It's Like Listening To A Deranged Bizarro Jerry Seinfeld

Pay no attention to the talking fool. Judging by the following video of a Trump rally, many, many agreed.

Please note that I only listened to about 1;30 minutes of this bore, and out of consideration for readers of this blog, that is all I will put up here from a 33 minute 'free association' by the Orange Oaf which he undoubtedly thought was virtuoso riffing. If you want to hear more (but why would you?) simply click on Walter Masterson's feed:

Walter Masterson

@waltermasterson

Subscribe

Here is 35 unedited minutes showing thousands of MAGA walking out on Trump while he’s still talking.

Taking Sides

H/t Theo Moudakis

A new report finds a dramatic rise in antisemitism in Canada since the Hamas attack in Israel provoked a protracted, ongoing invasion of Gaza, thus far killing over 35,000 Palestinians.

Based on incidents reported to B'nai Brith, including through collaborations with police, there were 5,791 documented acts of violence, harassment and vandalism aimed at Jews in 2023, more than twice the 2,769 documented incidents in 2022. 

Those numbers are indeed alarming, and they prompt a very important question: "Can one take a principled and moral stand against the state of Israel's unconscionable actions in Gaza without being antisemitic?" For me, the answer is "Yes." 

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is people's unwillingness or inability to hold two conflicting ideas simultaneously. For many, the situation is reduced to the question of whether we side with Palestinians or with Israelis. It is the wrong question to ask. 

We all tend to think in absolutist terms at times; I know I am guilty of it when I paint Americans with a broad, derogatory brush, even while I am very much aware there are many good, thoughtful people south of the border. Something similar, but even worse, seems to be happening with those lashing out against Jews; according to some, these bigots are using Israel's genocidal actions as an excuse for their antisemitism.

Even the campus encampments have apparently seen some acts of antisemitism among the protestors; however, as much of the media like to paint them with that broad brush, it is both disingenuous and cowardly, and again speaks to the tendency to embrace absolutist stands that can encourage suppression of free speech and the right to protest.

Of course, the same applies to Jewish people. One needs to be aware that there are many Jewish participants in the campus protests, as well as in Israel, people who know it is right and just to condemn the Jewish state for its actions in Gaza. Few would call such participants antisemitic. Yet what about those who reflexively and wholeheartedly defend Israel, no questions asked?

Like my disgust with the unthinking, uncritical MAGA crowd in the U.S., I feel contempt for those who are unshakeable in their conviction of the rightness of the Israeli cause, no matter how much suffering and death the state inflicts upon innocent Palestinians. Since the majority of Israel's supporters in this carnage are Jewish, does that make my contempt for them antisemitic? I don't think it does, because they are simply making themselves extensions and mouthpieces of a government that is fast becoming a rogue nation.

All I know is that for me, reflexive, unquestioning support for any cause generally is reckless and dangerous, and in this particular cause, it is also odious and morally repugnant. The denial of fundamental humanity can never be acceptable.

A Hard Hitting Interview

Say what you will about Piers Morgan, but the following interview is hard-hitting and apt. I can't imagine North American journalists going after someone in this manner.

@QasimRashid

Well done by

@piersmorgan

Piers: How many Hamas have you killed? Israeli spokesman: 14,000 Piers: And how many civilians? IS: IDK Piers: How can you say you're careful about civilians if you don't even know how many you've killed??? IS:

PP's Latest Aphorism

As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And, dare I say, even PP might correctly take the people's pulse on occasion. However, even if he does say something that our more reactive selves may respond positively to, it hardly means he is fit for the office of Prime Minister.

There is a video I found currently circulating on Twitter that, distilled to its essence, perhaps captures the vox populi but is also a window into PP's exploitive soul. If you watch to the end, you will also be gifted with an addition to his repertoire of aphorisms to go along with Spike the Hike, Axe the Tax, Jail, Not Bail, etc.

MP Ryan Turnbull

Pay attention: Poilievre reveals who he is every day. We are witnessing a tyrant in the making. I’ve never seen anything like it. He is so completely irresponsible. Just watch #cdnpoli

"Hard time for hard crime." Not bad, eh, especially for those who like their politics distilled to a soundbite or two. However, more discerning members of the electorate have, shall we say, reservations about this wannabe prime minister.

Poilievre, Tories on wrong side of history

If Poilievre doesn’t want to be portrayed as an authoritarian leader, maybe he should stop talking like one, April 30

Shame on the Conservative caucus for walking out of the House of Commons when their leader was ejected. Pierre Poilievre’s choice of words to describe the prime minister (and refusing to withdraw it) was childish to say the least and not the language of intelligent debate we expect from our elected representatives. Further, Poilievre showed great disrespect for the Speaker of the House. By following Poilievre out, his caucus condoned this unacceptable behaviour. By all means disagree with another’s point of view, but do not sink to this base behaviour when doing so.

Katy Austin, Midland, Ont.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s ejection from question period is only the latest example of the Conservative Party of Canada’s continuous veering off toward the extremist right. The increasingly toxic comportment demonstrates frustration to be sure, but more importantly indicates a trend toward and support for aggressive, authoritarian-style politics. This disrespectful, belligerent, toxic leadership is the farthest thing from Canadian politics we’ve ever seen. It’s embarrassing for Canada. The lack of respect for civil debate and parliamentary protocols is a threat to democracy.

E. Spanier, Toronto

Comparisons to Trump

Poilievre flirts with far right while media looks away, McQuaig, April 30

Canadians ought to thank Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre for his recent outburst. After his attempt to redo his image as the nice friendly family guy, he got himself ejected from the House of Commons. It is nice when the true colours of a politician are outed, not by the opposition, but by themselves and their own behaviour. Poilievre has shown that he is grossly unsuitable as a leader, as a prime minister, and that his advisers ought not to be allowed on Parliament Hill. He has confirmed Canadians’ suspicions that he is our own version of Trump. He has proven that he remains simply a partisan, dogmatic, name calling political brat.

Allan Bowman, East Gwillimbury, Ont.

In calling opposing politicians juvenile and disparaging names, threatening to rewrite the Constitution to get his own way, appealing to extremist groups, decrying every progressive government initiative, perpetuating the wrong-headed notion that taxes are evil, showing contempt for the authority of government, it would seem that American presidential hopeful Donald Trump has his very own “Mini-Me” up here in Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. God help us all should he gets into power.

Jonathan OMara, Whitby, Ont.

Perhaps it is only fitting that I conclude this brief post with the latest thoughts from Theo Moudakis on PP:

UPDATED: Patterns - Part 2

In my previous post I discussed how media shape the narratives by which we interpret the world. I used as its example the near-hysteria surrounding changes in the capital-gains attribution rate that the media have fuelled.

The same narrative structure seems to be permeating coverage of the widespread campus protests and activism surrounding Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza. To follow the 'official' narrative, such protests are little more than rabid demonstrations of anti-Semitism and promotion of the destruction of Israel.

For the uncritical mind, that story is all one needs to know. However, for those not content to glide along the surface of world events, it is woefully inadequate and grossly misleading. There is much, much more to the demonstrations than the cartoonish portrayals media are promulgating.

First, we hear of how violent the campus demonstrations are. However, in every news video I have seen, the 'violence' seems to start when the authorities move in to oust and arrest the demonstrators. I wonder if anyone has coverage of the minutes before the police arrive. Were the demonstrators rampaging, or were they simply strongly proclaiming their goals of highlighting the atrocities being committed in Gaza, as well as demands for transparency and divestment from Israel by the universities?

Another part of the narrative given special emphasis is that some Jewish students feel unsafe on campus because of the demonstrations. While I don't doubt that there have been incidents where direct threats have been made, one has to consider  a couple of things: is the very act of criticizing Israel part of what is making students feel unsafe? Protests are, by their nature, uncomfortable events for many. As well, students need to  acknowledge and accept that there are many Jewish students who are part of the protest.

Both points seem to be addressed in a NYT article:

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators across the country say Israel is committing what they see as genocide against the Palestinian people, and they aim to keep a spotlight on the suffering. But some Jewish students who support Israel and what they see as its right to defend itself against Hamas say the protests have made them afraid to walk freely on campus. They hear denunciations of Zionism and calls for a Palestinian uprising as an attack on Jews themselves. 

Many Jewish students taking part in the current protests say they are doing so as an expression of their Jewish values that emphasize social justice and equality. Encampments have hosted Shabbat dinners and Passover seders. At Columbia, one student said that donors have supplied kosher meals. 

Samuel Law, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin who is Jewish and involved in the protests, was inspired by the encampments popping up around the country. “I strongly believe that the university should be there for us to care about what we care about,” he said.

For me, the protests are reminiscent of the many campus demonstrations and sit-ins that took place in the sixties during America's war on Vietnam. The protestors were often portrayed as Communists and/or disloyal to their country. The very act of putting one's beliefs on the line became, to many Americans, an act of alarming subversion. One remembers the Kent State massacres, and we are reminded that freedom of expression is very, very conditional. Like today, express your views freely, but only if they accord with our version of the status quo.

Such an approach is ultimately counter-productive, as noted in The Guardian, never a slave to conventional narratives. 

The aftermath at Columbia University should be instructive for other universities facing similar protests, the repression and suspension of students leads to more sustained protest and broader participation. More students join in, if only just to witness. By suspending so many students, they now have very little to keep them from organizing and drawing attention to the encampments popping up across the US. 

There is some truth to the popular protest slogan: “They tried to bury us, but they didn’t know we were seeds.”

Perhaps I am an outlier in all of this, but the very act of protest, in my view, is a vital part of any democracy. To delegitimize such is to deny democracy itself, and more than that, it is a repression of the human spirit that seeks justice. 

At the beginning of this post is an excerpt from John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. On first glance he seems to be endorsing people who drop bombs when he says to [f]ear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live ... for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. However, what he means is that when efforts at suppression and repression end, (i.e. the bombs) it means that the human spirit, or Manself, as he calls it, has withered and died. If we consider bombs both literally and metaphorically, it means to fear a time people have stopped "fighting the good fight," i.e., standing up for their beliefs and inviting retribution; the consequent impulse to squelch us is no longer needed.

And that, without question, would be a truly a dystopian world.

UPDATE: Thanks to Anon for a reference to an article by Justin Ling, which you can read here.

 

Patterns

 

As a regular consumer of media, I find myself more and more looking for patterns. While there is likely no such thing as totally consistent media narratives, I do think a preponderance of print, television and social media frame stories in ways that doubtlessly influence our perception of events.

Two recent events suggest such patterns: the Trudeau government's decision to raise capital gains taxes to a 66% attribution rate from 50% for those making more than $250,000 in such profits per year, and the coverage of the increasingly widespread protests on campuses over the Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza subsequent to the murderous Hamas attack last October.*

In a previous post, I discussed in some detail the howls of outrage from the business community over the capital gains hike; that outrage has spread to doctors, small businesses (despite some pretty strong mitigation measures) and, a group with whom so many identify, hapless cottage owners. 

There is a reason I subscribe to The Toronto Star. If there is to be a voice that breaks from the media chorus, it will be found there. A recent article by David Olive demonstrates this with some much-needed perspective, since

raising the inclusion rate on capital gains strengthens the country’s social fabric by making the tax system a bit fairer at a time of punishing income inequality.

Canada’s marginal effective tax rate (METR), which accounts for all business taxes and tax deductions by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, is the lowest in the G7.

Canada’s METR is 14.5 per cent compared to America’s 19.7 per cent and Japan’s 31.4 per cent. 

 Most critics of the capital gains reform say it will worsen Canada’s laggard productivity growth.

Those critics must answer for the chronic underinvestment by Canadian business in productivity enhancing plant, machinery, R&D and skills training during the past 24 years when the inclusion rate was just 50 per cent. 

Meanwhile, businesses have found the money for stock buybacks that inflate the price of shares to which executive pay is tied.

The anemic rate of business investment has so undermined productivity growth that the Bank of Canada recently called the situation an “emergency.” 

 It’s as if Ottawa decided that since the lower inclusion rate wasn’t boosting productivity, the government might as well tax a larger share of those idle profits.

And to use that money to finance its ambitious $8.5 housing plan, a new $1.5 billion pharmacare program, funding for more daycare spaces, one of the biggest-ever increases in defence spending ($8.1 billion), and a new $1 billion school lunch program.

And to make those additional investments without increasing the deficit, which is projected at $39.8 billion in fiscal 2024-25, basically unchanged from the previous year’s $40 billion deficit.

No one likes higher taxes. But in its reform of capital gains taxes, Ottawa has settled on a least-bad way of financing improvements to Canadian quality of life.

While that point of view may be anathema to those who regard capitalism as a zero-sum game, the rest of us should just take a few breaths and disengage from the media narrative seeking to villainize anything that seeks to make things just a bit fairer for all.

* Since this post went a bit long, I will save the discussion of campus unrest for another post. In the meantime, if so inclined, see if you can detect the pattern in that reportage. 

On Police Accountability

“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.”

― Franz Kafka, The Trial

One of the most intriguing books I have ever read in my long reading life is The Trial. The above quotation represents the heart of the novel, about a man who endures the torturous and protracted processes of an arcane justice system. I found myself thinking about the book during the trial of Ulmar Zammer, whose hellish descent into the justice system is one almost too awful to contemplate.

The novel's resonance in the case emerges when considering the false testimony three officers gave about the circumstances of the 'crime.'  They all averred that Zameer had struck head-on Officer Northrup, testimony that was clearly belied both by accident reconstruction experts and video of what took place in the underground garage where Northrup met his fate.

One of the most troubling aspects of the trial is that it largely seemed to go forward on the basis of that false testimony. And despite the observation of the presiding judge that the case for murder was extremely weak, the Crown pressed on. There was nary a word about not having a reasonable prospect of conviction, perhaps because the case involved a police death, and Crown attorneys do value good relationships with the authorities.

So is there justice to be found in all of this? I have my doubts, since the closest anyone has come in describing the false testimony of the police witnesses is collusion, a process the Crown stoutly denied, since the officers "would have had no reason to collude." What seems notably absent in the official discussions of the police misbehaviour is the P word- perjury. The best Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw can do, in an act that smacks more of political theatre than an earnest pursuit of justice, is to have the OPP investigate his officers' behaviour.

In a statement late Monday afternoon, Denkiw referred to “adverse comments” made by [Justice] Molloy in explaining his reason for asking for the review. He did not detail those comments any further.

“Whenever the Toronto Police Service becomes aware of concerns raised by the judiciary, its governance requires that a review be conducted with respect to officer testimony, conduct, procedures, practices, and training,” the statement notes.

An Internet search suggests that charging police with perjury is fairly rare, though I note a Toronto officer was charged yesterday. The language is interesting:

The force says that in June last year, the officer gave investigators false, misleading or inaccurate information regarding a criminal investigation involving that person.

Police say the 39-year-old constable was charged this week with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of perjury.

Why is there apparently not a similar appetite to charge the offending officers in the Zameeer case?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that they lost "one of their own" in the tragic accident that took officer Northrup's life?

Of course, my lifelong cynicism suggests no charges will ultimately be filed. I stand, however, ready to be happily corrected.