It's Plain To See

Just a brief post today. For anyone clear-headed enough to see, it is obvious that the United States is led by a man-baby. Trump's recent tantrum over Doug Ford's ad attests to that fact. Two letters in today's Star are offer some thoughtful reflection on his 'leadership'.

Susan Delacourt’s opinion piece caused me to think outside the box. Since neither thoughtful and informed discussions, nor good cop-bad cop tactics are effective ways to get Donald Trump to consider fair negotiations, how about bringing together different kinds of experts that might know better how to crack that nut?

Since Trump acts like a petulant and vindictive child, why not try brainstorming with a team of leading child psychologists to explore ways to tap into a more rational side of Trump?

Think about it: All methods of negotiating, such as those that might be taught at Harvard Law School mentioned in the opinion piece, assume rational and mature thought as a base line.

So why not try an approach with Trump more suited to deal with the behaviour he is demonstrating?

Annie Brown, Newmarket

 

 As an American now living in Canada, I would like to thank our president and his loose cannon rhetoric.

Since his failed bid to annex this fine country, angry Canadians are spending their vacation money at home. I live in rural Cape Breton, and we had the best tourist season ever.

Keep up the good work King Donald.

Martin Aucoin, Margaree, N.S. 

Perhaps a measure of wry disengagement is part of the antidote to Trump's childishness; it may help to save both our national character and our sense of humour.

And The Walls Came Tumbling Down

In conversation the other night with my wife, I opined that the Americans have to hit rock bottom before having any chance of digging themselves out of the morass they've created by giving Trump his second presidency. She asked, "Well, what is rock bottom?" While I had no real answer, I suggested that perhaps reactions to the destruction of a good part of that historical institution, the White House, might be the start. 

I was perhaps mistaken.

Even I, one with little sympathy for the U.S., am stunned and somewhat sickened by the wanton destruction of the East Wing to make way for a huge (90,000 sq. ft), gold-plated ballroom that will serve the elite. Surely a good portion of Americans would see it as a metaphor of all the terrible and tawdry things their president has wrought since beginning his second term.

Actually, no, if an article in the NYT is any indication. They talked to seven voters, admittedly a small number, about their reactions to the destruction.

Randy Dutton, a retired Navy commander and a Republican, was pleased with Mr. Trump’s efforts to remake the East Wing. It made sense on many levels, he said, because Mr. Trump and future presidents will now have more space to have receptions.

“Almost every president has wished to have more space for entertaining,” he said. “Guest lists for presidents and kings can get pretty big. Diplomatically, if you can get more people in there, you can enhance the prestige of the United States.”

Not everyone shares Dutton's enthusiasm.

Thien Doan, a Democrat, ... feels outraged.

“We’re desecrating a part of history that we should have been celebrating,” Mr. Doan said.

The ballroom doesn’t seem necessary to him. Instead, he sees it as a vanity project.

“They’re molding buildings and the country after his own image,” he said. “It shouldn’t be about him. It should be about the people.”

Those who voted for Trump seem unperturbed by the plans; instead, some turn their guns on those who criticize the destruction.

Brian D. Kozlowski, who voted for Mr. Trump, said he was not especially interested in the White House demolition and construction.

“What is interesting,” he said, is the reaction from Mr. Trump’s critics, whom he called the “far left.”

 “It doesn’t matter what the administration does,” he said. “Criticism is levied extra hard — and provided more media coverage — because it’s President Trump.”

Others are simply conflicted.

 Adria Laboy, who calls herself a political independent, has mixed feelings about the president’s decision to start building a ballroom this year. On the one hand, the multimillion-dollar construction project will create jobs, she said, but on the other hand, the timing seems off, given all the other urgent issues.

“It’s a weird time to see it,” said Ms. Laboy, who does community outreach for a health insurance agency. “We have all these things happening, like crime, him trying to control crime in certain cities.”

“And then they’re building a ballroom. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Even Democrats don't seem all that phased.

Annabelle Collins, who voted for Kamala Harris ...   feels indifferent about the president’s efforts to change it.

“To me, it’s just a building,” she said. 

Yet even while saying this, she adds an acute observation which I thought would be commonly shared.

If anything, for Ms. Collins, the demolition of the East Wing served as a metaphor: “It almost symbolizes what he’s doing to American democracy.”

While it would be good to see how national polls report Americans' reaction to this massive act of vandalism, it is perhaps telling that for the most part, they do not seem especially concerned about Trump's desecration. That, more than anything else, should chill the rest of us. 

 

 

Progressive Bloggers Is Back

 And it's at the same web address: https://progressivebloggers.ca/

Trump's Trade Tantrum

 

I was going to write about something else today, but now that Trump has had his predictable tantrum over the above ad, perhaps this will serve as a wakeup call to Mark Carney and his government that any hope of securing a stable, long lasting trade agreement with the U.S. is but a sad delusion.

Trump had this to say:

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is terminating all trade negotiations with Canada over an advertisement by the Ontario government that uses the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan's own words to send an anti-tariff message to American audiences.

In a late-night post to his Truth Social platform, Trump attacked the ad, which he attributed to Canada rather than Ontario, as fraudulent and fake.

"TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A." Trump wrote. "Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED."

In a later post on Friday morning, Trump claimed “CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!"

"They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY,” he wrote. “Canada has long cheated on Tariffs, charging our farmers as much as 400 [per cent]. Now they, and other countries, can’t take advantage of the U.S. any longer."

Clearly, the time is drawing very near when we have to assert both our trade independence and sovereignty, as the mad king will not stop until he has crushed both. Appeasement attempts have been an abject failure, and we need to assert the leverage we have: energy and rare earth minerals come readily to mind. 

The only bright spot that has emerged thus far, marking a departure from our usual supine reaction to the U.S., is the fact that there are going to be tangible penalties for both Stellantis and GM over their ceasing production at two plants in Ontario.

As CBC News first reported, the two multinational manufacturers will no longer be exempt from paying Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on as many U.S.-assembled vehicles as before.

The move is an attempt to put pressure on the companies to reinvest in Canadian production and workers to get this benefit back and avoid a big tariff bill.

"This action follows the automakers' unacceptable decision to scale back their manufacturing presences in Canada, directly breaching their commitments to the country and Canadian workers," the government said in a late-night media release.

And those penalties will be consequential.

 The ministers announced that effective immediately, the government is lowering the amount of American-assembled vehicles GM can import tariff-free by 24 per cent and cutting Stellantis's amount by 50 per cent.

"I think Canadians and the industry want the government to be tough on companies that don't own up to those partnerships that in many cases have been worth billions," said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association.

"This is a great move."

While these tariffs will raise the Canadian price of GM and Stellantis vehicles, the obvious answer, and likely intent of the penalties, is for consumers to avoid buying their products. Since Canada represents a very important market for American cars, this move will hurt their profits considerably.

Perhaps we are finally deciding that we will no longer give our lunch money to the bully. 

 

UPDATED: All Is Not Lost?

There are many days when it's hard to feel hope. It is especially true when we think about the relentless bullying Canada receives at the hands of the mad king, Donald Trump. High tariffs, or high tariff threats, are  the only arrows in his small quiver, and our economy is suffering as a result. Sadly, in sharp contrast to the rousing, even bellicose, Liberal rhetoric of our last federal election, it seems we are turning over, with nary a word, our lunch money to the fascist and receiving nothing in return, just more abuse. 

Capitulation is never a pretty sight; however, Mark Carney refuses to get tough, even undoing counter-tariffs that he had imposed against the United States. The conclusion I draw is that we are giving up the fight. The soothing promise of better relations in the future with Trump (i.e., a renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement) seems to be the justification for our meekness, but there is nothing at all to suggest a winning strategy is at play here.

Jim Stanford says it doesn't have to be this way. The insufferable insistence by the U.S. that they alone will manufacture North American automobiles cannot be allowed to stand, and Stellantis's announcement that it will commit to a $13-billion American expansion at the expense of its Brampton works demands a strong Canadian response.

[T]he sheer gall of Stellantis’ action is shocking. It is breaking explicit commitments made to all its key partners: its own workers (in a binding labour contract), the federal and provincial governments (in binding covenants attached to various subsidies), and auto parts companies (which invested hundreds of millions in new tooling and capital for Brampton).

Despite the fact that our auto exports to the U.S. are down considerably, Stanford warns of something even worse:

If corporations respond to Trump’s extortion by shifting long-run investment to the U.S., Canada’s industrial capacity will be destroyed.

That’s why the Stellantis decision cannot stand. It would set a precedent that quickly spreads into all other high-tech industries.

It’s no coincidence these 232 tariffs are aimed at every one of Canada’s high-tech success stories: auto, trucks, steel and other basic metals, soon to be joined by aerospace, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, industrial machinery and more.

Strong government action is required:

Last year Stellantis sold 130,000 new vehicles here — most imported, most of those from the U.S. At present Stellantis mostly avoids Canada’s 25 per cent counter-tariff on vehicle imports from the U.S., thanks to a clever Canadian duty remission program.

 Ottawa should threaten full 25 per cent tariffs on all Stellantis imports (costing $1.5 billion per year), until it recommits to completing the tooling at Brampton, paying interim income support to its workforce and then fully utilizing the plant when it’s finished.

Pushing back against Stellantis will send a signal to companies in every other high-tech industry. If you want access to Canada’s market, Canada’s resources and Canada’s supply chains, you must maintain a full-fledged production footprint here.

That Stellantis made such the decision it did is a testament to the abject failure of the Carney government's appeasement efforts, which included

multiple concessions and personal flattery. While we talk nice, [Trump] races full-speed to steal as many high-tech, high-wage jobs as he can. 

I read this morning that Industry Minister Melanie Joly summoned Stellantis to  Ottawa to explain itself. I'm sure she gave them a stern talking to, and threatened unspecified 'consequences'. However, since the Carney government has raised appeasement to a national level, I have my deep doubts whether anything substantive will be done, and people like Jim Stanford will likely find that his strong, sound advice will be not be taken under advisement. 

UPDATE: Well, another one bites the dust. GM Canada has announced the closure of the Ingersol plant, putting 1200 people out of work. It is the plant that the provincial and federal governments invested $500 million towards retooling to make electrified Bright Drop vans. The company cites low demand, but assured everyone that they "look forward to continuing our discussions with the government and our partners to identify other opportunities."

I'll just bet they do, eh?

UPDATED: A Balm to The Spirit

While I often talk about critical thinking on this blog, I always say that I aspire to the ideal it represents. And there is one offence I regularly commit that is anathema to the spirit of critical thinking: my wholesale condemnation of the 'United' States, which, technically speaking, is a gross overgeneralization.. But that condemnation comes not just because of who leads them; it is also thanks to the ingrained ethos of Americans, that they are the greatest in the world, their guns ensure their safety, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

My friend Gary often points out that there are good Americans, people who are totally opposed to the malignant, narcissistic fascist dictator (I'm not sure there is any other kind) who currently occupies the White House. My stock response is usually something along the lines of, "Yeah, but look who they elected to lead them." To that I might add the legislative body, Congress, so cravenly supine and obsequious in the face of their mad king's depredations.

One thing dictators hate is to be mocked and protected against. Their fragile egos, bolstered by the people they surround themselves with, just cannot accept that they aren't universally loved. I was therefore heartened by yesterday's grand display of opposition to the tyrant. Here are some photos from the No Kings Protests that took place across America and, indeed, the world. Perhaps the spirit of America is not dead yet.

Oh, and this one has to hurt:

UPDATE: I just found some more photos that really pack a punch and show the fury of Americans at Trump and his cronies:

UPDATED: A Pale Reflection, But Still A Reflection

I had a phone conversation the other day with a friend I rarely see. A Canadian by birth, Jon has worked for many years outside of the country, first in Britain and then in United States, where he now resides. Whenever he calls, our conversation inevitably turns to his country of current residence; we both abhor what has happened, and agree that fascism has arrived there.

I told him that even though we have the Trumpian element here, (apparently, about 25% of Conservative supporters like Trump) political sentiments on the whole are far less extreme and far more sane than in his country. Unfortunately, I may have spoken too soon.

PP, or Trump lite, is sounding more and more like the fascist, echoing his language and aims in two key areas.

[T]he federal Conservative party ... has released a new petition taking aim at DEI and what it calls “bloated” bureaucracy and “identity checkboxes.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre sent the link out to his X followers on Thanksgiving Monday, imploring them to sign on to end DEI and “restore the merit principle.”

There’s even a new slogan from the party that brought you “axe the tax”: “DEI spending and government waste needs to DIE,” the petition reads.

As we know, Herr Trump has taken it upon himself to end DEI in his country, playing upon the popular, and essentially racist, assertion that such programs hire those who are less qualified than white people, thereby essentially discriminating against the 'beleaguered' white race. I won't bother explaining why this is a foul canard, but if you don't believe me, do your own research from reputable sources.

The second play from the Trump playbook is PP's stance on birthright citizenship.

Poilievre also endorsed what another Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel Garner, was preaching — an end to birthright citizenship. Or, as Poilievre called it in another post, “birth tourism.”

Again, there’s an echo from one of Trump’s first executive orders on taking office.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” the order states, going on to explain that citizenship would not be conferred to any child born in that country to a mother or father not lawfully present in the U.S. or there on a temporary basis.

“Canadian citizenship is a honour and privilege, and it must always be treated as such,” Poilievre said in an Oct. 10 post on X, formerly Twitter.

The racists amongst us will refuse to believe that  

[n]either of these seemingly Trump-inspired initiatives by the Conservatives are scourges in Canada. Fewer than 1,500 of the nearly 400,000 children born in Canada in 2024 were born to mothers whose residence was outside Canada. Railing against diversity, equity and inclusion may get some politicians votes, but it can also play into backlash against immigrants — which the Conservatives always hasten to point out, they’d never do.

There can also be consequences for stoking this ugliness:

... in the words of Greg Lyle, a much-respected pollster from Innovative Research, all these echoes of Trumpism from Conservatives in Canada amounts to “playing with fire.”  

Lyle sent me a couple of slides from his big post-election survey, showing that nearly three quarters of voters who believed it was time for a change in Canada also agreed that Poilievre sounded and acted too much like Trump. That sentiment was actually shared by more than half the poll respondents, who included Conservative voters.

PP knows he is popular among young men.  However, if his purpose is to stoke even more discontent with their lot in life, he should also reckon with the fact that older people tend to be the larger demographic in voting, and that younger people are less enthused about going to the polls. Indeed, Canada's Mini-Me may find that there is a heavy price to be paid for his repugnant political calculus.

UPDATE: I just came across an editorial cartoon that seems perfect for both this post and the times: