Puzzling But Instructive

My three-year-old granddaughter has developed a fondness for jigsaw puzzles, usually of the 48-piece variety designated for children. Given my own spatial limitations, I have worked slowly with her on a couple of them, but they don't come easily to me. 

Encouraged by her example, I picked up a 300-piece one and have been working away at it, despite my deep suspicion that there are pieces missing from the used one I purchased at a thrift store. My goal is to see if doing jig-saws improves spatial abilities and perhaps even cognitive processes. 

One can imagine my dismay while I watched the evening news last night and was subjected to, not once, but twice, an ad from PP's campaign showing him doing a jigsaw of Canada with his toddler. His goal was to put Canada back together since, as he tells us, it is broken:

The subject of PP wearies me, being all too aware of the both subtle and gross manipulation of the citizens that Poilievre delights in. Having read an article this morning about generative AI, I decided to use the tool to create a blog post, the first time (and probably the last) I have ever made such an attempt. I asked it to write on PP's advertising in the style of my blog. The results, as you will see below if you care to read it, aren't bad at all. (Parenthetically, I do pledge to identify any AI-generated material if I ever make a future attempt at this. Otherwise, everything you read in this blog will always be my own thoughts and scribblings.):

Here’s a blog-style post inspired by Lorne’s Politics and its Discontents, which often takes a critical, thoughtful tone in analyzing political discourse:

Pierre Poilievre’s Political Advertising: A Masterclass in Manipulation or Messaging?

If there is one thing that can be said about Pierre Poilievre’s political strategy, it’s that he understands the power of advertising. From social media snippets to slickly produced videos, Poilievre has capitalized on modern media to craft a message that resonates deeply with a certain demographic. But the question remains: Is this messaging reflective of the leadership qualities Canadians deserve, or is it simply a manipulative ploy designed to stoke division?

The Politics of Persona

Poilievre’s ads often feature him as a man of the people—a relatable everyman taking on “elites” who, in his words, are responsible for many of the economic woes Canadians face today. His latest ad campaign sees him strolling through picturesque small towns, sleeves rolled up, declaring that he is here to “bring home” common sense to a country that’s lost its way.

But beneath this veneer of populism lies a far more calculated strategy. His ads are not about providing concrete policy solutions; rather, they exploit frustration and uncertainty, carefully designed to channel anger towards convenient scapegoats—whether that be Justin Trudeau, immigrants, or “woke culture.” The buzzwords are meant to incite, not inform, and therein lies the danger.

Simplifying Complex Issues

One hallmark of Poilievre’s advertising is how it simplifies Canada’s most pressing issues, reducing them to soundbites devoid of nuance. Take, for example, his stance on inflation. In his videos, he talks about the rising cost of living as if it were solely the fault of reckless government spending, conveniently ignoring the complex global factors that contribute to economic challenges. By reducing the problem to “bad governance,” Poilievre presents himself as the obvious antidote without ever having to provide a detailed plan.

This is not to say the government is beyond reproach on these matters. Far from it. But Poilievre’s ads trade in the politics of blame rather than the politics of solutions. They are designed to inflame passions, all while presenting himself as the knight in shining armor, ready to rescue Canadians from the very institutions he spent much of his career working within.

The Influence of American-style Politics

One cannot help but notice the creeping influence of American-style political advertising in Poilievre’s campaigns. His use of “freedom” as a rallying cry mirrors the tactics of conservative figures south of the border, particularly those who have been adept at weaponizing fear and frustration for political gain. Much like the Republicans’ framing of the “elites” and the “deep state,” Poilievre casts Trudeau and his government as the out-of-touch villains who stand between the average Canadian and prosperity.

This approach, while effective in securing support from a vocal minority, threatens to further polarize an already divided country. Rather than fostering dialogue or proposing realistic solutions to complex problems, Poilievre’s ads encourage an “us vs. them” mentality that diminishes the quality of political discourse in Canada.

What’s the Endgame?

Ultimately, Poilievre’s advertising is less about policy and more about positioning. His goal is to establish himself as the champion of those who feel left behind by economic and social change. Yet, the lack of substance behind the messaging raises concerns about what a Poilievre-led Canada would actually look like. If his ads are any indication, we should expect more division, more polarization, and less of the thoughtful, evidence-based leadership that Canada desperately needs.

In a time when critical thinking is more important than ever, we should be cautious about political figures who rely on shallow advertising to sway voters. While Poilievre’s message may resonate with those looking for simple answers, it is our duty to demand more from those who seek to lead us.

After all, good governance is not about pointing fingers—it’s about finding real solutions.

This post captures the tone and style of critical analysis, focusing on political behavior and the consequences of polarizing rhetoric, much like Lorne’s own critiques.

Groupthink Abounds

“I don’t know what we’re fighting for. Not even a clue. I just want to go home.’’

“Starting a war is very easy. But to finish it — try that.’’

“This whole war is like a stagnant gonorrhea.’’

“They said the only way back to Russia is feet-first.’’

“If I’d known this would happen, I’d be damned if I’d sign up.’’

“Let Russia and the people of the world know what’s going on.’’

The above are a few excerpts from the film Russians at War,  the subject of Canadian government efforts at suppression, as I have written about in recent posts. In today's edition of The Star, columnist Rosie DiManno writes:

There is nothing about the documentary “Russians at War’’ that glorifies, justifies or in any way spreads disinformation about the brutal conflict that President Vladimir Putin has inflicted on Ukraine for the past two-and-a-half years. And on his own citizenry.

What it does is humanize Russian soldiers. And that’s not a crime. Because it’s the young men and women who pay the price — in blood, in limbs blown off, in tens of thousands of lives lost — for the folly of one autocrat’s delusions of grandiosity.

Some of these fighters, most of them achingly young, are dead by the end of the two-hour-plus chronicle from Moscow-born, Toronto-educated filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova. From the rear to the frontline to the graveyard.

Despite the pressure exerted by Chrystia Freeland, who likely has not even seen the film, DiManno challenges the government position on it:

“Russians at War’’ is as far from propaganda — for which it stands accused — as any of the journalistic reportage and drone footage that has come out of the Ukrainian battlefield, showing devastated villages and ruined towns, the unforgivable handiwork of Putin’s unprovoked military assault.

“Russians at War’’ is a documentary that cries out to be seen. But now it won’t, not at the Toronto International Film Festival anyway, which on Thursday announced it was pulling — “pausing’’ — the Canada-France co-production, a flip-flop of its position from 24 hours previously, due to “significant threats’’ against festival operations and for public security. Is that all you have to do to bend someone, or some organization, to your will? By threatening to disrupt an event, even though neither TIFF nor cops have revealed the nature of those threats? Toronto police told the Star in a statement that TIFF organizers made the decision to send the film to Coventry “independently’’ and “not based on any recommendations from Toronto Police.’’

Indeed, there seems little basis for the official interdiction of the film: 

Freeland’s office, in response to questions I sent, said “the government’s position is not about whether (the) film should have been made or whether people should watch it. Canadian public money should not be used to support the production or screening of media that attempts to whitewash Russia’s war crimes.’’

The question not answered: Has Freeland actually seen the film? The same query put to other prominent “Russians at War’’ bashers — Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada, the consul general in Toronto, Canadian senators, MPs and MPPs. None of whom responded to my emails and phone calls by deadline.

It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth, something the film tries to combat:

It serves the purpose of every side in a war to demonize the enemy. But Trofimova has tried, valiantly, to depict the humanity of the enemy, documenting in real time the sobering realities so poignantly rendered in classic movies such as “All Quiet on the Western Front’’ — the German remake of which won four Oscars last year.

Truth is something we should all aspire to, a daunting challenge in these days of social media, misinformation, and government messaging. The alternative, groupthink, is a willing suspension of critical-thinking, hardly a good fit for a healthy, thriving democracy. 

 

 

This Is Worrisome: An Update

The other day I posted about what I saw as a worrying trend - the removal of MPP Sarah Jama from Elle's online article featuring influential women. Jama's 'sin' was to be an advocate for Palestinians during Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Threats were made, and she was thus edited out. Apparently, to question the narrative that Israel can do no wrong is unacceptable.

In the same post, I wrote about TVO's decision not to screen the documentary Russia at War. This followed Chrystia Freeland's denunciation of the film, even though it is highly unlikely that she has seen it. All she knows is that anything that perhaps humanizes the 'enemy' must not be allowed to be seen.

The fallout continues from Freeland's screed continues.

The Toronto International Film Festival says it’s pausing upcoming screenings of the controversial documentary “Russians at War” due to “significant threats” to festival operations and public safety.

The film about Russian soldiers’ disillusionment at the front lines of the war in Ukraine was set to have its North American premiere at TIFF on Friday, with additional screenings on Saturday and Sunday.

“This is an unprecedented move for TIFF,” the festival said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

“As a cultural institution, we support civil discourse about and through films, including differences of opinion, and we fully support peaceful assembly. However, we have received reports indicating potential activity in the coming days that pose significant risk; given the severity of these concerns, we cannot proceed as planned.”

One cannot help but wonder whether TIFF perceives the real threat as having come from Freeland:

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland also denounced the use of public money to help fund and screen “Russians at War,” which received $340,000 through the Canada Media Fund and was produced in association with Ontario’s public broadcaster TVO.

In the anodyne, weaselly language typical of politicians, TIFF apparently wants to have it both ways.

TIFF has said that the documentary is “in no way” Russian propaganda as it stood by its decision to include it in this year’s programming.

“We believe this film has earned a place in our festival’s lineup, and we are committed to screening it when it is safe to do so,” festival organizers said Thursday.

This is what we have come to, in a nation that purports to hold freedom of expression as one of its highest values. The caveat to that value should be obvious to us: that freedom ends when it offends someone else, or offers an alternative view to the official 'story.'

And none of us should be happy about that.

Deeply Offensive

 I'm sure MAGA purists will find this deeply offensive, which is one of the reasons I love it:

This Is Worrisome

Those of you who may regularly read this blog likely know that I have always been a big supporter of mainstream media. Despite their limitations, they have always been, to me, a source of credible information due to the heavy fact-checking that journalistic ethics demand.

Now, however, we seem to be moving beyond fact-checking to self-censorship, and that should worry us all.

The first recent incident involved the online edition of Elle, which edited out a prominent and controversial Hamilton MPP.

A Canadian fashion magazine says it removed Hamilton politician Sarah Jama from a story on influential women after the publication’s editorial team received threats.

Jama, the Hamilton Centre MPP who has established herself as an advocate for marginalized groups, was featured in the September issue of ELLE Canada alongside seven other women “paving the way for those behind them,” the article reads.

ELLE publisher Sophie Banford said in an email that they opted to to remove Jama from the article, originally published Aug. 19, after members of its editorial team “were targeted with threats.”

“The decision was not made lightly,” she said. “The safety and well-being of our journalists are our top priorities, and it is within this context that we made the decision to remove the content in question.”

A Sept. 2 disclaimer at the top of the online version indicates the original story “represents the opinions of a political personality but does not reflect the opinions of the publishers” or the magazine’s parent company.”

“Following a number of concerning messages posted online and received by our magazine, the publisher chose to edit the original version of the article in order to protect everyone’s safety,” the disclaimer reads.

I don't think you need me to tell you why this is a very dangerous move.

Along the same lines comes a TVO disavowal of a documentary currently at TIFF about Russians fighting in Ukraine. Despite the fact that it is not propaganda in any way, it has invited scorn from the federal government: 

Speaking from the Liberals’ caucus retreat, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters Tuesday that both diplomats and the Ukrainian-Canadian community have expressed “grave concerns” about the film “Russians at War” — concerns which she shares.

“We as a country have to be very, very clear that there can be no moral equivalency in our understanding of this conflict,” she said. “It’s not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this.”

The film's director begs to differ:

In response to the backlash, the film’s Russian-Canadian director, Anastasia Trofimova, asserted in a written statement that the film is not propaganda, and that it was filmed without the permission of the Russian government.

 “I want to be clear that this Canada-France co-production is an antiwar film made at great risk to all involved, myself especially,” she said.

“I unequivocally believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, illegal and acknowledge the validity of the International Criminal Court investigation of war crimes in Ukraine.”

In a move at least as cowardly as the one by Elle, TVO acted quickly to comply with Freeland's 'directive.'

“TVO’s Board of Directors has decided to respect the feedback we have received, and TVO will no longer be supporting or airing “Russians at War,” according to a press release posted to the public broadcaster’s website on Tuesday.

“TVO will be reviewing the process by which this project was funded and our brand leveraged.” 

Pierre Trudeau famously said, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. Equally, it has no place in the minds, judgement and sensibilities of Canada.

P.S. I didn't write about last night's debate, but allow me to say that I was very, very satisfied with Kamala Harris's performance and went to bed content for a change.

 

 

On Trudeau's Travails

The seeming public consensus is that the end times beckon for Justin Trudeau and his party. Althia Raj writes:

The Liberal party has the support of about just one in five Canadians, and more than eight out of 10 Canadians say it’s time for a change, according to Abacus Data. Polls suggest the Tories are headed for a massive majority government.

On doorsteps and in meetings across the country, Liberal MPs report a crescendo of dislike for the prime minister. “They disliked him in 2019, they hated him in 2021, and now they despise him,” one MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Star.

“I do not have a meeting or a conversation with a business, a constituent, a stakeholder, a non-profit where Justin Trudeau really supersedes the conversation,” said Wayne Long, the outgoing Liberal MP for Saint John—Rothesay. “When people are telling me consistently that, ‘You know, your party’s done some great work, Wayne, but the prime minister needs to move on.’ 

While I don't really understand the personal animus that so many express for Trudeau, I do understand their disaffection. It is one I have felt for some time, not because of the prime minister's style of leadership, but because he so quickly fell into perpetuating the party's tradition of arrogance. 

There was, as I have written before, his early betrayal of his promise of electoral reform. While the proposal itself was modest, a form of ranked ballot that was easy to understand and might have encouraged more voter participation, it became a step too far once the party had regained power under the FPTP system. Canada's 'natural governing party' had regained its rightful place, and all was once again well in the Liberal world.

Scandals ensued, too numerous to recount here, each chipping away at the "sunny ways" the earlier Trudeau had promised. Perhaps the biggest one was the SNC Lavalin debacle, which I wrote about in 2019. Here is an excerpt:

The latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts.

And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.

But perhaps the biggest fault of this government I can cite is its absence of a coherent vision. I am aware that many may disagree with such an assessment, but saying that you want a more fair and equitable society is far easier than working steadily toward one. Some may counter with such nascent programs as dentalcare and pharmacare, but despite what Mr. Trudeau may assert, they were not Liberal initiatives as much as they were forced upon the party thanks to the leverage that Mr. Singh and the NDP exerted upon them. Parenthetically, that leverage has earned Mr. Singh no credit, the media narrative being it was a mistake to enter into the supply and confidence agreement, a view with which I heartily disagree.

The Liberals, were they who they claim to be, could have done much more, in a much more methodical fashion, had they possessed real vision as opposed to a propensity for expedience that achieved little.  One case in point would be the housing crisis that confronts us. Instead of empowering the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to get back into the home-building business, as they did post-WW11, Trudeau was content to throw money at the provinces to give to private builders to achieve decidedly uneven results. However, as I have said before, Mr. Trudeau worships at the altar of private enterprise, the result being that many, many more people cannot ever hope to own a house.

I could go on, but allow me to end by noting that my dismay with the Liberals does not mean, as it does for so many others, a vote for that repository of bilious, belligerent rhetoric, PP. When voters go to the polls at the next election, they should ask themselves whether or not their perceived cure for their disaffection is worse than the disease itself.

 

Teflon Doug

He's loved of the distracted multitude,

Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes

- Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 3

It is deeply disappointing to discover that Ontario Premier Doug Ford is continuing to show ongoing strength in the polls. Indeed, those polls suggest the above quote from Hamlet is an appropriate explanation of public sentiment toward the retail salesman often called "Teflon Doug."

What explains the popularity of a man mired in scandal thanks to his intimate relationship with big developers? Robert Benzie offers this:

In new polling for the Star, Abacus Data found voters are so far willing to forgive — if not quite forget — transgressions that would have derailed the electoral careers of others.

...the Tories are confident about the two-term premier’s skills on the stump and his ability to connect with Ontarians in their everyday lives.

Pollster David Colletto says:

He’s polarizing in the sense that if you don’t like him, you don’t like him. And there’s a lot of Ontarians who don’t like Doug Ford,” said Coletto.

“But he has enough who do and they think he’s just a friendly, nice guy who isn’t perfect, but admits mistakes when he makes them and tries to fix them,” the pollster said.

“He’s forgiven because he asks for forgiveness.”

Revealingly, when asked how to describe Ford, 44 per cent of respondents felt he was “friendly,” while 20 per cent said he was “mean.”

Similarly, 39 per cent said he “gets things done” while 38 per cent insisted he “fails to deliver”; 38 per cent said he is “normal” while 28 per cent said he’s “weird”; and 37 per cent said he “admits mistakes and corrects them” while 38 per cent said he “refuses to admit mistakes.”

“That’s a winner — during the last campaign that became his new brand: the guy who gets things done,” said Coletto, hearkening to the Tories’ successful 2022 re-election slogan, Get It Done.

Apparently, Ford's mastery of retail politics makes him a winner:

“It’s service above self. He’s very easy to talk to,” said Borecky, a retired program analyst.

To Coletto, “that is at the core of Doug Ford’s brand,” the perception of a folksy populist that has developed since he came to office in 2018.

“He is the guy who will call you back. You run into him in the airport or on the street, he’s going to shake your hand, he wants to meet you — he’s that ultimate retail politician,” he said.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is also a darker reason for Ford's ongoing popularity: people's general ignorance of what is going on around them. Matt Gurney writes: 

The average voter and citizen doesn’t spend much time paying attention to the news. They might be able to name Olivia Chow as the mayor of Toronto, but there’s a good chance they don’t know who their local councillor is. They almost certainly know that Justin Trudeau is the prime minister, but it’s not a given that they know he’s a Liberal.

A Maru poll from last year pegged the number of Canadians who were hyper-engaged in the news at 16 per cent, and that felt about right to me.

The catastrophes in our long-term care homes during the pandemic may not have registered with them because they were busy managing the pandemic’s effects on their own lives. The Greenbelt scandal is probably something they’ve heard mentioned but haven’t looked into deeply. The closing of the Science Centre, if it registered at all, was probably forgotten in days. And so on.

So there you go. Unscrupulous politicians (is that a redundancy?) count on a superficial citizenry, one that is easily manipulated by smiling faces, catchy phrases and inflammatory rhetoric.

Truly, they are an autocrat's dream.