My friend Gary, who I have known since my university days, has a sly wit whenever he comments on politics, both domestic and foreign. He sent me an email about how the always tiresome PP finds favour amongst some in his circle.
He offered this comment about our putative next prime minister:
This is how I see PP [when] he says, "This is broken [and} this is broken:
While I and many others consider the possibility of a Mark Carney-led Liberal Party, there are some obvious hurdles. While his appearance on The Daily Show, which I wrote about yesterday, may help, according to Leland Cecco, 76% of Canadians in an Abacus poll could not identify him.
But that may change, if letter writers and pundits are any indication of things political. The Star's Linda McQuaig has this to say about Carney:
Among possible contenders for the Liberal leadership, Carney seems the best bet to take on the menacing Donald Trump. Carney is smart, unflappable and has experience dealing with foolish loudmouths. His international stature as a respected former governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada might even intimidate the ignorant American bully.
Unlike conventional central bankers, Carney used his influence to push hard for climate action, serving as UN Special Envoy for Climate and Finance, and pressuring financial interests to divest from fossil fuels. Carney has also condemned “staggering wealth inequalities,” and criticized Canada’s corporate elite for sitting on “dead money” rather than investing its enormous profits in Canada.
Carney ... has actually stood up to the establishment; in 2019, he enraged then-president Trump by advocating scrapping the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency — a reform that would threaten U.S. global economic and political dominance.
Carney has never held elected office (whereas Poilievre has done nothing but hold elected office). So Carney will be compared to political novice Michael Ignatieff, who was crushed in the 2011 federal election. But Ignatieff was a pompous lightweight (he publicly insisted it was George W. Bush’s deep commitment to democracy that motivated him to invade Iraq). Carney is no such fool.
Letters to the editor reflect some thoughts on Carney after his Daily Show appearance:
When a former central banker walks onto The Daily Show and actually kills it, you’d think we’d celebrate. Instead, critics such as Tonda McCharles dismiss Mark Carney’s viral moment as a low-risk no-show.
Let’s be clear: comedy is a high-wire act, especially for someone eyeing the Prime Minister’s Office. One awkward pause, one failed joke, and you’re a cringeworthy meme, immortalized on the internet as a loser’s punchline. Given that Carney is a banker fighting the stuffed-suit stereotype, his appearance with Jon Stewart was a revelation. An economist with a spreadsheet mindset stepped into the arena of comedy — and somehow walked away having won the audience’s approval. That’s a big deal.
While Trudeau prorogued and Poilievre complained, Carney showed up with actual substance wrapped in wit. He demonstrated a depth of economic knowledge that went beyond the tax-cut talking points conservatives recycle every election, but without putting everyone to sleep. He framed climate change as a solvable crisis without sounding like a doomsday prophet. And he managed to be progressive without merely parroting a script. That’s leadership without the usual political theatre.
The cynics can sneer all they want. Carney has shown us that maybe, just maybe, the current Canadian political race has been altered. Perhaps Poilievre is no longer a sure thing: progressive Canadian voters now have a real chance to avoid political disaster.
Tony D’Andrea, Toronto
Mark Carney and Jon Stewart appeared to have so much fun sparring about the Canada-U.S. relationship this week on The Daily Show. When asked what he thought about the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state, Carney told Stewart, “You’re attractive, but we’re not moving in with you. It’s not you; it’s us.”
Carney was funny, humble, well-spoken and knowledgeable about Canadian affairs and politics. He displayed his skills as an economist and banker, and I believe he would be the perfect prime minister to deal with President-elect Donald Trump’s massive tariffs. Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 financial crisis and helped get the United Kingdom through Brexit as governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020.
It was wonderful to see two men so quick on their feet!
Ellie McCaig, Kitchener
Will any of this make a difference in the next federal election? Your guess is as good as mine, but my suspicion is that the predicted decimation of the Liberal Party may be mitigated by a leader who stands in sharp contrast to the shrill, dour, aphoristic and repetitive PP, a man who seems to take pleasure in cutting down our country, not unlike the shrill schoolmarm who, by accident, receives an invitation to a party and casts a very wet blanket over all the festivities.
While you have probably heard of Mark Carney's appearance on The Daily Show, his performance with Jon Stewart both surprised and impressed me. He was loose, funny and, most unexpectedly, engaging. Now I certainly realize that celebrity without cerebration is popular amongst those allergic to critical thinking, it appears that with Carney, you might get both.
Would he be a more effective Liberal leader than Chrystia Freeland? I have no idea, and the fact that he has no direct political experience and has never held elected office weighs heavily on me. I'll just have to see how things develop, but offering such a contrast to the dour, humourless PP definitely works in his favour.
The following video is about 19 minutes long, and few likely have the time to watch it. But dip into it for a few minutes and see what you think.
You can watch the entire interview here.
O' Leary was there as a kind of amicus curiae of the Trump kangaroo court, offering his 'good offices' to facilitate an American-Canadian economic merger. Smith was there to ostensibly talk up Canada as an energy powerhouse - no need for tariffs on oil and gas.
Moving on from the detritus depicted above, an antidote of sorts to my ravaged psyche arrived in the form of some letters to the editor from real Canadians, a few of which I reproduce below:
Canada must be prepared to shut our doors
We need to let it be known that we will react immediately if the U.S. Head Fool implements his threats against Canada. The U.S. will be in a nasty position when he does his usual foolish stuff but we need to be ready to immediately shut our doors. This includes our exports of fuel, water, etc … so that Americans realize they made a huge mistake bringing the old, crooked guy back. Stand up Canada, support your governments and make the U.S. understand their mistake.
Chris Andrews, Vaughan, ON
Why no comment from Poilievre on Trump’s diatribes?
Threats, insults, and misinformation by Donald Trump towards Canada on a daily basis. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Doug Ford, and Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly have put up a fight for Canada. Meanwhile, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, an insulter and bully to Canadians, curled up cowardly in a corner. Instead of making a meaningful comment, he is busy preparing to go to Trump’s inauguration to suck up to Trump and Elon Musk. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Poilievre, Danielle Smith, and Scott Moe will sell out Canada to Donald Trump. They have the same ideologies as the Republicans — they do not believe in climate change or vaccines; they support religious extremists and conspiracy theories and align themselves with racist groups and personalities like Tucker Carlton. Where are you Poilievre?
Taij Chand, Toronto
And there is this missive from The Globe:
In the early 1970s, Canada considered diversifying trade relationships away from the United States.
The concern was that the U.S. had undue economic and cultural influence over Canada, which made our great nation vulnerable. The “Third Option” did not materialize and instead free-trade agreements with the U.S., and eventually Mexico, were established. Through these agreements, Canada has become even more reliant on the U.S.
Fast-forward to the present and Donald Trump is threatening significant trade tariffs. We should reconsider the Third Option. We should undertake various actions such as joining the European Union, restarting trade negotiations with Britain, creating a bilateral-trade agreement with Mexico and developing new trade opportunities with other Commonwealth nations and emerging economies in Africa and Asia. If successful, our trade relationships would be diversified.
The best way to insulate the Canadian economy from Donald Trump is to make Canada less reliant on the U.S. for trade.
Lance Alexander Toronto
Oh, I almost forgot to include a picture of yet another rogue at the Trump love fest who, I understand, is a refugee from the woke police in Canada and currently residing in the home of the free and the brave:
Whatever you may think of Jean Chretien's political legacy, one thing to remember is that he charted his own course. That was made abundantly clear when he refused to join George Bush's "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq all those years ago, something Stephen Harper said he would have willingly joined.
On his 91st birthday, Chretien has penned an essay in The Globe and Mail that is both refreshing and a much-needed antidote to some ot the efforts that have been made to thus far appease the avarice and imperialist aspirations of the incoming felon-president-elect, Donald Trump.
While acknowledging that those efforts have had some value, at least in terms of stressing the costs to both countries of tariffs, Chretien writes of the need for what he calls a 2025 Plan B:
Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. Canada has tough gun control legislation, but illegal guns are pouring in from the U.S. We need to tell him that we expect the United States to act to reduce the number of guns crossing into Canada.
We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.
We need to be stronger. There are more trade barriers between provinces than between Canada and the United States. Let’s launch a national project to get rid of those barriers! And let’s strengthen the ties that bind this vast nation together through projects such as real national energy grid.
We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats.
Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers.
Chretien also calls out the corrosive spirit that has infected Canadian politics to the point where we are making ourselves even more vulnerable to international predations:
The current and future generations of political leaders should remember they are not each other’s enemies – they are opponents. Nobody ever loved the cut-and-thrust of politics more than me, but I always understood that each of us was trying to make a positive contribution to make our community or country a better place.
That spirit is more important now than ever, as we address this new challenge. Our leaders should keep that in mind.
I'll close with Chretien's parting words, which seem particularly apt in these turbulent and troubled times:
I am 91 today and blessed with good health. I am ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life.
Vive le Canada!
Who would have thought, eh?
Also, I do hope Canada is planning a more robust response to the bully than is being reported thus far:
Canada is looking at levying retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramics such as toilets and sinks, and some steel products as part of a targeted response should Donald Trump proceed with a threat to impose a 25-per-cent tax on all products from Canada.
It doesn't sound much like the mouse that roared - more like the cat that meowed.
That the days and weeks ahead will see detailed assessments of the Trudeau legacy, both good and bad, I have no doubt. I shall leave most of those to the professional pundits, but today I'll offer just a few thoughts.
There were many things that Mr. Trudeau did very well, not least of which was shephereding us through the Covid pandemic, the very pandemic that seemed to be the catalyst for the unhinged, who never forgave him for enacting restrictions on all of us for the sake of public health. They certainly epitomized the dumb in freedumb. You can readily read in the media other of his achievements, including the NDP pressure-induced childcare reforms and the beginnings of pharmacare and dentacare.
I heard yesterday a Brock professor characterizing his time as one of disappointment. There were so many promises of better days, sunny ways when Trudeau first took office, but, as I have expressed elsewhere in this blog, it didn't take long for the old Liberal arrogance to reassert itself. For me, that was acutely reflected first in the abandonment of his promise that 2015 would be the last election under the first-past-the-post protocol. Simple to understand, his promise of a ranked balloting system would have, in my view, induced greater democratic participation and less political cynicism. it would have been a system wherein the individual could feel her or his voice counted for something.
Yet Trudeau blithely jettisoned that promise. Here was his disinguously-expressed regret at his press conference yesterday:
The sanctimony of his statement rankled. First of all, he went into the election promising that reform. Secondly, he was elected, among other things, on that promise. Thirdly, he had a majority government, and implementing that reform would have been relatively easy. Majority governments do many things that they didn't campaign on (think Doug Ford and the Greenbelt in Ontario), so to suggest that he couldn't move without the support of the other parties is but a pathetic excuse for betraying his oath. And finally, just how much effort did he put into getting the support of the others? Not much, in my recall.
The next few months will indeed be interesting ones. With PP puffing and huffing at the door, many will be watching closely the Liberals' efforts to salvage not only their reputations but their electoral lives.
I'll start by saying that I have little use for Pierre Poilievre. His schtick, which largely revolves around catchy rhyming phraseology ("Axe the Tax'" Hard Time For Hard Crime", "Jail, Not Bail", the enigmatic but non-rhyming "Let's Bring It Home", etc.) instead of substantive policy articulation, is an insult to all who expect their intelligence to be respected. I will admit, however, that thus far it seems to be working for him, if the polls are any indication.
The following video of his recent sit-down with the always aggrieved and, quite frankly, unwell Jordan Peterson, is worth watching. In it, journalist Rachel Gilmore parses some of PP's proclamations during the interview, exposing his shallow/misleading thinking for what it is. If you don't have time to watch the entire nine minutes, I would recommend viewing the last three minutes, which are certainly revelatory.
You can read more about the interview here.
I still, however, read letters to the editor on a regular basis, and with great interest, sometimes reproducing them here. Many are succinct gems that I hope get people thinking. Today i shall reproduce three of them. The first one especially resonates with me. Although we give happily to a number of charitable causes annually, I have never, to my knowledge, given a penny to hospital fund-raising efforts. The letter encapsulates my reasoning:
Ontario hospitals should not be begging for donations
On Dec 28, there was full page ad in the Star, placed by Lakeridge Health Foundation, soliciting donations towards the purchase of five life-saving devices: Automated External Defibrillators (AED). I pay taxes. Those should be sufficient to equip a hospital in Ontario. That is the bargain between me and the government; tax me and take care of the health and education and general well-being of the citizens of Ontario. If the taxes don’t cover the costs, raise the taxes.
Needed hospital equipment purchases should not require the hospital to put a tin cup on the sidewalk begging for donations. Perhaps Premier Doug Ford could redirect the $200 vote-buying bribe cheques he has promised us and spend the $3 billion-plus on AEDs. They apparently cost $3,200 each. He could buy a million of them. They could be in every hospital ward, every bus, every subway car, every long-term-care facility, every beer and wine selling grocery store. Even at the Ontario Place spa, maybe.
Graeme Elliott, Toronto
The ironic tone in the following, dealing with the travails of our current prime minister, especially appealed to me:
Trudeau’s chosen female ministers have failed him
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must be so disappointed. In 2015, he made international headlines by naming a cabinet that was 50 per cent women. Sadly, every single one turned out to be a dud. After what I can only imagine were heartfelt efforts to position one of them as his successor, they all failed to demonstrate the necessary intelligence, character, and gravitas for the job: Jody Wilson-Raybould, a crown prosecutor who held leadership positions in both Kwak’wala and Canadian governments. Not a team player. Joyce Murray, who made a fortune planting trees. Can’t think outside the box. And Chrystia Freeland, who found common ground with Ontario Premier Doug Ford and defended Liberal trade policies from a Trump attack in 2017, couldn’t see the upside in a few trifling Christmas gifts for all Canadians. The woman simply does not understand politics. Sad. Facing a second Donald Trump presidency, Trudeau and his small circle of like-minded advisers stand alone, grimly shouldering the weight of Canada’s future. On behalf of all Canadian women, I want to apologize for leaving this lonely burden to them.
Catherine Murton Stoehr, North Bay
Finally, a letter about Kevin O'leary, the toad who leaves warts on all he touches:
Kevin O’Leary represents his own interests, not Canada’s
Kevin O’Leary posted on X that he is willing to go to Mar-a-Lago to negotiate on Canada’s behalf to unify Canada and the U.S. O’Leary’s right to negotiate on our behalf exists only in his ego. He is no elected official. In fact, he recently became a citizen of the United Arab Emirates. Not only is there no income tax in the UAE, but there is also no need to file any report on your income. Pack your ego away Mr. O’Leary. You don’t represent anyone’s interest but your own. Remember, we are the true north strong and free.
Bruce Kerr, Toronto
Not a bad cross section of Canadian opinion, eh?
There are still many who both turn a blind eye to the ongoing genocide in Gaza and justify israel's atrocities as mere self-defence. If you believe that fiction, all I can say is your critical-thinking skills are grossly deficient.
But even if we are rightfully appalled by those atrocities, most of us, in our own ways, are complicit in them. We do not openly protest the carnage; we do not write letters decrying it; we continue to elect people who will only worsen the genocide; we do not demand that Canada stop being an echo chamber for American Middle East policies that only enable and embolden the destruction of countless lives.
The following is very, very difficult to watch. If you choose to view it and are subsequently still staunch advocates of Israel's actions, I don't know what to say to you.
Every evening before dinner, I watch an hour of television news: a half-hour of local and a half-hour of American national reportage. When I sit down for supper to give a news overview to my wife, I am often struck with a sense surrealism. Surely what I have to report can't really be happening; perhaps I am lying in a hospital somewhere in a deep coma-induced fever dream, which would explain a lot about what I am seeing during the news hour.
Examples abound, one being the ongoing genocide in Gaza, where hospitals continue to be bombarded by the IDF as they ferret out Hamas 'sympathizers' and 'operatives', with absolutely no proof being offered. The systematic elimination of Gaza's healthcare structure ensures only more death and destruction of Palestinians, clearly Israel's objective.
But I digress. Today's excursion into absurdity involves a story I have not seen on TV news, perhaps because the legacy media do not want to provoke Don Trump, given that they are the enemy of the people. No, this is the kind of story one has to search for in order to find out Trump's latest grift: Pay To Pray.
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly planning an interfaith prayer service the day before his inauguration, where participants can worship alongside the businessman and his wife, Melania.
But those who want to join need to weigh the price of prayer: Tickets to the service will be awarded only to those who donate at least $100,000 to Trump’s inaugural ceremonies, or who raise $200,000.
Earlier this month, Axios cited a seven-page prospectus that listed the service alongside several other donor-only events, such as a “cabinet reception” with Trump’s nominees and “candlelight dinner” with Trump and Melania.
According to the report, if a donor gives $1 million or raises $2 million, they’ll earn six tickets to the suite of inauguration events.
Indeed, the entire Inaugural Weekend appears chock full of grifting money-making opportunities for team Trump:
A shame, in many ways, that Charlie Angus is not running in the next election. Thus far, he seems to be the only politician to call Trump what he is: a mean-spirited buffoon. As you watch, you will see that Angus has Wayne Gretzky's number as well.
All in all, some very astute and satisfying assessments.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez succinctly addresses the latter:
Unfortunately, the traditional bulwarks of democracy are also rapidly fading, engaging in the very thing American historian Timothy Snyder has warned us against: anticipatory obedience. The thirst to appease Trump seems insatiable.
Tech chief executives, media organisations and foreign leaders are seeking the president-elect’s favor through donations, self-censorship and appeasement. Analysts say the surrender is driven by a combination of greed, fear of Trump’s unfettered power and a belief that resistance is futile.
In Star Trek: the Next Generation, the Borg were a hybrid species that subsumed into their collective various cultures and civilizations, with the warning that resistance was futile. And yet in that universe, resistance, and ultimately victory, prevailed. The real world, however, seems to be doing the opposite with Trump.
“Part of the shock of the Trump win is how quickly and how many people in various areas, from the media to politicians, are acquiescing in advance,” said Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill. “People are resigning themselves to self-preservation over the good of maintaining a free and fair democracy and resisting Trump.”
Despite his criminal, civil and moral record, Trump is being feted everywhere.
Steve Schmidt, a political strategist and former campaign operative for George W Bush and John McCain, said: “He’s entering office is the most powerful president in American history. He is an American Caesar, unrestrained. Trump has made a threat and said, I’m coming after people, and he’s appointed people that will do what he wants without him having to tell them to do it.”
A parade of chief executives have travelled to Mar-a-Lago to bend the knee to Trump. Along with Meta chief executive Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Sergey Brin and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos made the pilgrimage. Meta, Amazon, Uber and Open AI chief Sam Altman are all reportedly donating $1m to the fund for the inauguration on 20 January.
Bezos, a onetime critic of Trump’s rhetoric, now says he is “optimistic” about Trump’s second term while also endorsing his plans to cut regulations. As owner of the Washington Post newspaper, Bezos killed an endorsement of Harris during the presidential election. The Post is struggling to find a new executive editor amid fears it will no longer live up to the “Democracy dies in darkness” slogan it championed during Trump’s first term.
The hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, visited Mar-a-Lago in November despite previously eviscerating his fascist rhetoric. Scarborough defended the meeting, arguing that any journalist would take an opportunity to meet the president-elect but he and Brzezinski were being penalised for being “transparent” about it.
This proliferation of knee-bending is bad for the body politic and can only embolden the president-elect.
Setmayer, who now runs the Seneca Project political action committee, commented: “The way some in the mainstream media have already decided that acquiescence is their way of self-preservation not only is naive but dangerous because without that we don’t have an informed citizenry. It’s supposed to be without fear or favor and media is acting out of fear. And by way of acting out of fear, they are giving Trump the favor that he wants.”
There is much, much more in The Guardian article that I have excerpted here, and I hope you will have the time to read it. There are at least two inferences to be drawn from the current sycophantic demonstrations of fealty toward Trump. One is that democracy is being debased to the degree that it will soon be unrecognizable. Another, and this is more disturbing in its own way, is how quickly our species can adjust/pervert our concept of what is right and just. In the current rush to normalize Trump, we are casting aside traditional concepts of morality, fairness and justice, something history amply teaches us will lead to dire consequences for all.
Make of this what you will, but it always puzzles me why the American dollar is so valued, while ours is not.
And under The Land of Opportunity For Some rubric, there is this:
.... I always turned to trusted sources for perspective and commentary - editorial cartoonists. My favourite by far is Theo Moudakis:
Things are unfolding at a rapid rate, so I shall just post a few excerpts from Stephen Maher's piece published in The Star just a few minutes ago.
In a speech to a feminist political charity in Ottawa Tuesday night, Justin Trudeau lamented the election of Donald Trump as a setback for women’s progress.
“I want you to know that I am, and always will be, a proud feminist,” he said. “You will always have an ally in me and in my government.”
On Friday, the proud feminist had a meeting with Canada’s first female finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, and told her that he intended to replace her, presumably with Mark Carney, on Tuesday.
First, though, Trudeau wanted Freeland to present the government’s fall economic statement, featuring a gimmicky $2.7 billion holiday tax break the PMO had persuaded her to include. She would have to humiliate herself on her last day on the job by announcing a measure she opposed, missing the deficit target she had set herself in May. Trudeau had thus created a situation where it was easier for Freeland, his single closest and most important cabinet ally, to denounce him and quit, rather than do as he asked.
The departure of the long-suffering Freeland, the consummate team player, reminded me of the departure in 2019 of former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who quit hours after the prime minister told reporters “her presence in cabinet should actually speak for itself.”
In both cases, the proud feminist put women who had shattered glass ceilings in a position where they were better off resigning rather than let Trudeau continue to humiliate them.
Taken together, the two incidents make Trudeau look like a narcissistic gaslighter, a fake feminist who thought he could subordinate talented women to his will based on his own excessive self-confidence.
With her departure, the whole operation now seems like a farcical mess.
On Monday, Trudeau huddled with his remaining cabinet. No minister who left the meeting would say out loud whether they still have confidence in him as prime minister. Five or six more ministers were rumoured to be ready to follow Freeland out the door.
The proud feminist now looks like a one-trick pony, a narcissist whose leadership was only effective while his charisma was working. Now that his charm has worn off, he is left with nothing, performing progressivism as if a breathless world was still waiting for his latest charming quip while everyone just wants him to go.
As they say, there is much more to come, so I'm sure we'll all stayed tuned with the aphoristic "bated breath".
I have never been fond of the American aphorism, "My country, right or wrong." On the surface, it suggests a reflexive, unbending and blind loyalty to and pride in one's nation, no matter its shortcomings. This can lead to all sorts of excesses, as U.S. history so amply demonstrates. However, love of and pride in a person's country of birth is, or can be, quite a different thing.
I've been thinking about national pride in light of what Charlie Angus recently had to say. He reminds us of how that pride informed our past politicians, whether in government or opposition, in their relationship with the Americans. While that relationship has mostly been cordial, it has never been servile.
Now comes word of a new poll by Angus Reid that shows a steep decline in national pride.
In 1985, 78 per cent said they were “very proud” to be Canadian. This dropped to 52 per cent in 2016 and now by another 18 points to 34 per cent. The proportion who say they are either proud or very proud of their nationality has dropped precipitously from 79 per cent to 58 per cent over the past eight years.
The Star's Kevin Jiang offers some analysis:
These numbers could indicate Canadians feel the country isn’t living up to their expectations, Ramos said, especially in the years after the COVID-19 pandemic.
“You don’t have to look very far across the Toronto Star headlines to see that there are issues around stagnant wages, around affordability, around housing,” [political sociologist Howard] Ramos said. “This is a big part of what’s being observed in this trend.”
As well, there are key demographic differences.
Older Canadians were significantly more likely to feel deeply attached to Canada, with 63 per cent of men and 66 per cent of women over 55 echoing that sentiment. In contrast, just 39 per cent of men and 26 per cent of women aged 18 to 34 answered the same.
Political party affiliation also plays a role.
Conservative voters were most likely to want to see the country split up or take up Donald Trump’s offer to become the 51st state; 11 per cent of Conservative supporters said they want to join the U.S. while eight per cent said they’d prefer to “see the country split up into two or more smaller countries.”
There can be little doubt that disaffection is widespread, for the above stated economic reasons, as well as things like wait times for medical service, etc. As well, I can't help but wonder about the effect of right-wing podcasters on Canadians' views, especially younger ones, of our country.
Is there a way of reversing this trend? Obviously, politicians are in key positions to influence our national vies. The constant harping about the brokenness of Canada by opportunists like PP certainly contribute to the negative sentiments, a view echoed by Richard Nimijean, a Carleton University professor:
“National identity is not static,” Nimijean said. “If things are tough all over and if our leaders are talking about things being bad ... it’s not surprising we get these kinds of results.”
But Ramos believes these results may also indicate the country is in need of a clearer definition of what it means to be Canadian. He points to a 2015 interview with the New York Times, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there was “no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”
“Maybe it’s time for us to begin to think about what is that identity,” Ramos said, “and what we should be proud of.”
And that, of course, is a topic fit for any number of blog posts, but perhaps it is time for a refresher course on our country and why it is so dear.
I shall end now by wearing my heart on my sleeve, something I am usually loathe to do. There is no other country on earth I would rather be a citizen of. It was this country into which I was born and have been nurtured, and it will have my undivided (but not uncritical) loyalty until my days are done.
Here is a reminder and a jolt from Charlie Angus, one that should be heard by all who would appease the mad king, Trump, at the expense of our national pride and nationhood:
UPDATE:
Here are a few more words of wisdom from Charlie Angus:
Before delving into that, I highly recommend David Graham's latest post, An Unsympathetic Death. Graham provides outstanding information about the health insurance business in America, and the daily perils Americans face even when they have healthcare insurance. It is a reminder of how fortunate we are, despite its shortcoming, to have socialized medicine in Canada.
In its refusal to 'blame the victim', mainstream media have sanitized certain facts.
The business run by Thompson brought in $281 billion in revenue last year, making it the largest subsidiary of the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group. His $10.2 million annual pay package, including salary, bonus and stock options awards, made him one of the company’s highest-paid executives.
If you read Graham's post, you will see that much of that profit and bonus accrued from United Health Care's 33% denial rate of medical insurance claims. One need not have a particularly vivd imagination to see the emotional and physical toll this would have on the 'insured'.
However, there is much more to Brian Thompson's story.
UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was facing a lawsuit accusing him and other executives of insider trading related to an ongoing Justice Department investigation before he was fatally shot outside a New York City hotel on Wednesday.
Thompson, 50, was one of three UnitedHealth Group executives named in a class action lawsuit filed in May that accused them of dumping millions of dollars worth of stock while the company was the subject of a federal antitrust investigation, which investors say wasn’t immediately disclosed to shareholders.
“UnitedHealth was aware of the DOJ investigation since at least October 2023. Instead of disclosing this material investigation to investors or the public, UnitedHealth insiders sold more than $120 million of their personally held UnitedHealth shares,” the suit filed by the City of Hollywood Firefighters’ Pension Fund alleges.
Nearly $25 billion in shareholder value was erased once the investigation was publicly revealed in February. Thompson was able to sell off more than $15 million of his own UnitedHealth shares [emphasis mine] before the value dropped, however, the suit states.
In my view, mainstream media's withholding of such information is both a disservice to loyal viewers and additional fuel for the almost endless criticism directed at the legacy outlets. Even I, an unrepentant supporter of such media, have had my faith shaken.
Life in the United States is often described as "dog eat dog." It would appear that some dogs live a charmed life, until they don't.
