UPDATED: See No Evil

I have lived long enough to think I have seen the worst things that humanity has to offer. I shan't enumerate examples here, since they are legion. But not all evil deeds are acts of commission. Many deep moral stains originate in omissions, failures to act. The West's complicity in the Israeli-led Gaza genocide falls under both rubrics, of course.

In its passion to avoid any accusation of anti-semitism (anti-semitism and criticism of Israel having been susscessfully conflated), the West is clearly complicit in the genocide. Indeed, even a modest support for Palestinians provokes rebuke and condemnation. In Ontario, for example, Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama was censured for wearing the keffiyeh, rendering her persona non grata in the legislature and resulting in her ouster from the provincial NDP.

But such reprovals are not limited to the provinces. Indeed, Heather McPherson, an Alberta NDP MP, is now being singled out for rebuke.

A New Democrat MP was warned Monday that her decision to don a watermelon pin — a symbol of the Palestinian cause — could be construed as a political “prop” that has no place in the House of Commons. 

During question period, Edmonton-Strathcona MP Heather McPherson took to the floor of the lower chamber to castigate Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government for its response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“Entire families have been decimated. Children are starving to death. When will the Liberals live up to their obligations?” McPherson said, calling for sanctions on the Israeli government and the implementation of an “actual arms embargo.”

That attempt to stir the conscience of the government was met with a stern warning from House Speaker Greg Fergus., suggesting her pin was a prop, supposedly forbidden in the House.

In a heated exchange over what is and is not permitted to be worn in the Commons, McPherson rose on a point of order to question Fergus’s suggestion.

“I have to tell you that I stand here proudly wearing the pin that stands in solidarity to Palestinian people, but people within this place are wearing pins for a various number of reasons,” McPherson said.

She referred to a moose hide pin that a number of MPs wear in the Commons, which was born from an Indigenous-led movement to end violence toward women and children. 

Then, for some sensitive' souls in the House, she went too far:

The NDP MP’s reference to poppies also being worn in the chamber for Remembrance Day, however, was met with outrage from the opposition benches, with Conservative MPs expressing disbelief on social media over the comparison. 

She also reminded members that she, along with others, wear a number of other pins, including a Ukrainian one, to mark a thousand days since Putin invaded Ukraine.

Funny thing about freedom of expression, isn't it? It is apparently only permitted when the state declares who is an acceptable target for denunciation. In the corrupted currents of this world, it would seem that Israel gets a free pass, no matter what crimes against humanity it perpetrates.

UPDATE: Predictably, the U.S. vetoed a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza:

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the war in Gaza because it is not linked to an immediate release of hostages taken captive by Hamas in Israel in October 2023.

The U.N. Security Council voted 14-1 in favor of the resolution sponsored by the 10 elected members on the 15-member council, but it was not adopted because of the U.S. veto.

The resolution that was put to a vote “demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent cease-fire to be respected by all parties, and further reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”

Hmm. Sounds to me that the resolution did call for the immediate release of the hostages, but I guess Israel's perennial, unconditional friend just can't bring itself to do anything other than perpetuate the carnage in Gaza.

Alan Lichtman's Predictive Failure

While I have resolved to give as little space in my head as possible to the guy who won the American presidential race. I remain fascinated by the dynamics that returned him to power. A recent Guardian piece on Alan Lichtman perhaps sheds some light.

Lichtman is storied for his prognostications of American presidential elections.

Allan Lichtman had correctly forecast the result of nine of the past 10 US presidential elections (and even the one he didn’t, in 2000, he insists was stolen from Al Gore). His predictive model of “13 keys” to the White House was emulated around the world and seemed all but indestructible.

This time, he forecast a defeat of Don Trump.  So what went wrong? Why did the 13 keys to the White House this university professor developed with a Russian expert on earthquakes fail this time? One of the key reasons, he says, is irrationality.

“The keys are premised on the proposition that a rational, pragmatic electorate [my emphasis] decides whether the White House party has governed well enough to get another four years,” he explains. “Just as this kind of hate and violence is new, there are precedent-shattering elements now to our political system, most notably disinformation.

And there is do doubt that disinformation played a major role in the election, especially that which was disseminated by Elon Musk.

“There’s always been disinformation but it has exploded to a degree we’ve never seen before. It’s not just Fox News and the rightwing media. It’s also rightwing podcasters and we have a brand new player, the $300bn guy, Elon Musk, whose wealth exceeds that of most countries in the world and has heavily put his thumb on disinformation.

“It’s been reported that the disinformation that [Musk] disseminates has been viewed billion of times. 

That includes disinformation about inflation, jobs, employment, the stock market, growth, hurricane aid, the Ukraine war and undocumented immigrants, falsely portrayed as dangerous killers when in fact they commit crimes at far lower rate than native-born Americans.

“We’re seeing something new in our politics, which affected the prediction and could affect future predictions but has a much bigger message for the future of our democracy. George Orwell was 40 years too soon. He made it clear that dictatorships don’t just arise from brutality and suppression. They arise from control of information: doublethink. Famine is plenty, war is peace. We’re in the doublethink era and maybe we can get out of it, maybe not.”

Another factor, he says, is the fecklessness of Merrick Garland, the Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice, who he describes as spineless, keeping with a Democratic propensity:

 He diddled for almost two years before appointing a special counsel [to investigate Trump’s role in the January 6 2021 insurrection].

“We all knew on January 7 what Trump had done. Certainly we knew it by the time Merrick Garland was appointed in early 2021. If he had acted as he should have right away, everything would have been different. I believe Trump would have been convicted of serious federal crimes and either be in jail or be on probation and the whole political system would have been different.”

Lichtman adds: “He epitomises the spineless Democrats. ‘Oh, I don’t want to do this because I might seem political and Republicans might criticise me.’

Some would say predicting people's behaviour is a mug's game. With the massive loss of rationality we bear witness to today, I would tend to agree with that assessment. 

 

 

Bread And Circuses

"Bread and circuses" is a phrase that refers to a government's attempt to distract the public from real issues by providing them with things that make their lives more enjoyable. The phrase is often used in political contexts. 

The Romans certainly had a way of dealing with the masses, and their strategy succeeded for a long time. Nothing works as effectively as diverting people from real problems, especially those either created or and aided and abetted by government. Such diversion can be especially effective at concealing an absence of political leadership.

This is certainly the zeitgeist at work in Ontario, where we have a government led by Doug Ford whose version of bread and circuses consists of 'initiatives' like buying the people with their own money (eg., the recently announced bribe rebates of $200 per adult and child "to make life more affordable", the ending of licence plate fees, the proposed and very expensive ripping up of bike lanes, an ongoing gas tax reduction, etc., etc.)

Unfortunately, there is little to stop Ford and his gimmickry. We have, for example, a feckless Ontario Liberal Party, led by the unelected Bonnie Crombie, that proposes to do more of the same. 

The party's proposal would see Ontario's personal income tax rate for those making between $51,446 and $75,000 reduced by two per cent, from the current 9.15 per cent to 7.15 per cent. 

A party spokesperson said those earning just more than that would also benefit from the plan. Someone earning $85,000 in taxable income, for example, would pay the lower rate on their income between $51,446 and $75,000, and the 9.15 per cent rate on their earnings beyond that.

They estimate this would save the average family about $950 a year. 

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie said Tuesday they also promise to slash the provincial component of HST on residential heating and hydro bills, which could save households about $200 a year. 

In language that rivals our current provincial demagogue, Crombie goes on to declare:

"That is real and ongoing relief for you and your family, ...."

"It's real money back in your pocket to help you afford groceries, to buy your child a new winter coat or pay for overdue repairs to your home or to your car." 

What is there not to like about these promises, you may ask? How about the real cost - the cost to essential social services, healthcare, and education, to name but three. Starving the treasury is never a good idea, except when you are pandering to the public in an attempt to gain political capital.

This pathetic ply, Crombie's version of bread and circuses, conceals a raft of problems that, to my knowledge, neither she nor NDP leader Marit Stiles have ever addressed: the disproportionate burden that provincial downloading has placed on the shoulders of homeowners, who face ever-rising rates of property taxes to deal with costs that should be the purview of the province, including social services and housing, ambulance services, local roads and bridge maintenance and construction etc.

Addressing such burdens would require fearless leadership, and that in itself would by no means guarantee political success. After all, far too many are dazzled by baubles, the promise of immediate cash in hand, the prospect of being able to buy beer at Costco, (despite the quarter-billion dollars that one cost), etc. In other words, politicos know and exploit the ignorance of people, readily offering up their particular versions of bread and circuses to divert the masses. 

Unless someone with real integrity emerges, expect the status quo to continue unabated.

 

Political Inertia

Whenever our next election rolls around, I'll be ready - ready not to vote for the Conservatives. Ready not to vote for the Liberals. By default, I shall, in all likelihood, vote for the NDP. And it will hardly be an enthusiastic endorsement. 

Our political landscape, with few exceptions, has grown stale and complacent. Once it sets in, inertia is a hard force to break free from.  Journalist Justin Ling takes some lessons from the recent American presidential race.

In trying to paint Trump as a danger to democracy, the Democrats twisted themselves in knots to become guardians of the status quo. They avoided, even shut down, difficult conversations on pressing social issues because they are fearful of how bigots might weaponize those discussions.

Harris spent the campaign bombarding voters with tightly-messaged scripts about why they should vote against Trump. By election day, Americans had few good reasons to vote for the vice president. And yet it’s this strategy that Trudeau looks set to replicate.

Unfortunately, if the polls are to be believed,  Canada's electoral die has already been cast, and PP's simplistic, binary rhetoric is captivating many. Indeed, some of his barbs hit quite close to home, if one really examines them. Recently, for example, he gave a hard-hitting address to many of Canada's corporate elites, accusing them of "crony capitalism," saying they and Mr. Trudeau are too close and too dependent on lobbying and subsidies. If he wins, PP promises to change that, a promise that will undoubtedly resonate with many.

For example: longstanding Canadian law restricts foreign ownership in parts of the telecom, media, financial and transportation industries, which has resulted in a consolidation of power in a handful of companies such as BCE, Rogers Communications Inc., Air Canada and the major banks. Harper and Trudeau’s governments have tried at times to stoke more competition, but they’ve mostly stopped short of major reforms to liberalize protected sectors.

There is little doubt that the Trudeau Liberals have a too-close relationship with the powerful.

Poilievre’s “crony capitalism” charge rings true to people like [Jim] Balsillie, who has been critical of the close links between Trudeau’s government and some executives at big companies in highly regulated industries. He cites the example of Navdeep Bains, who was Trudeau’s industry minister, left politics in 2021, quickly landed at Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and now works as a senior executive at Rogers — a job announced just weeks after the government allowed Rogers to acquire a large rival cable company.

The government has been slow to move on open banking, a regulatory framework that makes it easier for consumers to move around their financial information and use the services of new financial technology startups.

“Why after nine years do we still not have open banking?” Balsillie said. “Who’s had total keys to the throne on fixing that for nine years? It’s clear that the Liberals have been captured by Bay Street.”

I suspect those who entertain ongoing outrage over the high costs of wireless and the predatory, protected practices of the banking industry would find little to disagree with here.

Justin Ling is pessimistic about the prospects for change within either the Liberal or NDP leadership.

Trudeau is neither innovating new policy nor reaching out to unlikely places. Their most significant accomplishments of late, national pharmacare and dentalcare plans, won’t cover most working people and come as medicare plunges further into crisis.

The Liberals’ lack of vision or ambition ought to leave an open lane for the NDP to offer a bold, uncompromising, and ambitious agenda for change. Yet they are the architects of the dental and pharmacare plans, and now seem bereft of other ideas. Despite their anti-billionaire rhetoric, Jagmeet Singh’s most ambitious policy is to implement price controls for groceries (also a riff on a Harris policy.) Voters are, understandably, disinterested.

Singh and Trudeau and stuck in their scripts, damned by the anxieties, purity, and dourness of their parties. The only tactic left at their disposal is to compare Poilievre to Trump, unconvincingly and to the frustration of the Conservatives’ new-found working-class base.

Institutional stasis is an almost always-certain eventuality, demonstrated amply in the above. And time on the bench seems to be the only fix to the inertia that currently plagues our politics.Without new vision and new leadership, I suspect the next election will, unfortunately prove current polling to be correct. 

 

 

The Not-So-Great One

As I lay in bed this morning, I was feeling just a tad sorry for myself. My world, since the election in the U.S., has gotten smaller. I no longer read great swaths of the papers, given that so much coverage is devoted both to the election results and what lies ahead. I also am limiting my tv news intake for the same reason. I no longer want to give space in my head to who the Americans elected. However, one story has roused me from my torpor, and it is the subject of today's post.

I have written a couple of times in the past about Wayne Gretsky, the misnamed 'Great One', who inexplicably heaped lavish praise on Stephen Harper. It seems that Wayne has found a new idol, Don Trump.

It would appear Wayne Gretzky can be added to the list of high-profile professional athletes and sports figures who support U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump.

The Great One attended an exclusive A-list event at the Republican nominee’s Mar-a-Lago resort in West Pam Beach, Fla., on Tuesday night, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Tesla founder and X-owner Elon Musk and UFC president Dana White as team Trump awaited results.

 Gretzky, was joined by his wife, Janet, who later congratulated Trump on Instagram. “You did it, You deserved it, you earned every bit of it. The world is a better place to have you as our Leader, Proud to be an American. Thank you for being such a great friend. May God keep watching over you,” she wrote, ending with “Love our family to yours!” 

Mrs. Gretsky also posted on Instagram a loving tribute to Trump. Although I viewed the post, it has now mysteriously disappeared. 

The post, scored by a version of God Bless America, included a reel of photos, one of which shows Wayne leaning in to speak to Trump at some point during the event, presumably after news outlets began declaring him elected as the 47th president.

Janet’s reel also featured a photo reported to have appeared in her daughter Paulina’s Instagram stories. In this one, not confirmed to have been taken at Mar-a-Lago, Janet and Wayne pose alongside Paulina and her husband, pro golfer Dustin Johnson, all wearing formal attire.

Perhaps I am just lashing out due to my deep disappointment in the election results. Nonetheless, as I have said many times to those around me, Wayne is dead to me. This latest outrage is merely the final nail in his coffin. 

Pictures, Not Words

I lack the heart these days to write on my blog. Therefore, I think I shall let pictures, in this case, an editorial cartoon, speak for me.

H/t Moudakis

A Post-Election Thought

And one more:

Can I get a big "Amen?"

On This Election Night

 What made me think of this?

Springing The Trap

In his ongoing efforts to evade responsibility for the plight of the homeless and their consequent encampments, Doug Ford set a trap. And like hungry mice eager for an ort from the table, 12 Ontario big-city mayors shamelessly took the bait. 

It all began when Mr. Ford very publicly suggested he wanted 

Ontario’s Big City Mayors, an association of 29 municipal leaders, to show “backbone” and support using the notwithstanding clause by putting it in writing “if they really want the homeless situation to improve.” 

The whiff of cheese too strong,  

the leaders of Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Cambridge, Chatham-Kent, Clarington, Oakville, Oshawa, Pickering, St. Catharines, Sudbury and Windsor sent a letter to Ford on Thursday...

“We request that your government consider the (measures) … and where necessary use the notwithstanding clause to ensure these measures are implemented in a timely and effective way.”

Too their credit, cities like Toronto, Burlington and Hamilton refused to join in the request, apparently aware that the 'solution' on offer was  misdirection of the vilest kind.

Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, chair of the mayors’ group, wants to see “one point person, a specific minister or ministry, in charge of solving this” and a province-wide plan including more supports.

She said the “issue becomes, if you are using the notwithstanding clause to close down encampments, but people have nowhere to go, we’re no farther ahead.”

 Others also saw the offer of the notwithstanding clause for the ruse it is.

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who did not sign the letter, “believes the notwithstanding clause isn’t a real solution,” said her spokesperson Shirven Rezvany, urging the province to create more supportive housing, boost social assistance rates and reinstate rent controls, among other things.  

“I would hope that the government would actually be working with municipalities to build the housing we really need.”

Ontario Green Party leader, Mike Schreiner, had this to say: 

"To me, this is a complete failure of the Ford government to build deeply affordable, non-profit, co-op and supportive housing. If they are going to take the extreme measure of taking the constitutional rights away from people who are experiencing homelessness, where are those people going to go? There are no homes for them to go to."

As I said in my previous post,  Doug Ford, like so many other 'leaders', has debased the nature of the political contract, reducing it to a transactional one. It is good to know that there are at least a few who still understand that the whiff of some pungent cheese is no guarantee of a feast for all.

 

If You Live In Ontario

 ... you will understand the following

H/t Moudakis

One of the dubious accomplishments of Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government has been to reduce the relationship between the governed and those who govern to a transactional one. No more are there entertained the lofty sentiments of a John Kennedy, who famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

No, those days are long gone, to be replaced by crass efforts to convince everyone that government exists only to make your life better (an illusion that some people only latter discover is untrue) through egregious vote-buying.

Forget the common good. Forget the larger issues that demand sacrifice from all (climate change, rampant homelessness, drug addiction, etc. etc.) And, of course, forget about the fact that these giveaways preclude any effort to re-upload provincial responsibilities that are bleeding property taxpayers dry.

As is often the case, however, I am prevented from slipping into complete despair by the fact that a few see through the entire facade.

Doug Ford spending nearly half of Ontario’s tax windfall on $200 ‘rebate’ cheques, Oct. 20

What a fiscally irresponsible premier we have. 

First, Doug Ford scrapped the $120 licence plate renewal fee, costing the province about $1.1 billion a year. Wasn’t that money necessary to fix our roads, highways, bridges, etc.? Then Ford broke a contract one year early with the LCBO to the tune of at least $225 million. (This could go as high as $1 billion with the projected repercussions.) Apparently getting beer at the corner store is more important than putting money toward, let’s say, health care.

Now he wants to give $200 to each taxpayer regardless of their income. (Naturally this will not include the most vulnerable among us who do not pay taxes.) This will cost $3 billion. That’s BILLIONS of dollars that could have gone to hire the doctors, nurses and support staff required to cut surgery and emergency wait times; ensure mental health care for children who now have to wait years for help; fund schools properly so they don’t have to fund raise for necessities; subsidize homes for the homeless. Think about this as you spend your $200 bribe for your vote that could have been used for the greater good — improving the lives of the entire population of Ontario.

Susan Ross, London ON 

A deplorable stunt

This is one of the most bizarre decisions that I have ever witnessed by a government institution. Ontario has a huge debt burden which is being compounded by annual deficits. Apparently the Ontario government thinks it should be rewarded (at the expense of their growing debt obligations) but they should be condemned for such a deplorable stunt.

Robert Woodcock, North York

Ford stop this crazy circus. We don’t find it amusing

What kind of a clown act is that, sending us back our own money intended for our welfare? Thanks, but no thanks. That $3 billion is our tax money. It would go a long way in areas in desperate need of funding. We are not amused. The only clown act we want to see from you is of the disappearing kind.

 Frances Sedgwick, Toronto

A Good Story

In our fractured world, it is often hard to anything remotely resembling good news. However, occasionally a story comes along that reminds us that a better existence is possible. The following is  one such story.

Despite all the bruiting about $10 daycare in Canada, something that is proving difficult to achieve, I cannot imagine a story like this here.

"The Evil that Men Do"

While it can be convincingly argued that Justin Trudeau has done many good things during his tenure as prime minister, it is usually the shortcomings of leaders that are remembered. The following letter attests to that fact:

Trudeau has earned his political enemies

.

Current polling indicates Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is nosediving the Liberal party toward a devastating defeat in the coming election, possibly to third party status. Trudeau’s long record of loose promises — his admitted duplicity on proportional representation elections in 2015, his refusal to tax the financial and market assets of the wealthy the way Canadian homes are taxed, his refusal to redirect $18 billion per year in oil and gas subsidies into clean energy, his anemic energy transition support for ordinary Canadians, his willingness to see average Canadians crushed by dizzying interest rate hikes “to fight inflation” rather than regulate the price-gouging corporate executives whose record profits are actually driving the inflation — have all earned him a united front of enemies from across the political spectrum.

It’s telling that Trudeau still refuses the one thing in his power that would prevent a Conservative majority from sweeping in this coming election: enacting Proportional Representation elections (equal representation for every vote, with no vote splitting). Trudeau would rather let Poilievre win absolute control of government with only 40 per cent of the votes, than give up Liberal/Conservative disproportionate control of the political system . It is well past due for the Liberals to call an emergency leadership review and replace Trudeau and his luggage with a progressive team player, like MP Nathaniel Erskine Smith, for 2025. The coming months will tell where the Liberals’ real priorities lie — with the corporate aristocracy, or with the rest of us. 

D’Arcy McLenaghen, Toronto 

UPDATED: "Anticipatory Obedience"

Anticipatory obedience is a term I was unfamiliar with until reading an article in The Guardian.

[I]n On Tyranny, Tim Snyder’s bestselling guide to authoritarianism. Snyder defines the term as “giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian” before the authoritarian is in position to compel that handover.

It appears that is precisely what has happened at The Washington Post. The newspaper's editorial board had drafted its endorsement of Kamala Harris for U.S. president, but then its owner, Jeff Bezos, intervened and forbade it. It appears that Bezos, who also owns Amazon and Blue Origin, wants to make sure that if Don Trump wins the race, his businesseses, which compete for government contracts, will thrive.

Within hours of making that decision, 

high-ranking officials of [Blue Origin] briefly met with Trump after a campaign speech in Austin, Texas, as the Republican nominee seeks a second presidency.

Trump met with Blue Origin chief executive officer David Limp and vice-president of government relations Megan Mitchell, the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile, CNN reported that the Amazon CEO, Andy Jassy, had also recently reached out to speak with the former president by phone. 

Those reported overtures were eviscerated by Washington Post editor-at-large and longtime columnist Robert Kagan, who resigned on Friday. On Saturday, he argued that the meeting Blue Origin executives had with Trump would not have taken place if the Post had endorsed the Democratic vice-president as it planned.

The was additional fallout.

 In their criticism of the Post’s decision on Friday, former and current employees cite the dangers to democracy posed by Trump, who has openly expressed his admiration for authoritarian rule amid his appeals for voters to return him to office.

The former Washington Post journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who broke the Watergate story, called the decision “disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process”.

The former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron said in a post on X, “This is cowardice with democracy as its casualty”.

The cartoon team at the paper published a dark formless image protesting against the non-endorsement decision, playing on the “democracy dies in darkness” slogan that the Post adopted in 2017, five years after its purchase by Bezos. 

The Post was actually the second major paper to veto a presidential endorsement. 

The Post’s non-endorsement came shortly after the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, refused to allow the editorial board publish an endorsement of Harris.

Unfettered and fearless journalism has always been crucial to stable, well-functioning democracies. With the craven, self-serving sycophancy of people like Bezos and Soon-Shiong, it is clear that America's drift toward authoritarianism is no longer limited to the unhinged MAGA  crowd. As a consequence, all are diminished and endangered.

UPDATE: In today's (Oct.29) Star, Andrew Phillips writes:

The point is that by ordering their papers to stop short of endorsing Trump’s opponent the owners are showing weakness in the face of a candidate who has made clear he’s prepared to violate every norm of democracy. Make no mistake: Trump will take advantage. “If Trump sees a sign of weakness,” former Post editor Martin Baron told the New Yorker over the weekend, “he’s going to pounce even harder in the future.”