Some Critical Thinking About The War Against ISIS

Contrary to what governments want their citizens to do, that is precisely what the following Star letter-writers are engaging in as they ask the right questions and point out what should be obvious about the war on ISIS terrorism:

Chantal Hébert overlooked the sanest voice in Parliament when she analyzed the stands of the three main parties on the war against Islamic State. She accused Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau of electioneering rather than clear thinking. Too bad she didn’t mention Elizabeth May’s brilliant speech on the issue. While agreeing with Harper that Canadians support the need to address the evils of terrorism, she reminds us that recent history has shown that wars have only made matters worse; that we need to sign the arms trade treaty in order to keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists; and we need to figure out what leads these young men to such acts of extremism. She also points out that a decision about going to war needs much more than a single day of debate in the House of Commons.

Katy Austin, Elmvale

The Conservatives’ fundamental argument to justify the use of CF-18 war planes against the Islamic State in Iraq is a moral argument. ‎Their claim is that Canada will demonstrate and build national character through air attacks against the militants. They argue we have a duty to ourselves above all others to strike Islamic State since our action will be morally right.

But is national character ‎really the main test to use when making a decision about bombing Iraq? Is it not better to test the decision against strategic security questions such as: Is it really our fight and not the fight of regional powers? Why did previous massive military interventions in Iraq and other places fail to end the threat? Why expect a different outcome this time? Why aren’t the militaries of Saudi Arabia or Egypt deployed instead since both these regional states are amply supplied with American war planes by the U.S.?

Brad Butler, Etobicoke

In view of the beheading of innocent American and British nationals and the many brutal atrocities committed by Islamic State, it is difficult to remain passive and uninvolved. There is a natural and visceral desire to punish or destroy — as an act of revenge or to teach them a lesson. So bombs away!

But is this the best and most logical reaction? The answer is clearly No!

History has many examples to show that bombing will not provide a beneficial long-term result. While bombing will slow or momentarily halt an Islamic State advance in Iraq, it will not provide a victory over that foe. Nor will it have a beneficial result in Syria. Well-trained and motivated boots-on-the-ground (primarily Iraqi and Kurdish boots) are needed to thwart the Islamic State’s advances in Iraq. Reaching out to moderate Sunnis is also needed. Syria is another complicated matter and a no-win situation.

Harper has committed our soldiers to this battle for three reasons: in order to satisfy a U.S. request, to appease his political base and to inflate his image as a decisive leader. None of those reasons is sufficient to get involved in a combat role with CF-18s and support personnel. Iraq has requested support with training, weapons and humanitarian assistance. That should have been Canada’s response.

Bombing will have a strategic impact for the Islamic State similar to the Sept. 11 attacks for the U.S. — namely to motivate, recruit and engage a sleeping element. Perhaps that was the underlying reason for the beheadings. If so, Islamic State has won this stage. Is this a sign of its future success?

Dennis Choptiany, Markham

Be Careful What You Wish For

Despite the polls currently showing majority support for Canada's joining in the war against ISIS, the Prime Minister may find that its enthusiasm for such futile adventurism is short-lived. Perhaps, after the next election, Mr. Harper will find that he has some time for that long-deferred fishing trip?



H/t The Globe and Mail

Penetrating The Fog Of War

Yesterday, in response to a picture I posted quoting Herman Goering on the ease with which people can be manipulated into war, Scotian, a frequent commentator, responded to the picture, offering his analysis of the Canadian reaction to ISIS. I offer you his comments, always insightful, for your consideration:

Sadly, I am forced to agree.

However I was rather pleasantly surprised to see Trudeau and the Libs not at the last join with Harper on the combat side, I rather had expected to see that. Indeed, in the last couple of days Trudeau has been sounding a lot more sensible than I was expecting, and in even more importantly, nuanced in his positioning on this issue, which I happen to think is the right place to be. I do think something needs doing by Canada at this point, if only because of our alliance partners being involved, as well as just how ugly ISIS is in its actions, but the idea that it must be combat action, no that comes from the Harper mentality on this issue. I happen to think we are far better suited in this case for the non-combat logistic and recon roles where military elements are concerned, and we have been asked by the Kurds and Iraq last month not for combat power but humanitarian assistance. That being said though I was never in favour of military/combat action to begin with.

I have yet to be convinced of the threat to us here in Canada by this group. Are they nasty operators with terrible ideology and aims with brutal means of trying to bring them about? No question on any of that. Are they recruiting from our disaffected youth? Again yes, that is factually inarguable. However, what actual threat capacity to they pose to us here in this nation above and beyond the already ever present threat of individual actions of terrorists (of which there are many such groups including some with high funding) using local materials to disrupt/attack local targets? This is a question I have yet to hear any answer that makes any sense to me beyond the political rhetoric level.

I am also more than a little troubled that until ISIS/ISIL started beheading western reporters and using youtube to publicize that fact this group was not seen as such a massive threat to our interests. We know this group has a lot of well educated westerners within it, that indeed they recruit for such as much as locals. Therefore they have to understand that this sort of thing will inflame emotions and make military intervention more probable, so why then are they asking for it? There is much military wisdom in not doing what your enemy is clearly trying to get you to do, I said that about GWB and the 2003 shift in focus to Iraq instead of following through with Afghanistan (where I still believe that if the US had stayed there alone and done the full follow through there could not only have been a real success but a ripple effect to weaken such forces, instead of the strengthening we saw as a result of doing what bin Laden clearly wanted from the US with Iraq), and I think this is something that has not gotten anywhere near the serious consideration it needs in this case.

I also recognize the difference that while ISIS/ISIL is using terrorist tactics yet it is still more than a terrorist group, it is an insurgency, and that is an important distinction to be making. This is a group that wants to become a real government, it means that to really defeat them will take far more than military action but serious political/diplomatic action, and there Canada could have been vital in laying the groundwork in that area, and I think that was where Trudeau was making the most sense to me.

I find it interesting to note that both sides are using that Goering quote against us. The Harper side is obvious and other have dealt with it before so I won't rehash it here at the moment. However, the point I was making about the use of youtube and the handful of western beheadings ISIS/ISIL has been releasing is also clearly being used to create that effect in countries like ours, which is why I said it is clear to me they want military action from us, and when your enemy wants something so obviously is it really the wisest course to give it to him?

So that is where I am at the moment. I am very disturbed by how poorly I find this issue being examined given the level of obviousness of ISIS/ISIL in trying to provoke this exact response. I am also bothered by no one being able to show the actual real threat in real terms to western nations by this group. I know there is some threat posed, if only by their destabilizing effect in an oil rich part of the world, but in terms of direct security threat, that I have seen a remarkable dearth of credible information, and that also troubles me. This time I think the Opposition parties are right to vote against this action (and I am far from a dove, I have strong military history within my family, would have been reserve in my youth save for a disqualifying injury in my late teens) and that currently the Liberals (much to my surprise) are actually closest to where I am on this issue at this time, something I did not expect, and has actually increased my respect for Trudeau in this issue. He was smart enough to to not freeze his position too soon, he showed nuance, yet he also in the end stuck up for the role which in this conflict I think we would be best serving our national interests as well as those of those suffering on the ground.

This is a very complex and nuanced issue and deserved far better treatment than this government has given to it, not just on the political aspects but the substantive as well. As I said, much to my surprise over the past month Trudeau navigated the substance of this issue far better and closer to my own preferences than I expected to see from him (and I am one that was not offended by his comment regarding whipping out F-18s the other day, it was clear to me he wasn't trying to make a joke or be funny but to make a policy point/critique in a fairly blunt and direct manner, something a bit different than just a joke, and I went and watched the relevant material multiple times before I came to this degree of belief as to what he was doing), and his party is in my view making not just the right decision but also for the right reasons. Imagine that.

I hadn't meant to go on quite so much on Trudeau, I only did so because for me at the moment he is of the three main leaders making the most sense on this issue (May is also providing serious sense on this front, but being such a tiny party leader gets little coverage and carries negligible impact unlike the big three) to me since it first started becoming a serious political issue in this country some weeks back. I've been relatively quiet to date because like Trudeau I was waiting to see what was actually being proposed, and issues like this I take seriously and tend to try to stay away from discussing only in political/partisan terms because of that (mind you the political partisan games Harper clearly has been playing is I believe unheard of in our history for such an issue).

Sounds About Right To Me

Economic Fact Check

Contrary to what our self-described economist Prime Minister would have us believe, the jobs that are being created in Canada today are but a pale echo of what once existed. Responding to a January report about the creation of 29,000 new jobs, Star readers have this to say:

Jump in jobs eases economy fears, Feb. 8

The article begins by saying “the labour market started 2014 with a bang adding 29,400 jobs,” presenting a positive tone regarding unemployment. This is misleading. From 2004 to 2008, according to Statistic Canada, nearly 350,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs disappeared, to be replaced by a number of service jobs that paid minimum wage or less. Every sector was hit: the automotive industry, auto parts manufacturing, textile product mills, all industries related to wood and paper. Along with these jobs went the unions, and suddenly we were seeing the rise of food banks.

By 2010, manufacturing employment had fallen by an additional 375,000 workers. All courtesy of free trade agreements that allowed companies to leave Canada for cheap-labour countries.

Then there were other job losses: Sears, 1,600 jobs gone; public sector workers: 20,000; and major Canadian banks, in the thousands. The construction industry in northern Alberta, which generates the best paying jobs in the country, has been laying off workers and replacing them with temporary foreign workers earning as little as half the prevailing wage.

“They called the guys (Canadian workers) into an office, told them that they were gone, and they literally walked past the replacements on the way out,” Alberta Federation of Labour Gil McGowan said.

Job losses over the past 10 years add up to well over a million. The number of jobs listed in the article, 29,400, doesn't even wipe out the job losses of the month previous, 49,500.

And it does nothing about the million jobs already lost.

Bert Deveaux, Toronto

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should have chosen ballet slippers instead of steel-toed shoes the way he dances around the reality Canada is rapidly becoming a part-time economy. Will that be fries with your budget, Sir?

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

No doubt these facts will be viewed as just a tiny challenge to the Harper propaganda machine.

A Scientist Speaks Out

By now, the plight of government scientists is reasonably well-known. Despite the Harper propaganda machine's vehement campaign to deny the practice, more and more Canadians have become aware that the regime has been systematically muzzling its scientists, whose research and hard data frequently contradict and expose as lies the ideology that passes as truth in our debased democracy.

Because we have a collectively short memory, every so often we need to be reminded of some harsh realities, as was done on September 16 when scientists rallied against government efforts to suppress much-needed information.

David Schindler, described as the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology emeritus at the University of Alberta, has a well-written piece in today's Star reminding all of us of the government's odious practices.

Entitled Remove the muzzle from government scientists, the article begins by reminding us of the proud and often pivotal role Canadian science, much of it governmental, has played in some far-reaching environmental initiatives, including the fact that

Canada was the first country to regulate phosphorus in sewage and detergents, leading to the recovery of many lakes from algal blooms.

Canada also led global efforts to decrease emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, resulting in the Montreal Protocol.

...policies to control acid rain, based largely on science from government departments, were implemented.

Shindler himself left government science when things began to change. The first changes were somewhat subtle, beginning in the 1990s:

Scientists ... were warned to avoid directly criticizing government policies, even environmentally harmful ones. Rebukes were mild for a scientist who challenged his political masters. At worst, a scolding letter was “put on your file.”

Things steadily deteriorated, with restrictions reaching their nadir once the Harper regime became ensconced:

Shortly after it took office, scientists were told they must have permission from bureaucrats to speak publicly. Bureaucrats and communications officers issued “speaking lines” that must be used to avoid criticism of policies. The permitted lines were often so inane that most scientists chose to remain silent rather be embarrassed by using them.

This weakening of the scientific voice had dire consequences, including the collapse of the cod industry, but much worse was to come:

The government divested itself of the Experimental Lakes Project, government contaminants programs, climate projects and the Arctic PEARL project. The Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act were changed to provide less protection, while expediting large industrial developments.

And now, of course, we have the almost daily spectacle of government ministers defending the indefensible, with lies about subjects ranging from greenhouse gas emissions to oilsands and protection of fisheries.

Shindler ends his piece with the following sobering thoughts:

We must take government science back from politicians who would twist or hide science that reveals flaws in their policies. We deserve to know the truth about the impacts of proposed developments on our environment, in order to avoid mistakes that will be costly to future generations.

Government science once provided this information, and it must be changed to do so again. The health of not only our environment, but of Canadian democracy, depends on it.

We can expect the Harper cabal to continue to fight any such ideas vigorously, as is the wont of repressive regimes everywhere.

Oh I Can Think Of So Many Ways This Is Relevant

Leaf Nation, Or Just More Tired Rabid Harper Partisanship?

Some may think this clever. I just think it is pathetic (and I'm not even a fan of the Liberals).

This Can't Be Healthy

As deeply suspicious and cynical as I am about institutions, it is probably not surprising that I view with a jaundiced eye the events surrounding the arrest of two terror suspects accused of a plot to blow up a Via Rail train. Many have asked questions about the sudden urgency of Harper's rearranging the parliamentary agenda so that his terror bill could begin to be debated on Monday, coinciding with the RCMP announcement of the arrests.

Coincidences happen, but I am always suspicious when they do. And given the well-known politicization that the RCMP has undergone in recent years, any person with a modicum of critical-thinking skills is bound to wonder if this is not yet another example of our national police force allowing itself to be used by its political masters, something undoubtedly unhealthy both for democracy and general trust in government.

In his column today, The Star's Tim Harper implies an element of manipulation:

Governments have long used fear to their advantage.

The former George W. Bush government in the U.S. used to change the colour of its “terror threat” if it was marching into headwinds on other matters. In this case, by abruptly changing gears last Friday and deciding to move on its long-neglected anti-terrorist legislation, Conservatives immediately faced charges of using the Boston Marathon bombings for political expediency.

Security expert Wesley Wark believes there was a degree of opportunism in the Conservative move to bring the anti-terror debate to the Commons floor Monday...

But no one Tuesday wanted to try to connect the other dots. It had become too perilous with two terror suspects in custody.

The Star's Heather Mallick is less opaque in her accusations, stating bluntly about the RCMP,

I do not trust them, just as I no longer trust Toronto police after the G20 debacle and do not trust a Harper majority government. Its calling card is to warn us non-stop of “Muslim terrorists,” which might not offend were this government neutral on religion.

Mallick reminds us of the terrible erosion of civil liberty the Conservative's anti-terror bill entails:

... “preventative detention” would mean that any Canadian could be arrested and held for three days on suspicion of terrorist involvement with no charge being laid.

“An investigative hearing” means that someone suspected of knowing about a terrorist plot could be imprisoned for up to a year if they refused to answer questions.

She points out that another provision of the bill is that it makes it a crime to leave Canada to commit an act of terrorism, and raises the specter of a false arrest abroad:

Do you trust Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and the RCMP to do the ethical, informed, reasonable thing in your case? Or do you expect them to follow a hard-right ideology, to overreact as the Americans do?

The answer for many of us to that question is sadly negative. And such a complete loss of faith and trust in one's government can't be healthy, either for individuals or for our democracy.

Harper Becomes An International Embarassment

Time to cut our losses?

For Your Further Consideration

Harper Hate-Mongering

The latest attack ad, this one against newly-appointed Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, serves as a timely reminder of the Harper government's seemingly endless capacity for hateful and divisive propaganda. In this, I make an all-too obvious observation. But I have, for some time, wondered about the audience for those ads, and searching my blog archive, I don't think I have commented upon this aspect previously.

No matter which Conservative attack ad one chooses, and there have been many, it seems that a standard template for the imagery and the narration predominates, both always out of context and derisive in tone. Designed to inspire fear, resentment and mockery towards their targets, they reveal something very significant about their collective architect, the Harper regime: a morally bankrupt and debased view of the electorate.

I have often wondered whether the target audience, the general electorate, has ever stopped to think about the implications of having a government that regards them as little more than Pavlovian dogs, deficient in intellect, general awareness, and sensibility, poised to respond to the latest offering from their 'master'. Consider the ad against Justin Trudeau, which I posted yesterday. There is a kind of carnival music playing in the background, suggestive of frivolity and lightness, the image they are trying to instill of Trudeau in the viewer's mind. The Liberal leader is shown doing a kind of striptease and behaving in an exaggerated, almost effeminate way. Cue the contempt.

The other ad released yesterday listed Trudeau's experience as a camp counsellor, rafting instructor and drama teacher for two years, the later delivered with particular derision (the message: a real leader has contempt for the arts). While its message is blunt and obvious, that very bluntness makes the intended audience manipulation more than obvious, something that Canadian citizens should be offended, outraged, and disturbed by, inasmuch as it is a bald admission that power is the regime's only raison d'etre.

And yet we are told that attack ads are very effective. I can only hope that more and more people begin to exercise their innate critical faculties and see these ads for what they really are: a blatant expression of contempt for the voters of Canada.

Pernicious Effects of Harper Politics on the Young

This, I assume, requires no further comment:

Conservative Attack Ad - UPDATED

I suspect many will agree that this ad says more about the Conservative Party behind it than it does about its subject:

UPDATE: This Star editorial provides some useful context for and analysis of this attack ad.

Harper Subversion of the Civil Service

That the Harper regime uses a myriad of tactics to exploit, manipulate and deceive the Canadian public through its propaganda, demagoguery, and demonization of those with contrary policy views has been well-chronicled in the media. Epithets like 'Taliban Jack' and the denigration of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP for “their dangerous economic experiments” are but two obvious examples of Harper's contempt both for truth and the intelligence of the electorate.

There is now ample evidence that fear of the regime has permeated the civil service. We are well-aware of the fact that the government has muzzled its scientists, an object lesson in its absolute commitment to controlling both the message and the messengers. Apparently that lesson has not been lost on Environment Canada, which commissioned polling firm Ipsos Reid to conduct a nationwide telephone survey last June to learn how Canadians view federal priorities regarding the environment, in order to help improve the way the government communicates with the public.

The results of any poll are heavily influenced by how the questions are posed. One transparent example of Harper influence on the design of the poll is found in the following:

One of the questions gauged perceptions of a carbon tax by asking respondents how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following statement, on a scale from one to 10:

“Canada needs to implement a federal carbon tax to promote energy efficiency and protect the environment, even though it means increasing the cost of things like gas and groceries for consumers,” the statement read.

The results showed 43.5 per cent of respondents leaned toward the “strongly disagree” end of the spectrum, 19.1 per cent were on the “strongly agree” end and the rest fell somewhere in between.

With those preordained results, the regime spent much time during the fall session of Parliament accusing the NDP of wanting to impose a “$21-billion carbon tax” that would kill jobs.

As always, however, Toronto Star readers are on the job. Below I am reproducing their responses to the poll and the attitude it betrays:

Re: Environment Canada survey asked Canadians about carbon tax, oil exports, Jan. 2

Frankly, I’m surprised that only 4-in-10 respondents disagreed with a statement proposing implementation of a carbon tax that includes the warning, “even though it means increasing the cost of things like gas and groceries for consumers.” The statement seems somewhat disingenuous in its one-sided delivery— almost presupposing a negative response. I wonder what the response would have been if the statement had read: “Canada needs to implement a federal carbon tax to promote a low-carbon economy, which will generate high-quality green jobs, protect our environment, reduce health and insurance costs and reduce our exposure to volatile oil prices. Note that all fee revenues will be returned to Canadian citizens to offset an inevitable increase in fossil fuel energy costs.”

Camille Loxley, Toronto

One gets the impression, given the form of a June 2012 survey and the Harper government’s actions subsequent to its completion, that the objective of this survey was not so much to understand the thoughts of Canadians as to exploit them. The statement on carbon tax in particular supports an ongoing insidious argument trumpeted by Stephen Harper that falsely pits environment against economy. In this example there is no mention of the myriad of benefits a carbon tax would bring through a reduced use of fossil fuels — only negative connotations. It almost seems to be testing public reaction to a crafted message. Hardly honest, accurate or representative.

Ian Edwards, Toronto

Re: Bad year for environment, Editorial, Jan. 2

In chipping away our environmental protections, the Harper government is undermining its own credibility. Conservatives are supposed to be excellent stewards of the land. Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government actually took climate change seriously. Many conservative economists currently support a carbon tax as a means to transition to a clean energy economy. Who exactly then is this Conservative government representing?

Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

As always, however, it will take more than a few engaged Canadians to resist and counter the Harper regime's ongoing assault on reason. For that battle, all of us must be prepared to fight.

Canadians: Dear Leader Requires Your Uncritical Attention

To absorb and spread this message. Watch, learn, and heed:

Ignore the ugly rumours spread by enemies of the state that Dear Leader advocated this policy in 2008.

A Q&A With Allan Gregg

Many thanks to Accidental Deliberations for providing information on this Q&A with Allan Gregg, a good companion piece for his Assault On Reason article/speech. This Hill Times article on Gregg's thesis is also worth perusal.

Propaganda From Vic Toews

There are two letters of particular note in this morning's edition of The Toronto Star, one a propaganda piece from our much beleaguered Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, the other from Ron Charach, who seems to possess a certain perspicacity in his assessment of the Conservative government.

I am reproducing both below, with a few editorial additions on my part to 'clarify' Mr. Toews' words:

Re: Priority is on marketing in Tory anti-crime agenda, Opinion Aug. 27

Our government’s crime legislation does not create new criminals. Rather, it keeps the most dangerous, violent and repeat offenders behind bars for longer periods of time.

FACT: The Omnibus Crime bill imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months for anyone found growing six or more marijuana plants in a rented premises, and could impose the same sentence for someone caught simply sharing a joint, which might be considered trafficking, even if no money was paid.

Our Conservative government was given a strong mandate by Canadians to make our streets and communities safer. We make no apologies for putting the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals.

FACT: Only 39.6 of those who cast votes did so for the Conservative Party

We will continue to implement laws, policies, and procedures that protect Canadian families while standing up for our most vulnerable citizens. That isn’t marketing. It’s the first duty of every government.

FACT: The Conservative government is not standing up for our most vulnerable citizens, who are threatened with increasing poverty, a major contributor to crime, through the loss of even more jobs thanks to the Canada-Columbia free trade pact. And, of course, informed opinion says that CETA and the Asia-Pacific free trade pact, currently being conducted in secret, will likely result in more of the same.

Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety,(Hypocrisy) Ottawa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to what governments choose to call laws, there is no Truth in Advertising commission. If there were, C-69 would be the Soft on Ruger Miniis bill, C-38 would be the Gut the Environmental Laws bill and C-10 would be the Up the Incarceration Rate/ Private Prisons bill.

The abortive C-80, which should have cost Vic Toews his job, should have been the Stoop to Snoop bill.

These Father-knows-best Conservatives will protect us from Internet predators, but for the real thing, the Anders Breiviks and Marc Lepines of the world, we are essentially on our own.

I for one am not surprised that the Republicans are looking up at Canada these days and like the Republican-style, majority government we have going here, with plenty of omnibus bills to allow the Conservatives godspeed in reshaping Canada in their own image.

Ron Charach, Toronto

The Folly of Corporate Tax Cuts

Part of the orthodoxy of right-wing ideology is that corporate tax-cuts are an unalloyed benefit to the economy. The argument goes that the lower the tax regime, the more jobs that are created.

While that ideology has been proven patently false in Canada, for those seeking some well-reasoned arguments the next time a 'true-believer' captures your ear, look no further than a fine series of letters published in today's Star, only one of which I am reproducing below:

Corporations optimize their operations to maximize after-tax profit. When corporate profits are heavily taxed, reinvesting in the business provides a tax write-off that has a powerful risk damping effect; simultaneously, cash hoarding is penalized. Companies have no choice but to reinvest their profits.

When corporate tax rates are unsustainably low, reinvestment risks are not counteracted by tax breaks and there is no penalty for hoarding. It becomes hard to justify new staff and equipment when the lower-risk, higher-profit approach is to simply hoard cash.

This is not ideology; it is the mathematically inevitable result of optimizing for maximum after-tax profit. That Flaherty has not made the connection between the last two decades of tax policy and the current hoarding problem is rather surprising.

Matthew B. Marsh, Kingston

Is Oil Our Economic Salvation?

Interesting, isn't it, that despite the propaganda coming out of both Alberta and the Prime Minister's Office about oil being the economic engine and saviour of Canada, that our Western friends are finding themselves experiencing some economic malaise?