the supports offered by our government continue unabated. Indeed, the oil companies' profits soar thanks to war, and those profits benefit few.

[W]hat do they do with those profits? They give them back to fat cat CEOs and then they go give them back to their shareholders, largely Americans who support Donald Trump,” she said. 

Canadian companies in the oil industry are bringing in an extra $170 million in profits every day because of the war in Iran, which has pushed global oil prices up by more than 50 per cent, according to an analysis published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

And despite the fact that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, we see no real impetus on the part of government to alter the tragic trajectory we are on.

“How about get people off fossil fuels, get them into EVs,” she said. “Why are we still heating our homes with oil and gas?”

According the the former minister, oil can be delivered to homes in Halifax when people can use heat pumps. She also questions why utility companies don’t allow Canadians to put solar grids on the ground and be paid for it. 

“We really have to move forward on these solutions. That isn’t so much about affordability as it is about Canada’s economic competitiveness now and into the future,” she said. “And of course it’s also better for kids.”

And McKenna sees the greenwashing the companies engage in, perpetuating fictions such as becoming carbon neutral through carbon capture.

Three researchers from the University of Ottawa published a study in the Energy Research & Social Science scientific journal in June 2024 on how the New Pathways Alliance was misleading the public with its environmental claims.

The New Pathways Alliance, now known as the Oil Sands Alliance, is a consortium comprising Canadian Natural Resources, Suncor, Cenovus, Imperial Oil and ConocoPhillips. 

For years, this alliance has been promoting the Pathways’ project, which aims to make oil sands production “carbon neutral” by 2050 through carbon capture and storage.

Of course, you may recall that the federal government is investing millions in this faux technology. As has been the case for many years, taxpayers are expected to do all of the fiscal heavy lifting while the oil companies reap continuously soaring profits. 

What is wrong with this picture, and why do our political 'leaders' continue to do the fossil fuel industy's bidding?

Orts From the Table

Sometimes I think that we have become so jaded with government in general that when an apparently new 'flavour' comes along, our reaction is disproportionately enthusiastic. You don't need me to tell you how in most quarters (excepting the Conservatives, of course), the fact that the Carney Liberal government has now achieved majority status is being hailed as the dawn of a new, stable era. While the latter may be true, one should bear in mind the old caution: be careful what you wish for.

The Carney government is, without a doubt, a very conservative one; its worldview seems to be one in which taxes are bad and the corporate ethos of almost limitless profits is not to be questioned.  So in announcing the pending 10 cent reduction in the federal gasoline excise tax,  the prime minister is providing but an ort from the table. It is one designed to satisfy the immediate demand for relief while ignoring underlying causes. 

Seth Klein offers his advice on what Carney should have done. Observing the monstrous profits oil companies are deriving from soaring gas prices, he suggests now is the time to bring in a tax on their windfall profits.

The Financial Times reports that Canada’s oil producers are in line to land $90 billion in windfall profits due to the Iran war. According to modelling by the research firm Enverus, “Canadian companies will generate an extra $25-$30bn in revenue for every $10 rise in oil prices this year following the market turmoil caused by the conflict.”

Because the ripples of these increased fuel costs will ripple throughout the economy, it is time to derive a public good.

By not taxing these windfalls, much of the profits are leaving the country. Political economist Gordon Laxer notes, “oil corporations in Alberta and Canada are overwhelmingly foreign-owned,” mainly by Americans.

The windfall from spikes in the price of oil also overwhelmingly go to the wealthy, producing a hidden redistribution from lower-income households to the superrich. A study by University of Massachusetts Amherst economists Isabella Weber and Gregor Semieniuk found that the price shock triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in the 2022 net income of publicly listed oil and gas companies reaching $916 billion globally, “a figure more than three times that of the preceding years (even excluding 2020).” Moreover, within the US, they found, “50 per cent of all fossil fuel profit claims accrued to the wealthiest 1 per cent of individuals. The bottom 50 per cent of the population … received 1 per cent.”

Their solution: “a permanent excess profit tax on oil and gas, defined as returns above a specified threshold.”

The obscene profits accruing to companies cry out for this tax, and it one that finds much favour among the general public.

Politically, a windfall profits tax is a winner. First, it is hugely popular; polling conducted two years ago found 62 per cent of Canadians support such a tax. Second, the climate movement would be thrilled. Third, a windfall profits tax on oil and gas could raise roughly $1 billion a year (or considerably more, depending on the rate and the price of oil). 

[T]axing the oil and gas companies’ profits means we can deploy some of those revenues to directly help lower and modest-income households, while using some to expedite our transition off these deadly fuels.

There are compelling arguments to support a windfall tax on the oil giants. Unfortunately, because such a tax would benefit the people instead of corporate entities, I expect those arguments will fall on deaf Ottawa ears.

Thou Shalt Not Worship Graven Images

This from the NYT:

Pope Leo XIV is one of the world’s most powerful critics of the U.S. war with Iran. In recent days, he has condemned the worship of mortals and money, the pitfalls of arrogance, and the “absurd and inhuman violence” unleashed by fighting that has further destabilized the Middle East.

His many admonishments over the past week appear to have reached President Trump, who responded to those calls for peace by scorching the first American-born pontiff on social media and then taking personal credit for Leo’s ascension to the papacy.

“Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise,” Mr. Trump wrote in a lengthy social media post on Sunday night. “He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

As Trump slips further and further into paranoid dementia, his disciples continue to pretend that all is fine. 

The world watches; the world suffers; the world awaits his demise.

UPDATED: Spectacle Abounds

 

I am old enough to remember the early days of space exploration, days that included John Glenn in orbit, the Mercury space program, followed by the Apollo missions, etc. In those early days, achievements in space commanded a great deal of attention, in part because it was essentially a battle of ideologies, capitalism against evil communism, an ongoing grudge match between the U.S and the Soviet Union. Who would emerge victorious, the world wondered.

But those days are long over. The U.S.  'won', as if somehow its technological prowess atoned for its racism, its foreign wars, its naked imperialism. 

So what accounts for the current fascination with the Artemis 11 mission and its almost endless news coverage? 

There is, of course, the matter of spectacle, an always useful, time-tested way to capture the attention of the masses and divert them from the really important matters that plague all of us. Americans are especially prone to embracing such blandishments, always ready to put hand over heart in patriotic fervour. So what if they started a needless and senseless war? So what if so many of their fellow citizens live on the street, with no chance of better lives? So what if ICE' murders fellow citizens? So what if their president is a dementia-ridden despot? Such matters pall in the face of going to the moon, eh?

But beyond that, it is striking that the news networks seem willing to carry the water for those who benefit the most from such 'excursions': the billionaires who walk amongst us. Consider the fact that the majority of television media are now part of large corporate conglomerates, and you have the perfect conditions for influencing and molding public opinion; thus we become conditioned to cheer on the prospect of a permanent moon base being established in the not-too-distant future. Somehow, that has become the imperative, as if establishing such a base would confer American lunar hegemony and ensure a bright future.

But a bright future for whom? From the perspective of the billionaires, the almost limitless profits to be made from such a feat, almost totally funded by taxpayer dollars, is undoubtedly occasioning all kinds of pavlovian salivation. And while the oligarchs amass even greater profits, the general public is left to hope for a few orts from the table, reminded yet again of their true place in the scheme of things. 

Democracy's ill-health is a precondition of such predatory monetary achievement, and given that the U.S. has now devolved into a vicious autocracy, clearly the conditions are golden for new rounds of pillaging. 

UPDATE: A thoughtful letter-writer offers offers his reality check on the new space race:

Why aren’t we taking more care of Earth? It has everything to sustain life

If only the moon was made of any kind of cheese, then spending $95 billion to go there might begin to make sense. You can’t live on the moon. There is no existing photosynthesis.  Everything to establish a “moon base” must be brought from Terra Ferma. Even if after a trillion dollars or many trillion dollars are spent, building a base in order to launch to Mars is laughable. There is no oxygen on Mars, it gets extremely cold and it has a covering of iron oxide (rust). Trips can only occur every 26 months and there would be no return flights from Mars as re-fueling is not available. The human body could not sustain the change in gravity. We know that interplanetary colonization is impossible. The shame of this waste lies in the forgetfulness of just how magnificent our precious Earth actually is. Everything we need is here, with the exception of more people willing to save the planet from those who seek to destroy it. So, the question remains — why can’t we take more care of a place that provides everything we need instead of chasing dreams of inhabiting the moon?

Dave de Sylva, Aurora, ON

Signs Of The Times

One of these days, I hope to get back to actually writing something meaningul. Until my inspiration returns, this will have to do: 

So much for values, eh?

Democrat Ro Kohhana Explains Why The Democrats Are Such Losers

 Couldn't have said it better myself:

When the President of the United States threatens genocide against millions of innocent people, Democratic leadership should stand in clear moral opposition — not hide behind procedure.

UPDATED: How Stupid Is MAGA?

 Anthony Scaramucci thinks even they have limits:

While the above may give MAGATS pause, the following verified profanity-strewn post from the mad king will surely serve to stir their bloodlust:

I Didn't See This Coming

 

Last night I had a brief conversation with my daughter. As a mother of two little ones, she is rightly concerned about the environmental future that awaits them. She expressed special concern about the possible construction of a second Canadian pipeline. I quickly reassured her, saying that since it would have to be built with private funds only, it will never come to fruition.

I may have spoken too soon.

A deeply disturbing article by Althia Raj suggests public money may ultimately be involved.

Federal Liberals, who hoped the government’s pipeline pact with Alberta was a public relations effort that would never see the light of day, should brace for its approval — including, possibly, with public money.

Three Liberals privately suggested to the Star that Prime Minister Mark Carney may put federal money behind a new pipeline to the west coast — despite the memorandum of understanding signed with the province lays only a path for the “construction of one or more private sector constructed and financed pipelines.”

This revelation must come as a shock to many Liberal MPs, who are on record as saying that the MOU signed with Alberta meant little, given the reluctance of private oil to put up the kind of money needed to build such a conduit. 

Last fall, when the prime minister was asked in Calgary if he was prepared to do more to de-risk the project to attract private capital, Carney said he was already “de-risking the project in several ways” through regulatory clarity and setting aside “billions” for financing Indigenous People’s equity ownership in projects.

But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, say Carney wants to see the pipeline built, and is realizing it may not happen without more public money behind it.

Environmental waffling on matters related to oil presage Carney's capitulation on the actual pipeline.

[E]arlier this month, Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin referred to the government’s rising industrial carbon price as the “backbone” of the government’s climate plan, key to reducing Canada’s emissions, and providing industry the “right signals to move our economy in that direction.”

But on a briefing call with journalists hours before the MOU announcement, Alberta’s representative suggested $130 was a ceiling not a floor. While it’s higher than the province’s current headline price of $95 a tonne, and much higher than where credits effectively trade, between $20 and $40 a tonne, it’s not high enough to make projects, such as the $16.5-billion Pathways Alliance carbon capture and storage network viable — without even more public funding. (So far, the project has received tax credits worth 62 per cent of its construction costs, and the oil companies behind the massive project — a soft prerequisite for the pipeline — want more public funding.) 

Additionally, when Danielle Smith introduced regulations making the credits easier to obtain, Carney's government said not a word. 

If you do any research on carbon capture technology, you will realize it is more fable than reality. In reality it is not viable either on the scale necessary to make a difference or the amount of energy required to operate it, thus negating the amount of carbon captured.

Canadians have grown used to being stabbed in the back by our former 'friends', the United States. Few, I suspect, are prepared for the knife being wielded by our own government.