Trump's targeting of Venezuelan boats not likely to save any Americans from anything

America's crusade against drug-trafficking Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean is completely off-target.

US claims, that the Venezuelan boats targeted by the USA were involved in transporting fentanyl from South America to the US, flies in the face of all available evidence, which shows that the drug trade through the Caribbean is almost all in cocaine, not fentanyl, and that the cocaine is destined for Europe, not America. US-bound fentanyl almost all comes in from Mexico, not Canada, as Trump also claims, and certainly not through the Caribbean, and most of America's cocaine comes in through the Pacific.

President Trump and various members of his administration, as well as key spokespeople from the Pentagon (which is now largely staffed by loyal Trump supporters, and not necessarily experts in their field), have been loud in their claims that US strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean, of which there have been at least 20 in the last few months, are essential to break up drug flows into the US and to protect the drug-addled American population. Trump has claimed (without evidence, as per usual) that each boat bombed saves 25,000 American lives, which is just ludicrous.

It is more and more apparent that this is just a pretext for Trump's regime-change aspirations, and his desperate need to be seen to be doing something - anything - about America's drug problem.

The Trump regime has come under more and more criticism by allies for its activities int he Caribbean, which increasingly look to be against both US and international law. Some allies are even witholding intelligence on Latin American drug smuggling operational from the USA, as they are worried about the illegality of America's policy.

FIFA boss please Trump with his very own peace prize

The FIFA World Cup draw in Washington was the rather bizarre occasion for the presentation of the brand-new FIFA Peace Prize. 

The what, you say? FIFA is in the business of awarding prizes for world peace? I thought they were all about football? Good questions all.

It turns out that Gianni Infantino, the Swiss-Italian current boss of FIFA, is best buddies with Donald Trump, although nobody really knows why. From Trump's inauguration to the recent Club World Cup final to the signing of the supposed "peace deal" between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Infantino keeps popping up, Waldo-like, in Trump's environs, sometimes in the most unlikely circumstances.

Infantino's "style" was all over the the glitzy World Cup draw event. Trump's favourite entertainers, The Village People and Andrea Bocelli, were there too, as were a bunch of other actors, models and assorted hangers-on. There was much mutual back-slapping between Trump and Infantino, and some embarrassing one-sided abasement. Infantino even promised Trump "the support of the entire football community", which seemed a bit rich.

Even given all this, it was nevertheless a very strange moment when Infantino hijacked the lottery draw event, full of soccer personalities and sports talk, to present Trump with a cheap imitation peace prize, à propos of nothing at all. Given that it is very unlikely that Trump will ever earn the Nobel Prize, given his predilection for war, Infantino presumably felt sorry for him and thought he should have his very own peace prize. And it was just that: a prize created expressly for Trump and no-one else. No-one else on the 37-member FIFA Council seemed to know anything about it.

The President, though, was clearly deeply touched by all this nonsense. And, in one fell swoop, Infantino firmly positioned himself as Trump's bestie, even rivalling fallen Canadian Great One, Wayne Gretzky. It is hard to make this stuff up, isn't it?

Any "understanding" between the governments of Canada and Alberta will be hard won

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Liberal government of Canada and the United Conservative government of Alberta was never going be an easy thing. There is very little common ground between the Liberals and Danielle Smith's United Conservative Party, although Prime Minister Mark Carney is in the process of dragging the Liberals much further to the right in his determination to kick-start Canada's economy, for example by avoiding awkward environmental reviews and such like.

There was lots of talk about "hinge moments" and "inflection points" and other such trendy buzzwords, and Carney and Smith were like a couple of giggling schoolkids at the official signing ceremony. However, the agreement may not actually be worth the paper it was written on.

This so-called "grand bargain" involves Ottawa giving the green light to a new pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific, a major sop to a fractious and trigger-happy Alberta. The only stipulations for Alberta are rather vague ones about pursuing carbon capture technology, stricter industrial carbon pricing rules, and of course getting the buy-in of British Columbia and First Nations, through whose territory the pipeline would run (which will not be easy, if indeed it is even possible). 

Carney is still insisting that it will all happen in a spirit of "cooperative federalism", in which "all stakeholders have to agree", including the province of British Columbia and several affected First Nations, but that seems naïve to me. He also seems to think that Alberta can still achieve its greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2050, apparently not realizing that Alberta has no intentions of chasing any such target.

Quite how Mr. Carney hopes to achieve this feat is not clear, and a lot of other people are equally skeptical. Many British Columbia Liberal MPs and their constituents are strongly opposed to the proposed carve-out of environmental protections for the ecologically-sensitive North West coast. Many First Nations rights holders are strongly opposed to a pipeline through their territory, and the transportation of oil through the pristine fjords and inlets of the BC coast. The exemption of Alberta from Canada's Clean Electricity Regulations has also raised the hackles of other provinces.

All this has driven a substantial wedge within the Liberal Party, because there are still many MPs in the Liberal caucus from the old environmentalist days of Justin Trudeau, including some MPs like Steven Guilbeault that were instrumental in drawing up some of the key environmental legislation that Carney is apparently now all too happy to trample over.

There have been some rather testy discussions between the Prime Minister's Office and Liberal MPs like Mr. Guilbeault and others, and particularly with many of the British Columbia Liberal MPs, who are having to explain this volte face to their electorate. BC Premier David Eby, whose province was inexplicably not included in talks, remains implacably opposed to it, particularly over the prospect of the federal government using its recently acquired power to grant exemptions to the current BC oil tanker ban. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, as well as various individual Indigenous groups, issued a strong statement indicating their continued opposition to such a pipeline.

Carney and Smith are publicly portrating this as a done deal, even though no "private proponent" has yet shown any willingness to take on such a contentious project, and even though there are loud rumblings of discontent within the Liberal Party itself. Maybe Mr. Carney sees this as a way to reset fractured federal-provincial relations but, in attempting a rapprochement with Alberta, he has alienated other provinces, mainly BC and Quebec (which issued its own statement about how iniqutious it finds the Alberta deal, calling it the day Canada's commitment to climate action died).

So, is Mr. Carney just being naïve and idealistic by putting such a great emphasis on this deal with Alberta? What value is any kind of understanding between Alberta and the federal government if there is no chance of projects going forward, and if two of the major parties involved - British Columbia and First Nations -  were not even included in the negotiations.  He is normally a very pragmatic man, but in this case he seems to have let his heart rule in his head. 

Or maybe it's all just political theatre? Is Carney only pretending to want a new pipeline, as some have suggested. Either way, this is a vague promise not a practical plan, and promises can be broken or just fall by the wayside. The reality is: a pipeline to the BC coast seems no closer to reality than it was before the MOU, and Mr. Carney may have damaged relations with other provinces, and even his own caucus, in the process.

UPDATE

It's probably no surprise, but Steven Guilbeault, a lifelong environmental advocate, has resigned from the Liberal Cabinet over the Alberta deal. He will continue to represent his Montreal riding, but will no longer serve in Cabinet as Minster of Canadian Identity and Culture. 

There seems to be an irreparable rift between Carney snd Gilbeault over the environmental repercussions of the Alberta MOU. Kudos to Mr. Guilbeault for having the guts to stand up for his principles. Carney, once a stand-out apologist for climate action financing, seems to have drunk the Trump Cool-aid and gone all-in on fossil fuels and abandoned his old zeal for sustainable clean energy. You can see why Guilbeault reached the end of his tether.

Exposing false claims of native heritage is surely counter-productive

The latest Indigenous Canadian to be outed as not being Indigenous at all is successful author Thomas King.

California-born King, who has lived in Camada since the early 1980s, seems to have honestly believed all his life that he was of Cherokee ancestry. But he was recently presented with genealogical evidence to the contrary, a finding that has profoundly shocked and depressed the 82-year old author of popular books like Indians on Vacation and The Inconvenient Indian. He has withdrawn the publication of his next novel, due out in May 2026, and his whole life and legacy is in disarray after the revelations.

He was outed by a "whistle-blowing organization" called the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, based in North Carolina. The organization exists, it seems, to expose false claims of Native heritage in America and Canada. Because - just like with Joseph Boyden, Buffy Sainte Marie and Michelle Latimer, before King - they wouldn't want people thinking that these successful artists and personalities, who have spent most of their lives trying to promote and boost Indigenous peoples, were Indigenous, would they?

I'm sure, where the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds and similar groups are concerned, there is a matter of principle involved here, even if that principle is exclusionary and bigoted and a bit fanatical. But I can't help but think that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

UPDATE

And here we go: Vancouver School Board is pulling King's books from its school curriculum and libraries because, after all, he doesn't have any American Indian heritage, does he? I'm sure many others will follow. The usual argument is trotted out, that celebrating King/Boyden/ Sainte-Marie/etc is somehow "taking space away" from real Indigenous authors and performers (who are presumably not as good, otherwise they would have made it big anyway, especially given the built-in "authenticity bonus" that Native artists enjoy these days).

So, what's the message here? That the only reason Thomas King's books are so enjoyed and revered is because he is Indigenous? That all those prizes that were bestowed were only for the accident of his birth, not for his literary and story-telling chops? Ridiculous! At this rate, Indigenous people will have no role models left.

US "peace plan" for Ukraine is a complete sell-out to Russia

The United States has come up with a 28-point "peace plan" for Ukraine, which is suspiciously similar to Russia's surrender offer from over 2 years ago. In fact, there are suggestions that it was literally authored by Russia and handed over to the US to push through. The plan was hatched by US "special envoy" Steve Witkoff (actually a property developer) and Russia's "special envoy" Kirill Dmitriev (actually a Moscow businessman, often described as "ruthlessly ambitious"); Ukraine was not asked to contribute.

Some US senators are saying that this is nothing like the US's agreed plans for Ukraine, and that Trump is just pushing any old thing to get any sort of "peace", even if it favours the aggressor, just like his plan for Gaza. Trump still wants that elusive Nobel Peace prize, at almost any cost. He is trying to get it by bullying and blackmailing Ukraine into a disastrous "peace" by threatening to withhold American arms and other assistance in this illegal war.

Roughly, the Trump-Witkoff plan involves:

• Official US recognition of Russia's hold on Crimea and the whole of the Donbas region, including parts that they do not even hold militarily after two-and-a half years of war, plus those parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions it currently holds.
• Russia rejoining the G7 group, from which they were ejected after the annexation of Crimea.
• Full amnesty for Russian war crimes throughout the war, and a dropping of the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Putin on war crimes charges.
• The capping of Ukraine's military at a level much lower than currently (so that they are less able to respond to future Russian incursions?)
• A vague promise of a family reunification plan for the thousands of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia during the war.
• The lifting of restrictions on Russian television channels in Ukraine, and on the influential Russian Orthodox Church.
• Prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO.

(Here's a more comprehensive list of the provisions.)

Does Ukraine get anything from this deal? Some ill-defined "reliable security guarantees" from the US, is about all. And would you trust the Trump administration on that?

If you thought that Trump's bromance with Putin was over, you might want to think again: this is another love letter to Putin. It is a  veritable rubber-stamping of Russia's wish list with regard to Ukraine. It is a much worse deal for Ukraine than any previous offers, and the pressure to accept is ramped up. Ukraine is left with a stark choice: accept a deal that looks very much like total surrender, or continue to fight a war it is slowly losing.

And the timing? Deliberately to take advantage of a corruption scandal in Zelensky's inner circle, that puts Zelensky on the defensive, and makes his acceptance of any old deal more likely (although still very unlikely - if he were to sell Ukraine out to Trump's deal, his presidency is toast).

JD Vance picks some Canadian cherries

US Vice-President JD Vance felt the need to weigh in on Canada's standard of living on X the other day. While I have little to no confidence in JD Vance's critical thinking abilities - or anything else published on X, for that matter - his post merits comment for its sheer fatuity.

His comments are in response to a post by some other right-wing geezer who happened to get hold of a graph produced by Ice Cap Asset Management, an obscure but outspoken Nova Scotia investment portfolio management company, comparing Canada, UK and USA's inflation-adjusted GDP per capita.

Vance's conclusions (not necessarily Ice Cap's, although one of its analysts did publicly agree with them)?

While I'm sure the causes are complicated, no nation has leaned more into "diversity is our strength, we don't need a melting pot we have a salad bowl" immigration insanity than Canada.

It has the highest foreign-born share of the population in the entire G7 and its living standards have stagnated.

Whew! Where to start.

Ignoring entirely the complicated causes he mentions, Vance plucks a "cause" out of thin air. Immigration = Poorer Standard of Living. Obvious, right? No evidence, or even logic, needed.

And, hold on, since when did GDP per capita become the sole measure of standard of living? A country's standard of living is usually tracked using a much wider range of data. For example the UN uses a Human Development Index, which combines GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, and years of schooling for children. This index shows Canada pretty much in lockstep with the US and UK.

In terms of "quality of life", which includes such factors as access to food, housing, quality education, healthcare, employment, etc, Canada does much better than either the UK or US. 

So, it really depends on which statistics you want to cherry-pick. But the chutzpah of the Trump administration seems to know no bounds. Put out some vaguely cconvincing-sounding cherry-picked data and the party faithful will lap it up, and even expand on it some. No need for accountability or accuracy or any of that crap; they are past all that. And, soon enough, that cherry-picked, even blatantly erronious, data becomes the conventional wisdom. Voilà. Job done.

Does eveyone hate the USA?

I started with the question, "Do Amercians know or care that most of the rest of the world hates them?" I still don't really know, but presumably the answer is that it depends on their politics, and perhaps their education level. So, most Democrats are cringing at the moment, embarrassed at the image the USA is broadcasting to the rest of the world. Most Republicans - at least the MAGA end of the Republican spectrum - insofar as they have even thought about it, probably just don't care. It's all a part of the selfish and insular mindset that characterizes the MAGA movement that the attitudes of others are just irrelevant.

But then I wondered, " Does the rest of the world actually hate America?" For that question, there is some data available. It's a few months old now, but Pew Research Center has produced a very detailed survey of international attitudes towards Donald Trump and the USA in general. Dating from June of this year, it looks at attitudes towards a whole host of related questions in 24 major countries across the world.

Unsurprisingly, the citizens of most countries have an increasingly unfavourable view of the man and the country. But there are a few interesting anomalies.

• General confidence in Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs is low with an average of 62% having no confidence in the man. Canada, Australia, Mexico and Turkey are the least confident, along with Scandinavia and most of western Europe. Hungary, India, Israel, Nigeria and Kenya, though, seem quite confident in Trump. (This was back June remember, before most of the administration's tariffs began to bite, and before some of the more recent poor decisions, failures and flip-flops.) Across the board, women have less confidence in Trump than men. 
• Favourable and unfavourable opinions of the USA roughly follows that, but less extreme. For instance, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Turkey and western and northern European countries tend to have the most unfavourable views; Israel, African countries, but also Asian countries like South Korea, Japan and India, have the most favourable opinions. On average, it is about 50-50. 
• 
• In most countries, opinions of the USA have become much more unfavourable over the last year, particularly in countries like Canada, Mexico, Europe and Australia. Interestingly, attitudes in the UK, Hungary, Argentina, South Africa and India have hardly moved over that period, and in Israel, Nigeria and Turkey they have even improved a little.
• Over the last 25 years at least, overseas confidence in US presidents has hugely favoured Democrats, with Obama and Biden polling well, Trump and George Bush polling poorly.
• Predictably, supporters of right wing populist parties in Europe have a much more favourable view of Trump than opponents of such parties.
• On average, respondents in the 24 countries polled have little or no confidence in Trump's ability to handle US immigration policies, the Russia-Ukraine war, US-China relations, global economic problems, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and climate change, with their confidence dropping further with each of those listed issues (i.e. climate change is the issue people are least confident about).
• Trump is seen as arrogant and dangerous, but also a strong leader. He is NOT seen as diplomatic, able to understand complex problems, well-qualified, and, more than anything else, he is not considered honest.
• Only Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are seen as worse than Trump in terms of confidence to do the right things regarding world affairs.
• Views on democracy in the USA tend to follow the political inclinations of the countries. For example, countries like Hungary, Poland, Israel, Nigeria and Kenya see US democracy as strong, while most other countries do not, particularly the more liberal countries like Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, etc.

So, of course, to say that everyone hates America is trite. Many people - most people - hate Trump and what he has turned America into. But, don't forget, at least half of Americans facilitated and empowered him. It's hard not to hate them for that.

Little Curaçao qualifies for the 2026 World Cup

The tiny country of Curaçao has become the smallest country to ever qualify for the World Cup.

With a total population of about 156,000 souls, the Caribbean island's improbable qualification for the 2026 World Cup is quite a feat, beating out the previous smallest country, Iceland, which has about 350,000 inhabitants. When you consider that about half the population is female, and an estimated 17% are under the age of 15 and 16% over 65, that leaves an adult male pool of roughly 50,000 by my estimate.

There are mitigating factors, though. Curaçao is technically an autonomous territory of the Netherlands, and not really a country in its own right. Many of its players were actually born and raised in the Netherlands, a world-class soccer nation, but choose to play for Curaçao. (They were granted permission from FIFA under its nationality rules, so there is nothing underhand going on here.)

And, credit where credit is due, Curaçao finished top of its qualifying group, above Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Bermuda. They did have a substantial measure of good luck, with Jamaica hitting the post three times and having a penalty waved off during the two team's last qualifying match. But luck is part of the game too.

I'll be cheering for Canada in the World Cup next year. But there's still a piece of my heart rooting for Curaçao (and Cape Verde, which also qualified, and which boasts a population of about 491,000 souls).