Alberta thumping the tub again

"Proud Canadian" Michelle Smith has been playing the secession card during the current federal election, all while maintaining that she will not interfere in the federal vote. "A referendum on Alberta's independence is an inevitability", she says, trying not to interfere.

Her mentor, Preston Manning, has likewise inserted his oar, claiming in a Globe and Mail interview that "a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession - a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it".

However, it's all smoke and mirrors because Albertans don't really want to secede. A new Angus Reid poll suggests that only 30% of Albertans (and 33% of Saskatchewaners) would consider separating from Canada, whether to join the USA or to go it alone.

So, this is just Alberta stoking up dissent. In fact, interfering in the election.

Trump imposes tariffs on uninhabited islands

Canada, unexpectedly, seems to avoided the worst of Trump's tariffs. But countries across the world are having to deal with them, including some rather bizarre ones.

Heard Island and MacDonald Islands are external territories of Australia, although closer to Antarctica than to Australia. They are tiny, uninhabited, barren piles of volcanic rock, covered in glaciers and home only to a colony of penguins. They are only accessible by a two-week boat journey from Perth, and it is believed the last time they were visited by people was some ten years ago.

But even these little islands - among the rewmotest places on earth and not even countries in their own right - have not escaped the attentions of Donald Trump's zealous tariff administrators. They too will see tariffs of 10% levied on any goods exported to the USA. This is because, the World Bank shows them as having exported US$1.4 of "machinery and electrical" goods to the US in 2022, although no-one seems to know quite what this might have been, given that there are no people and no buildings on the islands.

Are the penguins engaging in some clandestine business ventures that Australia knows nothing about? Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's ex communications chief, and now a vocal critic, quipped, "These penguins have been ripping us off for years". Good for the Trump administration for spotting this.

More examples of business inefficiencies come to light as tariff threats take hold

As Canadian businesses "pivot" (as they say) away from their excessive reliance on the USA to a more lateral inter-provincial trade, some pretty crazy stuff is coming out.

One example is that, already discussed, of vehicle manufacture, which apparently requires a crazy dance back and forth several times across the border.

Another example is described in today's Globe and Mail, concerning paper and box manufacture. A corrugated packing paper manufacturer in British Columbia has been used to importing paper stock from just across the border in Washington state, but is trying to do the right thing by switching to paper from Eastern Canada (Ontario? Quebec? New Brunswick? We are not told.)

But, the business owner complains, instead of taking less than a day from Washington, shipments take 10 days from Eastern Canada, and he is losing money hand over fist. Well, two things occur to me straight away. One is that it can't possibly take 10 days to transport paper from Eastern Canada to BC. The second is that, after the first shipment from its new source, whether that takes 10 days or less, subsequent shipments will be arriving daily with no delay (they will not have to wait another ten days for the second shipment). Yes, I understand that the distances are longer and the transportation costs are therefore almost certainly higher. But the delay is surely not an issue.

The third thing that occurs to me is that BC has many trees and paper mills. Why is the company bringing paper in from Eastern Canada anyway? "Or even longer from Europe", the article says. Why would they be even considering importing paper all the way from Europe?!

So much of this makes no sense to me. Apparently common business practices seem to defy logic. 

Another example in the same article underlines the issue. There is a recycled packaging and box company in Ontario that imports about 50% of its cardboard stock from the US (first question: why? Don't we produce enough "old corrugated container" right here in Ontario?) There is another similar recycled paper company in Ontario that gets almost all of its used cardboard locally, but then sends it to the US to be processed in its mills in New York. I kid you not.

These two companies are now in talks to swap their supply bases and avoid completely having to have their materials cross the border unnecessarily. This DOES make sense, and I applaud it. But the question remains: why has it taken Trump tariffs to bring these two companies together in this way? I thought capitalism and the free market was supposed to be really efficient and productive!

I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples of this kind of inefficiency and logistical absurdity, many of which may come to light as part of the current forced restructuring.

Most people will be worse off when we abandon the carbon tax

Gas prices are expected to decrease by as much as l8c a litre in Canada when the consumer carbon tax is repealed by Mark Carney on 1st April. Some people are all excited about that.

Unfortunately, they will also be missing out on $210 every quarter (that's what we receive for our carbon tax rebate, the actual amount varies depending on where you live). So, most people will be worse off in net terms: be careful what you wish for. We have an electric car and so don't use gasoline, so we will be precisely $210 a quarter worse off.

But gas prices have just gone up anyway, completely regardless of any carbon tax effects, in some cases by substantial amounts. In Brandon, Manitoba, prices have increased by 14.9c a litre; Calgary, Alberta 13.7c a litre; Kelowna, BC 11.8c a litre. It's not entirely clear why this increase is happening, but it seems to be an attempt by oil companies to take advantage of the situation. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, long a vocal opponent of the federal carbon tax, is asking oil companies not to "rip off consumers". Good luck with that, Danielle. (This is the Danielle Smith who has been speaking to the Trump administration asking for a temporary halt to the tariffs because it's hurting Poerre Poilievre's chances of getting elected as Prime Minister. Her political instincts are less than trustworthy.)

This is the magic of the free market. These people will therefore see next to no net benefit when the carbon tax is lifted. They will not, however, be receiving their quarterly rebate payments. So, overall, they will be substantially worse off. Like I say, be careful what you wish for.

Most of Canada seems to be happy that the carbon tax is being repealed. Almost all the political parties are either resigned to abandoning one of the easiest, cheapest and most effective climate change policies, or positively gung ho in favour of it. It is the will of the people, they say. However, many people have apparently not really thought it through.

Should we be arming ourselves against the USA?

It's crazy to think that Canadians are seriously talking about beefing up out national security as defence against, not China or Russia, but our erstwhile ally, the USA. But that is where we find ourselves. 

Here's the scenario: the USA gradually frames Canada as an enemy by tying it to various political and territorial grievances, and questioning its legitimacy as a sovereign nation (that part is already happening, albeit largely based on lies); the USA gradually expands its rhetoric, painting Canada as an outright security threat, if only because we could at any moment restrict access to critical resources that the USA needs, like energy, potash, water, etc; with this pretext, the US would then end intelligence and miltary cooperation (e.g. NORAD, Five Eyes, etc); demands for territorial concessions, maybe starting with an adjustment to the border of the Great Lakes, would be backed by the explicit threat of military force; at which point a full-scale military invasion is not beyond the realms of possibility.

This scenario is perhaps not a likely one - 10% probability? 5%? 1%? - but as the article points out, its probability is not zero. We would then be very much in a Ukraine situation, and we know how that turned out. It therefore behooves us to prepare ourselves militarily for such an eventuality, so the argument goes. There are even those, in all seriousness, calling for a Canadian nuclear weapons program as a deterrent.

It's easy to pretend that such an eventuality is beyond all sober prospect. It's easy to assume that cooler, less unhinged heads will prevail, that the US courts or military will quash such a scenario before it comes close to reality, or that the American people themelves will rise up in the face of such an enormity. 

But, if that non-zero probability exists, can we afford to ignore it?

Quebec/Vermont library ruling just a sign of the times

It's extraordinary how knit-picking and petty the USA is being over its new-found zealousness on the border and immigration. A good example is the changes it's making to Canadian access to the storied Haskell Free Library and Opera House in Stanstead, Quebec.

Straddling the border line between Quebec and Vermont, the library and opera house were deliberately built right across the border line back in 1904, as a symbol of harmony and cross-border collaboration between the two countries. For over a century, Canadians and Americans have come and gone through the buildings without having to go through any border control or showing any paperwork. A black line through the middle of the library marks the actual border, but people have wandered back and forth across it for decades.

The official entrance to the library, though, is in the village of Derby Line, Vermont, USA, and Canadians have been used to just wwalking around the side of the building to enter it. But now, for the first time, US Border Control officers are insisting that direct access from Canada be closed, so that Canadians would have to travel to the next nearest official border crossing and submit to the usual American security grilling to gain access, even to the Canadian part of the library.

Locals, both Canadians and Americans, are incensed at the decision. There are plans to renovate an old Canadian entrance to the building, although money for such projects is in short supply. They have until October to make such adaptations as they can.

It's just another sign of the mean-spirited times we live in. If this is someone's idea of making America great (again), then it's hard to believe they can be so myopic and insensitive.

Relocating to the USA may not be a good optionnfor Canadian companies

Some Canadian companies are considering moving ("fleeing") to the USA to avoid the worst effects of Donald Trump's punitive tariff increases. Indeed, some have already done so. 

My first reaction is: this is exactly what Trump wants, so why would you have him the satisfaction? But, of course, the companies say, they are beholden to their shareholders, and they must do whatever is necessary to maximize profits and the dividends of their shareholders. 

Well, no, not everything. There are other considerations than profit at play here. Capitalism is not strong on ethics, but it behooves us all to to think about whether products are manufactured using forced labour, equitable and safe employment practices, reducing the environmental footprint, etc, etc. Modern and progressive shareholders demand that kind of thing too, right? Arguably, pandering to the whims and foibles of a crazy guy like Donald Trump is just such a moral imperative.

As we have seen recently, though, when push comes to shove, profits usually seem to "trump" ethics, and we have seen many major companies pulling back from their DEI commitments, their climate commitments, etc (and some never went there in the first place).

The other thing, though, is that it can be complicated and often costly to relocate from Canada to the USA, and it may not even be in the shareholders' best interesNasdaq.

One big impetus for relocation is the potential to get listed on US stock exchanges like the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. But there are already many American companies queuing up to get onto those listings, and it is by no means certain that a newly-located Canadian company will succeed. Plus, there are moves afoot that may soon allow Canadian and other foreign companies to be listed on the S&P index anyway.

There are substantial logistical, legal and other costs involved in redomiciling and establishing a company in a new jurisdiction. It may not even avoid tariff costs, even in the short term: remember, US tariffs hurt American companies even more than the foreign country they are aimed at (which is why everyone else is so confused at Trump's insistence on using such a heavy-handed and inefficient policy to further his aims), and the effects of potential relatiatory Canadian tariffs must also be taken into account. We don't actually know how long these tariffs will be in effect - the landcape changes daily - and relocating is a long and involved process. In addition, there may be significant (political and economic) backlash from the old country at such a move (as at least one Quebec company found to their cost).

Finally, companies should know that there is a 25% departure tax on the relocating company's assets, which for most businesses could prove the ultimate deal-breaker.

So, definitely not a slam dunk. And, in most cases, not a viable option at all.

Does Mark Carney risk conflicts of interest?

The Conservative Party of Canada, rattled by their precipitate slide in the polls, and with a federal election pending (widely expected on April 28th), are taking wild swings at new Liberal leader Mark Carney. In particular, they are trying to make something - anything! - out of Carney's enviable financial position.

Pierre Poilievre, and his attack dog Michael Barrett - yes, the attack dog of an attack dog! - have been casting aspersions that Mr. Carney is playing fast and loose with the ethics and conflict-of-interest rules that Canadian politicians are subject to.

Spoiler alert: he's not. Well, you might have guessed that. The whole raison d'etre of the Tories is to find fault, in any way possible, and even in some ways impossible, of their political nemesis. Deprived of Justin Trudeau as a convenient target, they have been trying to portray Carney as "sneaky", "European,", etc, and also as rich, which carries its own set of political value judgements.

Yes, Carney has done very well for himself - he has not been a lifetime career politician like Mr. Poilievre - and he is clearly a very rich guy. Do we need to know exactly HOW rich, and exactly where his riches lie? Probably not.

Suffice it that he is following the stipulated conflict-of-interest rules - enshrined in Canadian law by Conservative PM Stephen Harper, let it be noted - to the letter, even in advance of the required deadlines. So, he is divesting himself of his personal investment holdings by placing them in a blind trust, so that he has no control over sales and purchases. He will also recuse himself from any deliberations that might directly influence investment that he holds in trust (although those holdings could change without him knowing - that is the whole point of a blind trust in these circumstances). And he is pre-clearing everything with the independent parliamentary Ethics Commissioner. 

It's hard to know what else the Tories can ask for. There is no requirement to name and value his investments at this point, nor should there be. The Ethics Commissioner will be keeping a wary eye on him; that is his job. Yes, there are those who argue that a blind trust is not sufficient to guard against conflicts of interest. But most reasonable people - and all political parties - believe that that the system as it stands is indeed adequate.

Trumpism as a cult

What are we to make of the way in which Donald Trump's supporters support him? 

I don't mean that I am surprised that they support him, even in some of the more legally and morally gray areas that he tends to frequent, even in some of the completely random, unhinged, off-the-cuff decisions that he makes.

I get it that he is their Glorious Leader, and that many of them owe their overpaid positions to him directly. But there is something about the WAY they express their adoration that seems, well, unhealthy. Trump's excesses have given his supporters license to exceed in their own ways.

Because they don't just support him, they bow down to him. 27-year old Press Sectetary Karoline Leavitt is a good example. She will not brook even the suspicion of a criticism of Trump without responding in a completely aggressive and over-the-top (Trump-esque, you could say) manner. Take for example, when a French journalist suggested that today's United States is not worthy of the Statue of Liberty France gave them, Leavitt turns around and snaps that France should be grateful to the US that they are not now speaking German. There are many ways she could have responded, but she chose that way (exactly the way Trump himself would have responded). 

Another example? Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Trump "advisor" (whatever that actually means), when responding to criticism of the distinctly semi-legal manner in which the Trump administration used an 18th Century wartime law to deport over 250 Venezuelan immigrants, didn't just tear into the hapless reporter (a former prosecutor with much more legal expertise than Miller) but ranted in an all-but-uncontrolled manner "He is a moron, and he's a fool, and he's a degenerate ... now he's up there shilling for people who rape and murder Americans". See also Miller's unhinged response to a Saturday Night Live joke. (Incidentally, Trump has called for the judge who tried to enforce an injunction against the deportations to be impeached.)

These people seem to feel that Trump's regular enormities (which no-one outside the Republican Party consider acceptable) give them license to exhibit similarly outrageous and overblown behaviour.

The way they refer to Trump's policies and decisions, and the man himself, in tones of awe and reverence is nothing short of creepy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that Trump is the "only person on earth" who can negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth uses similar language, claiming that Trump is "the only man in the world" who can solve the Ukraine problem. And so it goes.

UPDATE: Here's another example. After Trump officials included an Atlantic journalist on a Signal texting group discussing secretive plans for US airstrikes on Yemen, rather than admitting to mistakes and apologizing (MAGA World, from Trump down, don't do admitting and apologizing), national security advisor Mike Waltz's response was to whine, "this journalist, Mr. President, wants the world talking about more hoaxes and this kind of nonsense, rather than the freedom that you're enabling". You could almost see him cowering and cringing as he spoke. Trump's response? "Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he's a good man". Moving on. If you think Waltz would have got away that without publicly prostrating himself and grovelling, then I think you are being naive.

This goes beyond deference; this is the stuff of personality cult. It is not party politics as we have always known it. You can imagine it happening in North Korea or Russia, where a false step can lead to a disappearance or secretive execution. But is that where the USA is now?

Trump has successfully purged the Republican Party of any elements even vaguely disloyal. He himself has said publicly, "We have to Purge the Party of people that go against our Candidates and make it harder for a popular Republican President to beat the Radical Left". It has all the hallmarks of authoritarianism en route to totalitarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but forbidden.

Poilievre is running out of ideas

Pierre Poilievre is rattled. After months - nay, years! - of Conservative poll leads, the rejuvenated Liberals under new leader Mark Carney are now (at least) neck and neck, with a federal election expected to be announced any day now.

People really don't like Poilievre, and with good reason. The only reason he was doing well in the polls is that they disliked Trudeau even more. But now the Liberals have a new leader and he seems to be more palatable.

And since Carney announced that the unpopular consumer carbon tax is now toast - whatever you might think of that - "Axe the Tax" Poilievre is left without a major plank of his platform. So, what's a populist to do but up the ante?

Yesterday, Poilievre announced that, not only would he axe the consumer carbon tax, but also the industrial carbon tax, if he were ever to be let loose on the Canadian economy This tax, technically known as the Output Based Pricing System, has always done much more of the heavy lifting in the country's climate change strategy, representing about a third of our potential greenhouse gas reductions in the run-up to the 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

Instead, Poilievre says he will "boost incentives" and "expand eligibility for the clean technology and clean manufacturing investment tax credits", although it's hard to see how that would take up the slack from the current industrial carbon tax. We will need those as well, of course, but not instead of.

The industrial carbon tax is actually administered by the provinces in all cases except for Manitoba, PEI, Nunavut and Yukon, which don't have their own system in place, so it's also hard to know whether such a drastic-sounding policy would actually have any effect at all, although you can expect that Alberta will gleefully take advantage of any loophole Poilievre presents. Danielle Smith will do whatever she can to suck up to Poilivre; she does NOT want another Liberal federal government.

Poilievre has not come clean with any revised carbon targets, and quickly changes the subject when this is mentioned. Mr. Carney, currently on his European charm offensive, also points out that, if we are trying to diversify trade away from the USA, trade with the EU, with the UK, with emerging Asia, all require some kind of a carbon price as a prime requirement (this does seem to be true - it's called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism CBAM), and it's pretty new - despite what you might read in the more conservative corners of the internet). So, what is Mr. Poilievre's workaround for that?

Clearly, the Conservatives had to come up with something to try to arrest their precipitate slide in the polls. But this is not what the country needs. Let's hope the voters can se through Poilievre's electoral machinations.

Doug Ford burns his fingers playing with the big boys

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has tried his level best to insert himself forcibly into the conversation around US tariffs ever since Trump was elected (and even before). Although he is merely a lowly provincial premier, he clearly has national pretentions, and likes to be thought of as "Captain Canada".

A good part of the shtick he used to get himself re-elected last month revolved around his claim that he was the best Ontario leader to deal with the existential threat that Trump represents. He has travelled to the US many times to speak to US representatives, industry leaders and media outlets, although he has rarely been invited to speak to the higher-ups, the actual movers and shakers in this particularly sordid phase of American politics.

However, Ford's hankering to be seen as Captain Canada took a bit of a blow yesterday, when he went toe to toe with Donald Trump and came off with egg on his face. In the face of Trump's announcement of a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, Ford gave it his best shot and announced a 25% surchage on electricity exports from Ontario to three US states, Minnesota, Michigan and New York.

Clearly expecting Trump to back off and walk back his tariff announcement after this masterful play, Trump, almost predictably, immediately doubled his tariffs to 50%. Ford then announced that he was abandoning his electricity surcharge, and the Americans, in their turn, reduced the steel and aluminum tariffs back to the original 25%. "Ontario won't back down", said Ford, hours before doing just that.

Good game. Trump 1 - Ford 0. Net result: the 25% tariffs remain. But Trump can do this stuff all day, he positively lives for it, and Ford came off looking rather foolish, with his tail firmly between his legs.

Ford is off to Washington again today to speak to the underlings (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick this time), chaperoned by federal Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc. But I have a suspicion that Mark Carney and the federal government would much rather Ford butt out of matters beyond his pay grade, and maybe just leave it to the grown-ups. 

The federal government has already announced proportionate retaliatory tariffs on $29.8 billion of American goods. Does Ford really need to be poking his nose in and complicating things, even if Trump does think of him as a "strong man"?

A day later, Trump mused out loud that maybe the USA shouldn't be buying ANY electricity from Canada, the exact opposite of what Ford has been pitching for months. So, careful what you do and say, Dougie, it might come back and bite you (and us, the hapless residents of Ontario, that you're supposed to be protecting).

Don't like Musk? Disguise your Tesla

This is hilarious. You may have been reading about stickers on Tesla cars saying "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy" and variations thereof. But now there are whole sections of the internet devoted to advice on the best way to remove the Tesla badge and logo from your car.

Even better, there is now a fully-fledged movement to replace the Tesla badges with the badges of other - less controversial and usually non-US-owned - car companies, like Toyota, Honda, BMW.

That's one unpopular guy!

A timeline of US tariffs (and their reversals

If you are losing track of all the various announcements of US tariffs on Canada and their subsequent reversals, you're not alone.

But Axios has created a handy little timeline, up until  March 11th at least, so you can see just how wild a ride this has been.

And we know that there are many more tariffs still to come, and almost certainly more reversals. In the meantime, both the Canadian and American economies are suffering and the stock exchange is nosedivng in the chaos. How long until the American people get properly pissed off with Trump? The rest of the world is already there.

Why Trump is so wrong on Canadian dairy tariffs

I'm already a bit bored with explaining just how wrong Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada are, but here's just one more way they are wrong.

It varies depending on the day, and the time of day, but one of the things that send Trump apologetic, and has him blustering about how UNFAIR Canada is being to the US, concerns Canada's dairy imports, and he says he intends to charge Canada 250% tariffs back.

Now, you might have some legitimate concerns about Canada's internal dairy industry supply management system (I looked into it a few years ago), but vis-à-vis dairy imports from the United States in particular, the rules are set according to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, or CUSMA, or whatever awkward acronym you prefer). Yes, that's the successor to NAFTA that Trump insisted on renegotiating during his first term back in 2018.

Trump and his cabinet minions repeatedly rant about how Canada is charging the US "250% tariffs" on its dairy imports, and how we are treating American "VERY BADLY" and how it is all "UNFAIR". Often he embellishes it even further for maximum effect: "They have a couple of tariffs at 400%. Nobody knows that. Nobody talks about that." Well, that's because he just made it up on the spot.

The truth is, though, that those high tariffs (on a sliding scale, with a theoretical maximum of 241%) only apply only after imports reach designated maximum annual levels. These are "over-quota" penalty tariffs. Up until these levels are reached, the tariff on dairy imports from the US is ... zero. 

Furthermore, as both Canadian and US dairy industry figures agree, the zero-tariff maximum has never been reached in any category of dairy imports. So, Canada is charging the US precisely ZERO in dairy tariffs, not 250% or any other figure.

For what it's worth, the US also has penalty tariffs aimed against Canada, some of them even higher than what Trump is so loudly criticizing, such as the 350% tariffs on US tobacco (which is also never triggered).

And, remember, all this is enshrined in the USMCA that Trump himself signed into effect in 2018, an agreement that he has called "the best trade deal ever made". Trump has also claimed that Canadian dairy tariffs were "well taken care of" during his first presidential term, but that "under Biden, they just kept it raising it". Nope. The dairy tariffs remain exactly the same as when Trump agreed and signed the USMCA; they can't be changed without renegotiating the agreement itself.

Of course, these are just facts, and no doubt Trump will have "alternative facts" to suit his case. Someone may explain all of the above to him and his trade team, but it is very unlikely to make a blind bit of difference. Legally, however, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. 

Who cares any more whem Spacex rockets blow up?

A second consecutive SpaceX rocket has blown up soon after launch (technically a "rapid uncheduled disassembly"!), with debris causing commercial flight delays as far away as Miami and Philadelphia.

That'll cost him a bob or two. Given how much people hate Elon Musk these days, few people are particularly upset.

The US government gets into gambling

With all the ridiculous antics going on south of the border, it's easy for things to slip through below the radar. One such thing may have immense repercussions, but has received relatively little attention, and that is Trump's announcement of a "Crypto Strategic Reserve".

The reserve, which is slated to consist of five different cryptocurrencies ' Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana and Cardano - will likely put the United States inexorably in the perilous business of buying and selling cryptocurrencies, in line with Trump's stated desire to establish the United States as the crypto capital of the world. It was mentioned only tangentially in an executive order on digital assets issued in January, but is still largely unexplained and unclassified.

Trump, of course, hopes to make vast profits from such a stockpile of the notoriously volatile and speculative investment. But, as we have already seen with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, they can just as easily result in huge losses. Given that cryptocurrencies are purely speculative, and not backed up by actual assets in the way that a gold reserve is, for example, many people are questioning whether the US government should be involved in such a risky venture.

The US is already known to hold about $17 billion in bitcoin from criminal seizures - digital currencies are notoriously prone to hacking and other criminal uses (just last month, North Korea hacked $1.4 billion worth of Ethereum, the largest single digital robbery ever carried out) - and it is assumed that they will now be in the market for much more, as well as in the other digital currencies mentioned, and all five currencies have seen significant spikes in value in anticipation, although followed by a sharp drop and sell-off. 

There are rumours that the government is looking to obtain abound a million bitcoins alone, worth around $86 billion, which would put it in a position to substantially influence the market. If it uses these bitcoins to, for example, pay off some of its (real) debts, that could cause the value of bitcoins to drop precipititately. 

The only other country that has tried this is El Salvador, whose foray into crypto as legal tender and as a national strategic reserve ended in ignominious failure, as it has had to abandon most of its crypto plans as a condition of a much-needed IMF loan.

Trump already has personal ties to various digital currencies, and even issued his own $TRUMP cryptocurrency, which promptly tanked, down over 80% since its launch (a parallel $MELANIA coin is down over 90%). 

Trump, ably abetted by Elon Musk, is also doing away with many of rhe regulatory safeguards that has kept the crypto business in check for years. But, even so, there are many, even in the crypto business itself, that question whether this is something that governments should be involving themselves with. For example, is it right that a government uses taxpayers finds to backstop the price of cryptocurrencies, and worry about the lack of clarity and transparency in the reserve. 

XRP, Solana and Cardano are relatively obscure digital currencies - why were they chosen? (David Sacks, Trump's crypto "czar" is known have some conflicts of interest with a couple of them.) Should one institution (the federal government) have so much power over a currency that is supposed to be decentralized. People also worry that a crypto reserve could be funded by taxpayer dollars, representing a transfer of money from everyday Americans to wealthy crypto bros and billionaires.

Some question whether the Trump administration actually understands what it is getting into. It's not even totally clear whether Trump has the legal authority to create such a reserve. The US has a strategic petroleum reserve, a strategic medical equipment stockpile, even a helium reserve, but crypto has essentially nothing backing it and no intrinsic value, so it represents a very different prospect.

The whole thing just smacks of the kind of sleaziness and amateurishness that the MAGA crowd excels in. But this particular example of Trump ineptitude could have extremely large repercussions. It could even have implications for the US dollar's role.as the world's primary reserve currency, although personally I think that particular claim may be overstated, and I have read nothing to back it up.

Republicans need to snap out of it, and soon

As Donald Trump pauses his tariffs on Mecico and Canada's auto sectors, just one day after bringing them in, and then delays most other tariffs just a day later (insofar as they are covered by the CUSMA free trade agreement), even his MAGA followers must be realizing that the man has no idea what he is doing. 

Trump is making random spur-of-the-moment decisions of huge import to both the US and other countries without any real plan or justification. He just does whatever he feels like when he gets up in the morning, in what has been labelled "government by chaos". Every day is "unprecedented" in some way or other, and it doesn't feel exhilerating or inspiring, it just feels exhausting and depressing. 

If his goal is to keep Canada and Mexico off-balance (and that's a big "if"), then I suppose he has achieved that, although how that helps him or America, no-one is quite sure. But he is also keeping American industry off-balance too. Trump says, "There will be a little disturbance, but we are OK with that". Most CEOs are too scared to comment publicly, but those that have are most definitely NOT OK with all the uncertainty and chaos.

As Democratic Representative Melanie Stansbury indicated with her handwritten sign that went viral after Trump's State of the Union speech, "This is NOT normal". Even Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is starting to look like a deer in the headlights as he tries to explain Trump's random decisions and equally random reversals.

Trump's Republican cronies must know all this. They must know that the talk about "fentanyl pouring over the border" from Canada is spurious, and not the actual reason for his tariffs (and is not even real). They must know that supposedly democratic countries can't just go around talking about annexing other countries and destroying their economies until they capitulate. They must know that you can't just abandon all your old allies and multilateral organizations, and suddenly support a country that had been an implacable enemy for decades. They must know that American industry and the stock exchanges are reacting with panic.

All this is not the behaviour of a sane, serious politician. But the Republicans, thus far at least, seem willing to go along with it, repeating his nonsensical arguments to the press day after day. It's almost like they are hypnotised somehow by Trump's certainty, by his star power. When a Democratic congressman had the temerity to protest at Trump's wild State of the Union speech the other day, MAGA Republicans merely rallied round, chanting "USA! USA!" like a football crowd, or a gang of kids. As though that was a valid response, as though a supposed show of vocal patriotism outweighed everything else.

It's all kind of disturbing and sad. You have to hope that some day soon they will wake up and shake themselves, mumbling, "Wha... Where am I? What has been going on?" Because this is like a fever dream, almost completely divorced from reality. Unfortunately, though, it's all too real. Make America Great Again? If they only realized what damage they are doing, and how long (if ever) it will take to fix.

The dubious legality of Trump's tariffs

If you were thinking, hold on, Trump's tariffs on Canada can't possibly be legal, then yes, that's quite right, but probably irrelevant. An expert on international trade law lays it all out.

Firstly, yes, we have a free trade deal with the USA. Known to us as CUSMA (Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement) and to the Yanks as USCMA (and probably to the Mexicans as MUSCA, which is the easiest one to say), President Trump signed it himself in 2018 (and the final version in 2020), and it replaced the original 1994 NAFTA agreement. And yes, Trump's tariffs are a clear violation of CUSMA, which explicitly states that member countries cannot simply increase tariffs unilaterally.

And yes, there is a dispute mechanism involving a legal panel. Canada would probably win any such dispute, even if the US uses various national security defences (Trump is mainly using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - IEEPA - to justify his tariff impositions). But if he is willing to directly contravene the wording of the Agreement, it is unlikely that he will care much about a ruling by some dispute panel.

There is also the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which the US is still technically a member, although Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from it. Canada would probably win a case before the WTO too, but Trump is unlikely to abide by any decision (and could just pull out of the organization if it suited him). The WTO has no real teeth to enforce its rulings.

Of the two, the CUSMA route is probably the best bet, although, as has been said, Trump does not appear to care about the agreement, or about legalities in general. He would just steamroller through regardless. Although such a case could be brought relatively quickly (meaning within a year!), the US could stall the process of picking a panel for quite some time, and the majority on the panel is decided by (quite literally) a coin toss, which is a bit bizarre.

There is also the possibility that US domestic lawyers could challenge his use of the IEEPA, which was never intended to be used for tariffs against a friendly nation. The Government of Canada could be involved as an amicus (intervenor) in such a case.

All of these legal remedies, however, take time, and in the meantime both Canada and Mexico (and the USA!) are suffering economically. And there is no guarantee that Trump would abide by any legal decision he doesn't like; he is past the point of concern with legal niceties. It may still be worthwhile pursuing from an international optics point of view, but again, Trump does really not care about optics, and the rest of the world already knows he is in the wrong.

A highly symbolic encounter between a Canada goose and a bald eagle

Seems appropriate to share this. 

An Ontario photographer captured this stand-off between a Canada Goose and a Bald Eagle on a frozen lake near Burlington, ON, recently.

While you might think the conclusion was foregone, it turns out that the plucky goose fought back bravely against the eagle's attacks, and eventually the eagle gave up and flew away.

Rife with Canadian and American symbolism, this encounter might give hope to the underdog Canadians, as the US goes all out to dominate Canada through tariffs and other means, and Canada does what it can to fight back.

Would US tariffs on Canada really be as bad as predicted?

I thought I understood how the expected US tariffs would affect Canada. But then, the more I thought about it, the less certain I was. So, I'm going to write it down to see if it makes any sense. Some of this is based on my own interpretation of analyses like Dalhousie University's Ask An Expert. I'm no economist, but this is how I see it - am I wrong?

So, say Donald Trump, in his infinite wisdom, decides to impose a 25% tariff on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum tomorrow. The only immediate effect would be that US importers of our steel and aluminum would be paying 25% more for their goods. 

So, they may decide to import less and source their steel and aluminum elsewhere (not easy, certainly in the short run). Trump expects the US steel and aluminum industries to up their game and produce more domestically, but that is also not easy, particularly in the case of aluminum (Canada accounts for 56% of US aluminum imports but only 15-20% of steel imports; the US produces a lot of its own steel, but very little aluminum). 

Or US companies may continue to import from Canada, and either take a hit to their profits due to their higher costs, or, more likely, increase the prices of their end products (or some combination of the two). Bear in mind that steel and aluminum are only two of the ingredients of their final products, and, due to market considerations, they may not decide to pass on all of their cost increases anyway. So, the prices American companies charge their customers will increase, yes, but not by 25%. 

Either way, thus far, Canadians are not affected at all by the tariffs. When we become affected is when we decide to import these now-more-expensive products from the US. The costs for Canadian companies importing these goods will go up but, once again, their final products will not be 25% more expensive when sold to Canadian consumers, because these US imports will not be 25% more expensive (as mentioned above), they will not typically make up 100% of the final Canadian product, and the Canadian exporters may not pass on all of their increased costs to final Canadian consumers (or they may).

So, the eventual impact on  the general Canadian public may actually be minimal (but hard, even impossible, to predict). Inflation may go up a little, although it inflation is currently pretty well controlled here (unlike America's inflation situation). If the loonie continues to depreciate against the greenback, as is also likely, the effects are further diminished.

If the US tariffs are imposed on ALL American imports from Canada, however, as they are also threatening, the effects would be more widespread, but still mainly borne by American companies and American consumers, only affecting Canadians to the extent that we import affected goods from America, and again by much less than 25% (for the reasons stated above).

In addition to all that, of course, there would be an effect on Canadian producers of steel and aluminum (and other products if the tariffs are expanded). If it becomes more expensive for American companies to import from Canada, they may import less, or source their raw materials elsewhere. 

This is where the sky-is-falling predictions of Canadian industry groups get their dire prognostications about the entire Canadian steel and aluminum industries closing down, with hundreds of thousands of layoffs  (estimates vary from 30,000 jobs to 600,000!) and myriad insolvencies. But it's not that easy for American companies to just switch suppliers, so it seems to me that there may be some industry layoffs, but maybe not the complete decimation many commentators seem to be suggesting.

After the 2018 temporary Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum, Canadian steel exports to the USA went down by a sizeable 38%, and aluminum exports by a more modest 19%. (Note that this is specifically the effect on US exports, not total Canadian steel and aluminum production). I have not seen any figures on industry layoffs or insolvencies.

There's more, though. If, as seems more than likely, Canada responds to the US tariffs with commensurate tit-for-tat dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs of its own, then the effects on Canada will be much more more pronounced. In that case, Canada would suffer the immediate affects that the US is described as suffering above, while the US would only feel the more limited secondary effects described above.

Either way, it's a race to the bottom. But what's a country to do? In the end, it's a political calculation of what people think may sway Donald Trump. And that, as we already know, is a known unknown.

So, "existential threat"? Maybe not. Pain in the ass, to be sure. "Ceases to exist as a viable country" without the US (as Trump recently claimed)? Not neither.

It truly seems like both Trump and his hapless Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt totally misunderstand how tariffs work in practice. In a recent presser, poor Ms. Leavitt claimed, "Tariffs are a tax hike on foreign countries that, again, have been ripping us off. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people, and the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts." Er, no. Tariffs are a tax on imports, and they are paid by the US company importing the goods. Typically, they will pass that cost on to the American consumers, which is why economists on both sides of the border are calling ot a "lose-lose" strategy, and why the stock exchamge is reacting quite so negatively.

Trump's EV edict makes no sense (and will cost a lot of money)

If you needed yet another example of how illogical and ideology-driven Donald Trump's new presidential term is, you need look no further than his roll-back of electric cars and chargers for federal government workers.

Last week, Trump ordered that 654 EV charging stations at government facilities be immediately removed and decommissioned, and about 25,000 government EVs be summarily sold. This will flood the EV market, so that the EVs will end up being sold at about 25% of their original value, resulting in a $225 million loss (the original $300 million paid for the chargers and electric vehicles is a sunk cost). Decommissioning the chargers could cost a further $50 to 100 million, and an estimated $700 million will need to be invested in new replacement cars. 

That's over a billion dollars of public money wasted on a whim. You could add to that a further 6 billion in savings that the EV fleet would have realized over their working lives compared to a conventional combustion fleet, as estimated by investment consulting firm ICF. How many of the EVs to be sold are Teslas is not clear, but best buddy Elon Musk is probably going to be pissed.

And why? Why would a move like this be worth a billion dollars to Trump? It seems that economics doesn't come into the equation at all, and it is all because Donald Trump - for whatever reason - doesn't like EVs, and is scared of progress of any kind (and particularly environmental progress).

"Made in Canada" or "Product of Canada"?

Many Canadians are trying their best to "Buy Canadian" these days, partly as a patriotic finger in the eye to Donald Trump, and partly in an attempt to wean ourselves American products so that the Trump tariffs are more limited in their effectiveness. But it's not easy, and it's not even easy to tell what is Canadian and what isn't.

As we study labels we've never even bothered to look at before, people are noticing that some products say "Made in Canada" and some say "Product of Canada". Most people probably assume that these are one and the same thing. But, it turns out, they are not. And, just to complicate things, what they do mean varies, depending on whether it relates to a food items or a non-food items. 

For non-food items, Competition Bureau Canada rules that "Product of Canada" means that 98% of the item is Canadian content, while "Made in Canada" can mean anything above 51%. 

For food items, "Product of Canada" means that "all or virtually all major ingredients, processing and labour used to make the food product are Canadian" (this definition comes from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency). "Made in Canada", on the other hand, merely means that the "last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada, even if some ingredients are from other countries". (Hence, products like olive oil can be "Made in Canada".)

Just to confuse things, there's also "Prepared in Canada", which, similar to "Made in Canada", means that the final production step occurred in Canada, but the ingredients could come from anywhere.

So, generally speaking, "Product of Canada" good, "Made in Canada" not so good (but better than nothing). Bear in mind, though, that e-commerce rules have not kept up with even these creaky regulations, and buying things online is still very much the Wild West as regards sourcing and provenance claims.

It's a good indication of how few people understand the difference between the two labels that substantially more people preferred "Made in Canada" items over "Product of Canada" until it is explained to them what the labels actually mean, when their preferences change dramatically!

Kennedy fails in first test

In Robert F. Kennedy Jr's first major challenge as US Health Secretary, the maverick anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist - elevated to power and influence by another maverick - has failed miserably (and predictably).

A major measles outbreak in West Texas has now infected at least 124 people in a largely unvaccinated Mennonite region, and 18 have been hospitalized. Now, the first child has died from it, the first such death in a decade.

Kennedy's response? "We're watching it ... we're going to continue to follow it". Watching people die does not seem like a very robust response.

Kennedy went further to try to downplay the situation, claiming that there have been four measles outbreaks this year in the US already (technically, an "outbreak" constitutes three or more related cases), compared to sixteen last year, "so it's not unusual to have measles outbreaks very year". And we're supposed to be reassured by that?

Measles was deemed eradicated in the USA in 2000, 40 years after the introduction of a safe and very effective measles vaccination. It lost its elimination status in 2019 with a large outbreak in New York state and others elsewhere, and there have been many more such outbreaks since. CDC notes that vaccination rates have gone down from 95.2% to 92.7% over the last four years, in which there has been a lot of vaccination misinformation.

And with Kennedy in charge, nothing is going to get better any time soon.

Trump's squeezing of Ukraine is a global embarrassment

In a move of unbelievable callousness and boorishness, Donald Trump is looking to recoup money the USA - in an earlier, kinder incarnation under Joe Biden - has freely given to Ukraine over the last three years for its existential fight against an expansionist Russia. There was never any talk of repayment, but now Trump wants to change that, mainly because he is mean, greedy and amoral.

Desperate, and with its hands tied, Ukraine sees itself as having no alternative but to accede to Trump's demands of half of Ukraine's rare earth minerals, and the establishment of a joint investment fund for Ukraine's eventual reconstruction. This is a slight improvement over Trump's initial demand of $500 billion in mineral wealth from the already cash-strapped country. Ukraine sees this deal as the only way to keep the USA on-side, although it does not as yet include any firm security guarantees or even guarantees of future aid. The assumption is that the US will want to protect its investments.

Trump claims that the US has already donated between $300 billion and $350 billion to Ukraine since the Russian invasion. The actual figure is probably somewhere between $119 billion and $182 billion, depending on different estimates. A lot of money, to be sure, but certainly not $350 billion (or $500 billion). By some estimates, Europe has actually given Ukraine even more than the US, and these were certainly not loans, as Trump tried to claim recently, quickly corrected by Emmanuel Macron.

And neither were the US's aid donations loans. Trump can't (or shouldn't be able to) turn round now and demand the money back. If this is the "art of the deal", then the civilized West should want no part of it. The guy is a global embarrassment.

UPDATE

The video of President Zelenskyy "negotiating" with Donald Trump and JD Vance, in the Oval Office of the White House, must be seen to be believed. This is Trump and Vance's idea of diplomacy - like a couple of schoolyard bullies who throw their weight around, repeat things over and over again, and don't allow their victim to get a word in edgewise. 

It was a deliberate public humiliation, the two working together like a tag team to bait, browbeat and berate Zelenskyy. The fact that the whole thing was televised, while unprecedented, was surely no accident. The unabashedly anti-Ukraine Vance was usually the instigator, but as soon as Trump felt himself being contradicted, he was off, no holds barred. So this, captured on prime-time TV, was Donald Trump's much-vaunted "art of the deal", which seems to involve being in an unassailable position in the first place, and then threatening and shouting down your opponent!

Time after time, both Americans kept insisting that Zelenskyy was not thankful enough, that he was disrespectful. Indeed, respect - obeisance, you might say - seemed to be the thing both men were most interested in. Zelenskyy, on the other hand, was concerned with the continued existence of his country, and the number of lives his countrymen will continue to lose. Reasonably enough, he does not want to sign away his country's mineral wealth to a rapacious USA and get nothing in return. The contrast between the two points of view was palpable, even if Trump and Vance were oblivious to it. Zelenskyy's anger and frustration were totally understandable.

Zelenskyy actually has no reason to be thankful to the Republican Party, which did its level best to block President Biden's generous support of Ukraine over the last three years, and is now seeking to distance itself as far as possible from American involvement. And, as Zelenskyy repeatedly tried to interject into the barrage of abuse against him, he has thanked America many times.

Zelenskyy, unlike most of Trump's recent sycophantic, pusillanimous visitors (looking at you, Keir Starmer), was willing to fight back against the bullies, albeit in what is probably his third language. Suffice to say, he left without signing away Ukraine's mineral wealth, for which Ukraine should probably be thankful.

Trump and Vance, for all their repeated insistence on respect from Zelenskyy, lost any respect anyone might have had for them. Most of the world reiterated their support for Ukraine after the debacle, although usually with very muted criticism of Trump (everyone is scared stiff to cross him). Only American Republicans supported and praised their Glorious Leader's "performance", increasingly isolated on the world stage. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin contented himself with silently rubbing his hands with glee.

Women leading the growing political defiance in Iran

As one of the very few foreign journalists allowed in to report on the political and social conditions in Iran, the Globe and Mail's Geoffrey York centre-fold article on the growing political and religious defiance in Iran is eye-opening.

When Mohamad Khatami was elected Iranian president on a reformist/liberalization platform in the late 90s, there were wild hopes that the Iranian people could rise from under the cruel yoke of an Islamic fundamentalism that, in particular, mandated repression of women, through the police state of the revolutionary guard and the much-hated "morality police". But Khatami's attempts at liberalization were soon clamped down and rolled back by the "authorities" (i.e. the religious leadership and the police).

Since the election of new "reformist" presidents like Ebrahim Raisi in 2021 and Masoud Pezeshkian in 2024, and building on the widespread protests following the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini in 2022, there has been a growing quiet defiance in Iran. Iranian women are openly defying the fundamentalist rules of the theocracy, quite literally letting their their hair down in public places. The younger generation in particular is leading this brave defiance. 

These women are still risking arrest, but increasingly the police are overlooking such contraventions. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this year, Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "If you go to the streets of Tehran, you see that here are women who are not covering their hair. It's against the law, but the government has decided not to put women under pressure. This was a promise that President Pezeshkian made. He did not implement the law, with the consent of the leadership. So, we are moving in the right direction."

Iranian hardliners slammed Zarif's interview, and many women were somewhat disgusted at the government's attempt to take credit for a protest that they themselves had instigated (and for which they still run the risk of summary arrest). But this is nevertheless an extraordinary development in modern Iran, and gives hope that eventually the country will be able to shake off the stifling chains of its Islamist theocracy. 

And, never forget, it is grass-roots Iranian women that are leading the charge here.

Canada can still beat the US at some things

"We'd like you to kick their asses again because you don't boo the United States of America ... we look forward to the United States beating our soon-to-be 51st state, Canada".

So blustered US Vice President JD Vance (never trust a man who won't use his first name...) just before the Four Nations Face-Off hockey final. Trump, too, added some forgettable supposedly-humorous comments on the game.

So, how did that go, guys? Well, it went 3-2 to Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau taunted Trump on X after the game, saying, "You can't take our country - and you can't take our game". And, it turns out, yes, you can boo the United States of America, and still come out on top. The USA may be a big, rich bully, but Canada can still win at some things.

UPDATE

To add insult to injury (or balm to healing, depending on how you see it), Canada also beat the USA in the Concacaf Nations League competition, just a few weeks later. The winning goal was scored by Jonathan David, prompting unavoidable David vs. Goliath analogies.

It wasn't the competiton final - that was between Mexico amd Panama - just the playoff for third and fourth places. But it was another important moral victory for the underdogs. Go Canada!

Imagine living in today's USA

This is hilarious, depressing and scary, all at once.

A Canadian put a post on X and BlueSky, defending Canada against American extremism. The post - which read,"For a US President to refer to the Prime Minister of Canada as 'Governor' isn't just rude. It's a hostile act." - was pretty tame. And indeed it hardly registered a blip on BlueSky (which is mainly populated by refugees from the increasingly toxic X).

On X, however, the post completely blew up. Responses ranged from "Get over it, it was a joke" to "Yeah, but it's Canada, so who gives a fuck?", "Fuck Canada", "Trudeau deserves it because he's a jerk, and anyway he insulted Trump too", "Whuddya gonna do about it, pussy?", "Come and do something about it. I'd love to see you little maple syrup gay boys try something", and worse. Choice epithets included "cuck", "bitch", "coward", "drama queen", "beta male", "soy boy", "libtard", "snowflake", "butt-hurt", "faggot", "pansy", "trans communist", "Good Jew".

Wow.

Just the choices of terms of abuse alone give a pretty good idea of where Trump's America's head is right now. And the vitriol, the absolute disdain and contempt for anything approaching liberalism or even impartiality, is a thing to behold. 

There's a lot of bad feeling in Canada these days, and a lot of divisiveness, negativism and even hostility (thanks almost entirely to Pierre Poilievre and his populist shtick). But, God, am I glad I don't have to live in the USA. It's hard enough living next door.

Trump administration's approach to diplomacy is to reject it

God, the Trump administration really knows how to piss people off. And it's not just Trump himself, but those who are hanging on his coat-tails seem to think they also have a God-given right to hector, berate, cajole and generally come over all smug, supercilious and disdainful.

The latest of many such examples is Vice President J D Vance's speech to the European Union at the Munich Security Conference. Accusing European governments of retreating from their core values and ignoring voter concerns about immigration and free speech, Vance's address was met with a disbelieving silence. Yes, this was the Trump administration lecturing Europe about the state of their democracy! Later, many delegates were much louder in their condemnation (except Germany's fascist AfD party, which thought the speech was "excellent").

It's not just that he failed to read the room; he made no attempt to read the room. Trump and those he sends out to spread his ill-advised gospel are so arrogant, so cocksure, that they don't think twice about saying whatever the hell they want. International diplomacy has given way to bullying and intimidation.

Trump's idea of a "deal" for Ukraine is peak arrogance

As usual, Donald Trump just doesn't get it, living as he does on a complete different planet from the rest of us.

Inserting himself into yet another situation where he's not really wanted, Trump is "making deals" with global pariah, Vladimir Putin, presenting a peace plan for the 3-year old war in Ukraine without even involving Ukraine (or Europe).

Trump is desperate to earn himself the Nobel Peace Prize, and his simplistic conception of brokering peace is to offer his buddy Putin whatever he wants, Ukraine be damned. So, as far as he is concerned, Russia can keep the Donbas and anything else they might have illegally annexed, and he is quite happy to conclude a deal - on behalf of Ukraine - assuring that Ukraine will never join NATO (another of Putin's stipulations), which would be the only thing standing between Ukraine and another invasion by Russia a few years down the road, to finish the job once and for all.

"I think I have the power to end this war", says Trump. Well, yes, if you mean by giving part (or even all) of Ukraine to bro-buddy Vladimir Putin. But that's not, it should be noted, the point.

Trump doesn't care about Ukraine, nor does he care about morality or  "doing the right thing". That is not who he is. All he cares about is his legacy and what makes money for the USA. With gob-smacking cynicism, he is tying further support for Ukraine to American access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals. He blithely deadpans, "They may be Russian someday or they may not be Russian someday". His scorn and arrogance knows no bounds.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy is being understandably carefully in his public remarks about Trump, buy he must be seething inside. Europe is, perhaps rashly, being less careful in its language, using phrases like "dictated peace", "appeasement" and "dirty deal". Trump has already made clear that he is not willing to bankroll Ukraine further, and has even indicated that Europe can no longer rely on the USA's help with its own security. Let's hope it doesn't get any worse.

UPDATE

It's already getting worse. In one of his many unguarded moments, Trump even accused Ukraine of starting the war. Repeating Putin's claims that it was not Russia but Ukraine that started the wars in 2014 and 2022, Trump said, 

"I hear they're upset at not having a seat. Well, they've had a seat for three years and a long time before that. This could have been settled very easily. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal."

Unbelievable. What world does he live in?

And then of course he just waded in and made everything even worse, as is his wont, calling Zelenskyy a "dictator" for not holding elections while the country is under martial law after the Russian invasion, and questioning his legitimacy in office (a common Russian theme). (UPDATE: Later, Trump would say about this incident, "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question", trying to laugh it off.)

He further claimed that Zelenskyy's approval rating - Trump's measure of legitimacy, where TV ratings are not available - is down at 4%. No-one is very sure where he plucked that particular figure from. The most recent official survey, earlier this month, has Zelenskyy at 57% - down from 77% at the end of 2023, granted, but 4%?

How far has this bare-faced attempt at American-Russian revisionism gone? Well, as we approach the three-year mark of the war, the US is openly resisting a joint G7 statement condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. Washington is apparently "concerned" at the way in which the war is being framed in the proposed statement. Trump has also proposed that Russia be allowed back into the G7, from which it was ejected after annexing Crimea back in 2014. Just what kind of hold does Putin have over Trump and his feckless Republican lackeys?

Where the far right wing hangs out

The Globe and Mail's Guide to Trumpism's Online Universe (or Donald Trump's Social Spheres, as the online version of the article title inexplicably gets re-translated) is an eye-opening introduction to America's  right-wing media landscape and its most important social platforms. Eye-opening not least because I've never even heard of some of them (perhaps not that surprising given that I'm 65, British-Canadian, and my politics swing left to green). 

The big five platforms favoured by Trump and his supporters are:

• Truth Social - launched by Trump in 2022 after he was expelled from Twitter (remember Twitter?), this is where Trump and VP JD Vance make most of their announcements. Its power users include Sean Hannity, Charlie Kirk, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jack Posibiek, and is the regular hang-out for aspiring right-wing politicians and the alt-right media, which then disseminate the posts across the Internet as a whole. There are no guard rails and pretty much anything goes. Monthly users, though, only number 4.68 million, paltry compared to many other platforms.
• X - once called Twitter, until Elon Musk bought it in 2022, rolled back monitoring and moderation, and reinstated myriad accounts that had been suspended due to policy and hate-speech violations, including those of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists. Now, it's the go-to platform for those people and for Musk himself, especially given that it has 425 million monthly users. Democrats have abandoned X in droves, and Republican users are now in a strong majority. Offensive memes and AI deepfakes abound, with few to no boundaries or moderation.
• Kick - a Twitch copy with much looser moderation policies around hate speech, harassment and sexual content (Twitch, if you're not familiar, is a video platform for 20-something video game players). Adin Ross, banned from Twitch for his hateful slurs, is Kick's guru, and gaming is only an excuse for rants by white supremacists, racists and misogynists (including Nick Fuentes, Andrew Rate, Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump himself). Monthly users number a mind-boggling 12.5 million.
• YouTube - by far the most popular platform, with 1.7 billion monthly users, frequented by the left and right alike, but its algorithm has been shown to (intentionally or not) drive viewers from more mainstream content to content promoting radical and violent ideas. It is considered a major vehicle for "red-pilling" (converting people to far-right beliefs). "Manosphere" luminaries like Joe Rogan, the Nelk Boys, Logan and Jake Paul and Theo Von are among the most influential right-wing players with YouTube channels.
• Rumble - A Canadian-made YouTube alternative, started in 2013, which has been particularly embraced by far right influencers and others who were kicked off YouTube for violating platform rules, including Russell Brand, Dan Bongino, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Steven Crowder and Donald Trump Jr. Here you can see endless videos on pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, paramilitary groups and general alt-right politics, along with 12.6 million other monthly users (and growing).

There are many others, even less well-known including Gab, Parler, Gettr. None of them have any serious moderation (which is, of course, considered woke, liberal, mollycoddling interference), so anything goes - and indeed, is encouraged - including deepfakes, offensive memes, and outright hatespeech. 

The left has nothing like this network. BlueSky may be the closest thing, but it is merely a more heavily-moderated version of X, to which many on the left have decamped in order to escape the toxicity of current-day X. It is not pro-left as such, merely a platform trying to maintain some objectivity and truth. It does not allow the kind of showmanship and outright lies the pro-right outlets do. With this unfair advantage, it's hardly surprising that the far right is in the ascendance at the moment.

Do Americans approve of what Trump is doing?

From what I hear and read, most people outside of the USA think that Donald Trump is an idiot, and that his slash and burn approach to politics since his election, both nationally and internationally, has been nothing short of disastrous. But what do Americans think of the show so far?

A CBS News poll suggests that they're actually pretty happy, generally speaking, with a few provisos. Which gives a good (if scary) indication of where the American people's heads are right now.

70% think he is doing exactly what he promised in his election campaign, and they're probably not far wrong there. But 53% give him an overall approval rating, compared to 47% who disapprove, which is actually more than the margin in the popular vote of the election (49.8% to 48.3%). People find him tough, energetic, focussed and effective (they're probably not wrong there either, much as I wish they were).

On more specific issues, 59% approve of his program to deport illegal immigrants, and 64% approve of his sending troops to the Mexican border, although 52% disapprove of large detention centres for deportees. Amazingly, 54% approve of his handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, although only 13% think that the US taking over Gaza is a good idea, compared to 47% who think it is a bad idea (again amazingly, 40% are not sure!)

His single biggest failing in the eyes of the US population is in his inability to lower prices, although why anyone would have thought that was possible, I'm not sure. 66% think he is not doing enough on that front, which was a major part of his election platform. 

And those tariffs? Well, 56% favour tariffs on China, but there is much less enthusiasm for tariffs on America's allies: 44% favour tariffs on Mexico (56% are against them), 40% on Europe (60% against), and 38% on Canada (62% against). Which makes me feel very, very slightly better...

Elon Musk's role in the government is not very popular either. Just 23% think he should have a lot of influence over government operations and spending (which is what he seems to have), 28% some influence, 18% not much influence, and 30% no influence at all. The Republican-Democrat breakdown of that vote is even more stark than with most of the others; he is a very polarizing guy.

All in all, a mixed bag, but a surprisingly positive reception for some of the wacky stunts Trump has been pulling during his first month of power. I had hoped for a general uprising of the people - not going to happen.

Drake-Lamar beef is bewildering

Full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan of either Drake or Kendrick Lamar (or of rap in general, tbh). But I'm still a bit bemused by all the fuss over this ongoing "beef" between them, which became even more public after Lamar's star billing at this year's Super Bowl and his performance of the song Not Like Us.

Probably the two biggest rap stars in the world right now, they have been "dissing" each other for years now, but it came to a head with Lamar's allegations (originally veiled, later fully-realized) that Drake has had sexual relations with underage fans, and maybe even has a young girlfriend hidden away somewhere. 

"Say, Drake, I hear you like 'em young ... Tryna strike a chord and I hear it's A Minor ... Certified Lover Boy? Certified pedophile". It doesn't get much more in-your-face than that!

Drake has responded with his own diss tracks against Lamar, and most recently by suing Lamar's record label for releasing Not Like Us, which of course has only met with ridicule from the macho hip-hop crowd.

But hold on, what evidence has Lamar for his allegations, in verse and otherwise? Drake has challenged him to reveal his proof, to no avail. I've read several articles on the subject, and nowhere have I seen any kind of proof being offered. Maybe it has to go to court before such minor details need to be addressed?

It's not clear to me exactly what you can say in a song, and avoid being accused of slander and libel. But surely you can't go around accusing people of being pedophiles and expect to get away with it? Can you?

It seems to me that this whole diss thing is just a way of selling more music and making more money (not that either of them need it!) Not Like Us saw a 430% increase in streams after the Super Bowl half-time show, reaching a billion streams on Spotify alone.

There are also allegations (also as yet unproven) that Lamar's song streams, particularly of Not Like Us, have been artificially inflated by the likes of Spotify and Universal Music Group. The whole thing looks very sordid.  Maybe they just have nothing better to do than exercise their inflated egos.

Governor General has some explaining to do regarding Buffy Sainte-Marie's cancellation

Buffy Sainte-Marie has had her Order of Canada revoked ("terminated" seems to be the official description; "scrapped" is what it actually is), because some people think she is just not Indigenous enough. She has been officially and summarily cancelled and is now persona non grata.

As I have commented before, a CBC Fifth Estate documentary about a year ago (whose findings were contested) found some documents that contradicted some of Ms. Sainte-Marie's claims of Indigenous ancestry. Many (but by no means all) Indigenous people were outraged, and called for her to be punished. And so now, a year later, we have this.

Except it doesn't really make much sense to me. See, the thing is, she was given the prestigious award of the Order of Canada back in 1997 for her decades of activism in support of First Nations and Métis, and for raising awareness of political and social issues as they affect Indigenous people. That hasn't changed. Her decades of work are as valuable and influential now as they were in 1997. So, why revoke ("terminate") her Order of Canada?

Well, because some people - mainly Indigenous people, the very people whom Ms. Sainte-Marie helped and paved the way for - have campaigned tirelessly to have her honour removed. No official reason was given by the Office of the Secretary of the Governor General for her removal, but the usual justifications are a criminal conviction or "conduct that may undermine the integrity of the order". She hasn't been convicted of anything, so I guess it must be the latter.

But, in my humble opinion as a mere settler, it is the Office of the Governor General itself (and perhaps Mary Simon, Canada's first Indigenous Governor General - her personal role in this has yet to be made clear) that has undermined its own integrity by this action. I don't think we have heard the last of this.

Mark Carney has injected some life (and hope) into Liberal chances

Well, this is heartening. A new poll about which Canadian politicians would be best at dealing with Donald Trump, puts Mark Carney streets ahead.

It's not that I'm a huge fan of the Liberals. But I am a huge anti-fan of the Conservatives, particularly the current incarnation under Pierre Poilievre, who I see as the most dangerous and destabilizing force in Canadian politics in many a year.

Asked "Which of the following politicians would do the best job at negotiating with President Trump", 40% responded Mark Carney, 26% Pierre Poilievre, 13% Chrystia Freeland, and 1% Karina Gould (the rest being either unsure or think it would make no difference). 

That's a surprise considering how untested and inexperienced Carney is in national and international politics. No-one doubts that he is a smart cookie and more than able to carry an argument, but is he battle-hardened enough?

The size of this advantage gives me some hope that Poilievre may not be a slam dunk for the federal election which is expected later this spring. I may have to hold my nose to vote Liberal, but I'll do it to keep Poilievre's hands off power.

UPDATE

A new Ipsos Reid poll in late February actually has the Liberals with 38% to the Conservatives' 36%, the first time the Liberals have led in polls since the heady days of 2021. This overturns a 26% deficit just six weeks ago!

When is progress not really progress?

I'm currently manfully ploughing my way through Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. Subtitled A Brief History of Humankind, it's a thick tome of anthropology, evolutionary psychology, history and politics, a tour de force of grand scope that attempts nothing less than a critical summary of the whole of human history (and prehistory).

It's full of fascinating observations and surprising conclusions (and I'm less than a quarter of the way through!) It is written in an engaging, no-nonsense style, albeit with the weight of copious analysis and academic research behind it.

Just to take one example, starting about 10,000-11,000 years ago, humankind across the world started gradually moving away from a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a more settled agricultural life, cultivating a much more limited number of crops and animals. This was the so-alled Agricultural Revolution, usually considered one of the most important steps in human progress, and a great leap forward in our development.

Harari, however, calls it "History's Biggest Fraud". He argues that the Agricultural Revolution was not evidence of humanity's increasing intelligence, not was it the renunciation of a gruelling, dangerous hunter-gatherer lifestyle in favour of a pleasanter, easy-living, bucolic life of farming.

Rather, the new farmers typically had an even harder life than before: backbreaking work clearing fields, weeding, building fences, guarding against pests, watering, collecting animal faeces to nourish the soil, etc, etc. Yes, it allowed for greater food production, albeit of a much more limited and less healthy variety of foods, and the improved food supply and settled homes allowed for more babies to be born. But more babies needed more food, and babies were fed cereals rather than breast-milk to allow the mothers to work more, reducing their immune systems, and leading to many more infant deaths.

It doesn't end there. If the staple crop failed due to an infestation or bad weather, peasants died by the thousands. Tribe-against-tribe violence increased, as the best agricultural land was fought over tooth and nail. Infections and diseases flourished in the busier, closer, more enclosed living quarters. Forests were cleared to make room for mono-culture plantings, a process still going on today. Once free-roaming animals were domesticated, penned, whipped, harnessed, even mutilated and tortured, before being unceremoniously slaughtered at a young age, all in the interests of human food production.

And, once the process was started, and populations were continuously growing, there was just no going back to the old hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is what Harari calls the "luxury trap", and he describes a couple of interesting modern analogies. 

College graduates take demanding jobs in high-powered firms, vowing to work hard, earn lots of money and retire at 35. But, by the time they reach that age, they have large mortgages, children in school, houses in the suburbs, and a taste for the high life. There is no easy way to retire, and they continue to slave away for decades.

Another modern example: when email arrived, people stopped spending so much time writing, addressing and posting physical letters, and then waiting days or weeks for a reply, opting instead for the ease and convenience of firing off a quick email, and expecting an almost immediate reply. But now people dash off emails for the slightest of reasons, not just when there is something important to relate, and we are all tied to our over-full inboxes, stressed and anxious. Progress?

I'm looking forward to the next three quarters of the book.