You might want to boycott Chevron

Most major oil companies are unwilling to touch Venezuelen oil with a proverbial bargepole. Not so Chevron.

America's second largest oil company has been in Venezuela since 1923, navigating or conveniently ignoring all of the many varieties of bad stuff that have happened there over the decades. Now, in response to Donald Trump's call for private development of the mess that is Venezuela's oil industry, Chevron is the only US oil company to step forward, not back.

The other companies, preferring not to be associated with Venezuela, are eschewing the country for sound financial reasons: most analysts think it will take many years of serious investment before Venezuelan oil will be profitable for them. Plus, the US government is insisting on taking a 20% cut (finders fee?)

But you have to think too that they are all too conscious of the reputational risk involved. After all, the US's involvement arose through an invasion. Trump would have us call it a "deal", because everything is a deal to him. But the reality is, America invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its elected leader (who is even now languishing in an American jail), and intimated and browbeat the interim government into granting the US de facto control over its huge oil reserves.

This, then, is blood money, spoils of war. Most sensible companies would want to distance themselves from that. But Chevron? They're all in. Now, you might want to boycott Chevron-owned gas stations: Chevron, Texaco, Caltex. I don't know whether that is already an ongoing campaign, but if it isn't, it should be. Me, I have an electric car, otherwise I would be there too.

UPDATE

Turns out, there are various other reasons to boycott Chevron notwithstanding its Venezuelan connections: its profiteering from the ongoing genocide in Palestine; its price-gouging activities; its dumping of toxic waste in developing countries; and of course its egregious carbon footprint and greenwashing strategies.

What if the Democrats won Congress?

I have been trying to figure out how, if at all, a Democrat clean sweep in November's mid-term elections would change anything. I think none answer may be: not much.

Under Donald Trump, US policy, both at home and abroad, has been concentrated to an unprecedented degree one one man ruling through presidential decree and executive order. The courts have managed to rein some of his excesses, although the largely Trump-appointed Supreme Court has mainly protected him, other than in a few high-profile cases. Congress, on the either hand, has had very little influence on things and, even were the Democrats to control it, I'm not sure that would make much difference.

There has been a swing in American opinion, and there is a good chance that Democrats could win a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and maybe in the Senate too. It's by no means a foregone conclusion, but the chance is there, should the American people choose to seize it. This is true notwithstanding the likely efforts of the Trump administration to interfere in the elections by intimidating voters, seizing ballots, or denying the outcome of inconvenient election results, and past drives to gerrymander electoral districts, ban postal votes, etc.

But, if Democrats controlled Congress, what would change? There would, of course, be a strong symbolic effect, as it would be seen as a widespread repudiation of Trump and his policy. There is some congressional legislation in process, and Democrats could block any ongoing Republican nonsense, and even introduce somenchanges of their own, so that's something. But Trump could easily veto such initiatives, and the chances of Democrats swinging two-thirds of the vote (to veto the veto) are slim to none. The setting of the federal budget and the regular raising of federal debt ceiling may be about all they can influence to any great degree. Trump has already pushed through most of what he wants to achieve congressionally (e.g. his Big Beautiful Bill) in the first half of his term.

Democratic control of Congress could also dictate the terms and the make-up of committees, but the practical impact of those are very limited. Another attempt to impeach Trump is pretty unlikely.

One element I had not thought about is that, if the Democrats were to win Congress on November 3rd, some of the older Republican Supreme Court judges would probably be "encouraged" to retire before the new Congress would be sworn in in mid-January, so that Trump could appoint some younger for right candidates to extend the conservative majority for many years to come.

All in all, not a very edifying prospect. Tariffs would continue (insofar as the courts allow them), ICE detentions and enforced immigrant deportations would continue. All of the innumerable Trump executive orders would remain in place. Foreign policy would remain one of thoughtless aggrandisement and spite.

In the American political system, the President has way too much power. Yes, technically the President is directly elected, but if they then strike out on a completely different radical (arguably insane) path, there is little the electorate or an elected Congress can do about it. They need to fix that.

Yes, the mid-terms are important, but don't expect them to change the chaos of the Trump administration in any material way. As independent observers like GIS note, "the outcome of 2026 national elections will likely not significantly shift national policies or the direction of American foreign policy". Ouch!

"Your entire nation has a lower GDP than Texas"

"Your entire nation has a lower GDP than Texas". Not Donald Trump this time, but US Representative Brandon Gill of, well, Texas.

And his point? Er, not sure.

Canada goose 1 : American Eagle 0

I should know better than to respond to Trump's nocturnal ramblings on social media. But worth mentioning that I already dealt with this one long before it even happened.

In this episode... Trump has cherry-picked part of a photo sequence by a Canadian photographer of an encounter in Burlington, Ontario between a bald eagle (symbol of America) and a Canada goose (kind of a symbol of Canada, for our sins).

The photo seems to show the eagle dominating and savaging the goose. The rest of the photo sequence, though, shows very different outcome: after a protracted scuffle, the goose survives, rallies and threatens back against the shocked eagle. As I posted many months earlier, a different cherry-picked photo from the same sequence shows the goose rampant and a rather sorry-looking eagle.

Be careful with your source material Mr. Trump (or Ms. Harp, or whoever comes up with this guff).

Canada nonplussed by Trump's threat to change Lake Ontario name

Family overseas are asking us how Canadians feel about Donald Trump threatening to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America. (Could he not think of anything more creative?) Well, the word that springs to mind is "nonplussed". Generally speaking, we have learned to ignore Trump's bloviations and his childish outbursts as much as possible.

Besides, he just can't do it. Even a US president can't unilaterally change the name of a bi-national lake. Any change he proposes (assuming he is serious, which is far from clear) would only apply to US federal government publications and maps. The current name is recognized internationally and appears in federal legislation on both sides of the border.

Lake Ontario - an Indigenous name that predates either country, incidentally - is governed jointly by Canada and the USA, through a whole series of treaties, commissions and bi-national agreements. To change the name, Trump would first need to go through the US Board on Geographical Names. Assuming he could cajole, browbeat and threaten them to go along with his childish prank, it would then need to be ratified by the Geographical Names Board of Canada and Ontario's Ministry of Natural Rreources and Forestry and Indigenous Communities, which is consulted on culturally significant names.

So, not going to happen. 

Mr. Trump may be able to force the US government to change the name on its own maps and reports. But then, US government maps will be wrong and everyone else's will be right. How does that constitute a win, even by Trump's warped standards? You can just imagine government functionaries rolling their eyes, as they consider the prospect of all that extra work just to accommodate another Trump hissy fit.

Doug Ford tries to out-Trump Trump

It's pretty instructive to see Ontario Premier Doug Ford's contribution to the ongoing debate on American tariffs and their perpetrator, Donald Trump.

Following up on "He can kiss my ass as far as I'm concerned", Ford called Trump a "loser", a "dictator", a "bully" and the "king of bankruptcies". Ouch! Then, "I have more courage, more brains in my baby toe than he has in his whole body". Kapow! 

Predictably, Trump fired back very much in the same vein, calling Ford "the less charismatic, intelligent and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great Rob Ford". Zhang! And, to cap it all, he says he is "giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontatio to Lake America in that we don't expect to doing much business with Ontario any longer". So there!

Ford: "You think an insult from him hurts me? Well, bring it on buddy, I am read ready. Bring it on!" Kraak!

The next day, in a CNN interview, Ford admitted that, "Things got a little heated, it got a little personal yesterday". Yuh think?

They're two of a kind, aren't they? Neither of them have any filters or any off switch. Neither considers consequences or engages brain before speaking. How either of them got to where they are today is a mystery. They are supposed to be leaders of large and important regions, and they continue to talk like naughty schoolkids. I'm embarrassed by the pair of them.

Also like Trump, though, the more daft things he says and does, the more Ford's support increases (although while that was true at one time, Trump has shown that there are limits to this kind of counter-intuitive popularity bump - his popularity is now at an all-time low).

Canada-US trade talks fall through

Well, the Canada-USA trade talks fell apart at the eleventh-plus hour.

Prime Minister Mark Carney blamed the Americans for "last-minute changes in US proposed terms [that] were unfair, uneconomic and called into question the reliability of any deal". That sounds about right from past experience.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, of course, blamed the Canadians for "new demands and walk-backs of other commitments by Canada [that] have upended the careful balance reached in the past days". That sounds less convincing.

So, the 50% Section 338 tariffs on about $28 billion of Canada's exports to the US (about 5% of total exports) are set to go ahead forthwith. That sounds pretty bad, but an RBC analysis estimates the fallout at just 0.4% of Canada's GDP, and a separate Capital Economics study puts it at 0.6% of GDP. So, not good, but not disastrous, in the scheme of things. The burden would not fall evenly on the economy, though, with apparel and electrical goods being most badly affected (20% of production and jobs in those sectors could be hurt).

Canada has vowed to retaliate "dollar for dollar", Trump has vowed to up the ante should Canada retaliate, and we now have an all-out open-ended trade war. And we haven't even started negotiation on the renewal or otherwise of the CUSMA/USMCA free trade agreement!

But, I'll tell you what, it actually pretty good to be standing up to the bully to our south. The only other country that has stood up for itself in this way is China. Although, granted we are much more in a David and Goliath situation.

Elbows up, anyone?

Canada probably needs to retaliate against US tariffs, even if it's self-defeating

Just hours before the next batch of Trump tariffs almost certainly comes into force, affecting a long list of Canada-produced items, there is still talk of retaliatalory Canadian tariffs. The question is: why?

Despite what Donald Trump wants you to think, tariffs are a tax on the levying country. Everyone else underatamds that. So, why would we want to do that to our own hard-pressed consuners and businesses?

The answer apparently, has nothing to do with economics. Economically, it makes no sense for us to levy counter-tariffs, even targeted tariffs. But not to retaliate would send a bad political message, and open up the possibility of further tariffs down the road, imposed apparently with impunity.

I get it: doing nothing implies weakness, and Trump punishes weakness. But I'm not totally convinced that responding with force is necessarily going to deter future escalations.  Retaliation or no retaliation, further threats and bullying is always a possibility with Trump, who is never satisfied.

Perhaps even more pertinent, though, is the matter of optics for Mark Carney and his Liberal government. Carney was explicitly elected on a platform of standing up to Trump, of not rolling over, and the polls are clear in their portrayal of Canadians as expecting some show of strength, some "elbows up". Carney's responses to Trump so far have been distinctly mixed, and many Canadians think he has already gone too far down the road of appeasement. So, a strong response is particularly important this time. And, for most Canadians, that means retaliation, however ill-advised.

Trump's hold over US Supreme Court is weakening

The US Supreme Court had a busy day yesterday, as it prepares to wind down for a long and leisurely summer break. Among its mixed bag of decisions was one particularly important one: a 6-3 decision to strike down Trump's attempts to end "birthright citizenship", the right of children physically born in the USA - even to undocumented immigrants, tourists, and people on short-term work or study visas - to have US citizenship.

This was a big deal for Trump. His executive order on this issue was one of the very first things he did on taking power. He even attended the Supreme Court's oral arguments in person, the first time a sitting president has ever done so, his intention presumably being to stare down the judges to make sure they voted with him. In the end, though, the court voted against him in one of the few checks to his many illegal attempts to re-write American law and way of life.

Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, considering how clear the wording of the American Constitution is on the matter, and the century-plus of corroborating case law and legal precedent, is that three of the Court's most conservative judges - let's name names: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas - still managed to justify dissenting against the decision. A fourth, Brett Cavanaugh, decided to prevaricate and knit-pick, concluding that Trump's order was not unconstitutional but did still violate immigration law. The other two conservatives on the Court (John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett), who have in the past been guilty of voting ideologically, voted according to the clear legal principles this time, siding with the three Democrats on the Court.

Legal scholars are at something of a loss to understand how, and on what legal grounds, the three conservatives could vote to allow Trump to force through this clearly unconstitutional measure. But it just shows the hold Trump still has over them, even if his hold over some of the others appears to be weakening.

The Washington DC Reflecting Pool Saga

The Washington DC Reflecting Pool Saga in three minutes flat. In case you care...

Anti-immigrant sentiment does not extend to soccer

If the World Cup has done nothing else, it has drawn attention to immigration, and, for once, no-one seems keen on criticizing and protesting.

Nearly a quarter of the 1,248 players at this year's World Cup a representing a country other than the one they were born in, up from just 9% at the 2006 competition. You just have to look at the number of black faces on teams from Canada, USA, England, Netherlands, even notoriously immigration-unfriendly Switzerland, to get a very visual reminder that these countries are highly reliant on immigrant talent (although bear in mind that many of the white faces are also immigrants).

Tunisia, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Qatar all have more than half of their squads born elsewhere. The Morocco team is 73% foreign-born, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's is 85%, and little Curaçao's squad is comprised of 97% immigrants. 

There are many compelling immigrant stories behind some of the competition's top players. Canada's star player Alphonso Davies was born in a refugee camp in Ghana to Liberian parents. Australia's Thomas Deng and Nestory Irankunda were both born in refugee camps, in Kenya and Tanzania respectively. Germany's Antonio Rudiger was born to immigrant parents fleeing Sierra Leone's civil war.

The US team in particular has received a lot of attention, given the Trump administration's outspoken views on immigration. Florian Balogun, who scored two of the US's four goals against Paraguay, was born to Nigerian parents temporarily living in New York, making him a 14th Amendment "birthright citizen", which Trump has actively tried to deny (although federal courts are currently blocking his executive order from taking effect). Tim Weah, Haji Wright, Ricardo Pepi, Sergiño Dest, even Christian Pulisic, are all immigrants or children of immigrants, and several others on the squad have immigration somewhere in their stories.

I just find it interesting how little push-back there is against this particular kind of immigration, even from countries like USA, Germany, Switzerland,.Sweden and England, where there is so often a strong and vocal anti-immigration sentiment.

Trump? Isolated? Say it ain't true!

Here's Mr. Trump at the G7 meeting. 

Everyone else seems vey animated and engaged. But does no-one want to speak to Trump? Say it ain't true!

This photo probably came soon after Trump, supposedly tongue-in-cheek, told the room, "I'm the boss". *sigh* 

What has America achieved in Iran?

It's taken four months, and not a "few days" as advertised, but Donald Trump finally has his Iran Deal (or, rather, a memorandum of understanding, not a full-blown peace agreement). Details are still scarce, but it should see the extension of the current shaky ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the lifting of the US and Iran blockades. Much can still go wrong between now and Friday, when the agreement is due to be officially signed, but assuming it does actually happen, where does that leave things?

Well, essentially it leaves things pretty much where they were before the war, but with America, Iran and most of the rest of the world worse off. It's being called Trump's worst foreign policy blunder so far - and there have been a few! - an ill-advised, botched affair that should never have happened.

It has soured America's relations with the Gulf states, and severely damaged those states' reputations (albeit through no fault of their own) as islands of stability in a turbulent Middle East. 

It has weakened the US militarily, as it has burned through much more of its expensive and hard-to-replace weapons stocks than expected. At the same time, it has provided an important free lesson to equally heavily-armed and belligerent China as it continues to consider military action against Taiwan. Russia too will have been watching closely.

The global economy has taken a huge and unnecessary economic hit, for which the USA will be eternally (and rightly) blamed, with some countries in Asia and Africa in particular bearing the brunt of the suffering as oil prices surged and the supply of oil, petrochemicals, fertilizer and other important resources were strangled for months on end. The war has set in motion economic changes that will be hard, if not impossible, to reverse.

In terms of actual cost to the USA, best estimates put this in the area of $40 billion so far (because this may not be over!), although that only accounts for direct costs like munitions, destroyed equipment, damage to bases, etc.  The total price, of course, may be much higher, depending on what you choose to include.

The future of Iran's nuclear program and the level of sanctions levied against it remain to be negotiated, essentially the same position as things were at on 27th February, just before the US-Israeli attacks (except, then at least, negotiations on these matters were already well advanced). Iran did not have nuclear weapons before the war and it does not now. Its pledge not to develop them has been in place since 2003, and was renewed under President Obama in 2015. While Trump used to make a big hooh-hah about Iran's "nuclear dust" (what does he mean by that? nobody says "nuclear dust"!), he now claims that "it's not very valuable stuff", and he's not really bothered about it, except for perhaps "psychologically". What?

Trump is trying to sell the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as a win. But the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war that Trump started. How is a return to the status quo a win for anyone? There is also a distinct possibility that the Strait may reopen with new "maritime service fees" - i.e. a toll - that was not there before. Transit tolls are prohibited under international law, but Iran says it reserves the right to charge fees in exchange for navigational services and environmental protection(!) as part of its deal with Trump. Still calling it a win?

Through the Memorandum of Understanding, Washington has promised to unfreeze billions in Iranian assets, remove sanctions, allow Iran to trade its oil on more favourable terms, and commit $300 billion to reconstructing what it has destroyed in Iran. Does that sound like the actions of a victor?

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other members of his administration and military are now dead, but they have been succeeded by younger and equally radical replacements. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) still wields total control over the beleaguered Iranian people. The repressive theocratic regime remains intact, arguably even more entrenched, embittered and emboldened, and the Iranian people are no better off than they were. Remember Trump's exhortations to the people of Iran to rise up and that "help is on the way"? Poof! Just in case you were in any doubt, Trump confirmed in a recent interview, "I never cared about regime change", and the Iranians now in charge are "nice to deal with"!

America's relationship with Israel - or at least with Prime Minster Netanyahu - has also suffered, once it became clear that Israel's goals were quite different from those of the USA. (Surprise!) Israel looks on the US-Iran agreement with dismay, as they are still looking to make further incursions into Lebanon, and would like to see Iran totally destroyed, which, despite Trump's bluster, it evidently is not. Some top Americans have been criticizing Israel's reaction in ways that would have been inconceivable at the start of this war. Vice-President Vance described Trump as "the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time", and even that may be a stretch. He warns that Israel "needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in".

The whole sorry affair, then, is petering out, more with a whimper than a bang. Any agreement that does come out of it is unlikely to be much different from what Barack Obama achieved all those years ago. And that will really rankle with Trump. Thousands of Iranians and other Middle Easterners have lost their lives, reputations across the board have been damaged, the world is poorer and more unstable, the global economy is screwed up, and tempers are further frayed.

Remember Trump's demands for Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER"? Well, in some respects, Iran may come out of this in better shape than before, even if the rest of the world doesn't. Good job, Donny!

Trump outdoes himself in the vulgarity stakes

It's hard to keep up with candidates for peak idiocy in Trump World, but yesterday's mixed martial arts (MMA) extravaganza on the White House South Lawn has to rank up there.

The very churlishness of using a National Historic Landmark for this kind of spectacle in the first place is unfathomable. But to feature a circus of violence in a monstrous 80 foot tall cage amid a welter of tasteless self-serving advertising (mainly for Trump products and companies) is surely beyond the pale. Just 16% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll thought that the event was appropriate. Even ex-Trump booster and influential blogger Joe Rogan seemed lost for words.

The UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) itself footed the reported $60 million dollar bill for the event, which was nominally in celebration of the USA's upcoming 250th anniversary, but was really for Trump's own 80th birthday. Trump is a big fan of the brutal UFC sport (famously branded by John McCain as "human cockfighting"), and UFC President Dana White is a big fan of Donald Trump. She gave an impassioned speech about how Trump had saved the UFC, notable for its falsification and mendacity (Trump's connection with the organization actually only began in 2016, when he saw it as just another plank of his election strategy).but 

The Event was invitation-only, but there are reports of sponsorship packages (including ring-side seats) selling for $1 million and up. And all this for a piece of vulgar narcissism by a fading president. Oh, yes, and a celebration of America's 250th anniversary.

Kash Patel is the archetypical chud

My new favourite word is "chud", although I confess I have never used it IRL (in real life).

The word "chud" supposedly originates from a cult 1980s sci-fi horror movie C.H.U.D., which in that context stands for Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers, a group of radioactive post-apocalyptic drop-outs. It gradually became used online to describe basement-dwelling internet trolls, gradually broadening its application to any online nerd, creep or jerk.

It's only recently that it had become even more broadly used to describe any unpleasant, boorish or socially inept (almost always male) person. It is particularly used by left wingers to describe those on the far right, particularly those of the MAGA persuasion. Embattled US FBI director Kash Patel recently sued a blogger for calling him a chud.

It should not be confused with the epithet "chad" (or "Chad"), which refers to an alpha male type, usually a strong, handsome and entitled man who effortlessly attracts women, and who is either admired or scorned for their brazen self-confidence.

Neither should it be confused with the Anglicism "chav", which is used for a binge-drinking, bling-wearing lout or boor, although that might work well for Kash Patel too.

Trump's attendance at Knicks game sheer selfishness

New York Knicks fans are saying that Donald Trump's presence at Game 3 of the NBA finals "killed the vibe", "messed up the flow" and generally "jinxed" the team, when he attended the last game against the San Antonio Spurs.

The Knicks were 2-0 up in the series and on a record-breaking 13-game play-off winning streak, when the Spurs beat them 115-111 in Game 3. Trump was heartily booed whenever his image appeared on the jumbotron, despite his own contention that "it was mostly cheers" (it was mostly cheers when he was NOT on the screen). This was New York, after all - not a big Trump town.

Fans were already up in arms after facing enhanced security screening at Madison square Gardens due to Trump's presence, causing waits of over two hours. Even getting to the venue was a nightmare, with many streets cordoned off and barred to vehicles while Trump arrived in his motorcade to boos and signs saying "Nobody wants you here", "Trump must go", and "Impeach. Convict. Remove." Local businesses, hoping to make a healthy profit from a home game, complained that the streets were deserted and takings were down.

And in the end, the Knicks lost, and a record-breaking run came to an end. Make of that what you will.

Trump may be a long-time Knicks fan, but he really didn't have to go to the game. It was sheer selfishness and narcissism. And it backfired, big-time, on any number of levels. 

UPDATE

A wild Game 4 went the Knicks' way too. Trump did not attend. Are you seeing a trend here?

America's latest World Cup affront

God, the current American administration really knows how to manufacture a public relations disaster out of thin air!

After multiple reports of incidents like the Iranian World Cup soccer team's support squad being denied entry, and even the players being forced to jump through all sorts of hoops just to play the games they have already earned and deserve - why are they even scheduled to play in the US? With games also being played in Mexico and Canada, surely that could have been avoided - now we have a lone Somali referee being denied entry at the last minute.

Omar Artan is an experienced FIFA -approved international referee, and has all his papers in order, including his travel visa. He was named referee of the year last year by the Confederation of African Football, and he would have been the first referee from his country to officiate at such a prestigious event, the honour of his lifetime.

Instead, he was pulled over at Miami airport, subjected to 11 hours of interrogation, and denied entry "due to vetting concerns" by US Customs and Border Protection. He was put back on  plane home. They later "clarified" that the Somalian was refused admission due to "association with suspected members of terror organizations", with no other details being offered.

There has been understandable outrage across most of the world. As a former England player put it: "Every few hours its another story - another story about fans denied, players denied, officials denied, journalists denied, now refs. Is this how the hosts behave really for the greatest game, the greatest tournament in the world?"

So much for Gianni Infantino promising "Everyone will be welcome in Canada, Mexico and the United States". There are those who argue that FIFA has lost complete control of this particular World Cup, and that the scandals from the last two tournaments, in Russia and Qatar, are starting to pale into insignificance at the side of what is happening in the United States.

Canadian politicians have also weighed in, saying that Mr. Artan would be welcome to officiate in Canada. But apparently even that would not be an acceptable solution because all the referees are required to attend a training hub in Florida before the games begin. Ridiculous!

Mr. Artan arrived back in Somalia to a hero's welcome, greeted by MPs, government and football federation officials, social media celebrities, and many of his fellow referees. He has quickly become an icon in his homeland. He took the moral high ground, praising FIFA and vowing to be back refereeing at the 2030 FIFA World Cup in Spain/Portugal/Morocco.

Donald Trump and the rest of his merry band of crooks and thugs have their dirty fingerprints all over this late decision. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the order for this latest indignity came right from the top. Trump has singled out Somalia several times for some of his most offensive insults, calling it "barely a country" and "garbage", and claiming that "they just run around killing each other".

How can it possibly be in America's interests to have the rest of the world hate them so?

America hijacks D-Day memorial to score what they see as political points

The arrogance! The disdain! The pompousness! The insensitivity! Yes, I could be talking about almost any member of the Trump administration on almost any day, but this time it's the turn of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth was giving a speech in Normandy, 82 years after the joint D-Day operation to liberate Nazi-occupied Europe in 1944. Under the codenames Operation Overlord and Operation Neptune, D-Day remains the largest amphibious invasion in military history, and marked a crucial turning point in World War II.

I guess the Europeans felt they had to invite an American to speak, as the USA did provide the largest contingent of troops in the operation and was directly responsible for two of the five beach landings. But they must have had some misgivings at handing Hegseth the mike. And they would have been so right.

Hegseth thought it was appropriate to turn a solemn memorial event into a tub-thumping political diatribe and a pointed critique of European immigration policy from a (totally inapposite) American perspective.

"Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different dangerous ideologies. Beaches in Spain, in Italy, in Greece, and Bulgaria. Boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion?"

"The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe. That freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war-fighters, or what they fought for was merely temporary."

I don't know whether Hegseth thought up the (spurious) link between these "invasions" himself, or had a speech-writer do it. But I'm sure he felt himself very clever for it. 

And clearly it never even occurred to him that the callous politicization of a such a sombre and reflective event might not be, well, appropriate. European speakers could have drawn parallels between the "dangerous ideologies" of the Nazis and what is happening in the USA today, but they realized that that would have been inappropriate. Or they could have pointed out modern America's penchant for invading other countries, but that would have been cheap political point-scoring, wouldn't it?

Hegseth - and the whole Trump administration for that matter - has no such qualms, no such subtlety or delicacy. They feel emboldened to say whatever they want in whatever arena at whatever time. They are boors and churls (and much worse).

Trump tries some new tariffs - well, why not?

The Trump administration is at it again with tariffs, this time against almost all of America's major trading partners, with the pretext being that they are not pulling their weight on preventing the importation of goods manufactured using forced labour, which unfairly disadvantages the USA.

After the US Supreme Court struck down Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs (levied, illegally as it turned out, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), he needed to find another way to impose tariffs, because that seems to be the sum total of his economic policy. What his highly-paid lawyers and policy wonks came up with this time was to use Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act to impose tariffs of 10%-12.5% on 60 countries (including Canada) that they say are not doing enough to enforce the import ban on goods produced using forced/slave labour (from Xinjiang, China mainly). Canada, however, should be largely protected from these tariffs due to its participation in the USMCA/CUSMA agreement.

It's a bit of a stretch, and it's hard to see the current US regime taking the moral high ground on ANYTHING. But, to some extent, in this area, they may be right. 

Canada does have laws around forced labour imports, and there are specific provisions built into USMCA/CUSMA which prohibit the importation of goods produced wholly or partly by forced labour. But enforcement does seem to be lax. While Canada has intercepted 50 shipments on suspicion of forced labour contraventions since 2020, just 2 were ultimately turned away. The Coalition Against Forced Labour has called Canada out on this, and auditors from PwC agree that enforcement has been far from perfect. This will all no doubt also come up in some detail at the USMCA renegotiations later this year.

I confess, the first thing that occurred to me after I heard the news about the new tariffs was, "I bet America doesn't enforce their forced labour rules any better than we do!" Former Liberal MP John McKay, who was involved in the original implementation of the Canadian laws on forced labour, notes that the US still allows private American firms to make exports using prison labour, and it does not adequately enforce its own laws on forced labour imports, such as the Biden-era Uyghur Forced labour Prevention Act.

Actually, though, the US does seem to be enforcing that specific law quite well, as well as the terms of the Tariff Act of 1930 insofar as they relate to the products of forced labour. Some 6,300 shipments were denied entry into the US in 2024 alone (although that was pre-Trump; figures for 2025 do not seem to be available).

That said, most people seem pretty sure that the Trump regime is not doing this out of moral indignation. They are doing it as "an excuse to impose the tariffs that they wanted to do anyway", as one European diplomat put it, adding that it's completely implausible that all these US trading partners are equally guilty - all 60 major trading partners appear to have failed to meet the bar the US has arbitrarily set - and there seems to be little or no proof being offered. Human rights groups also caution that, while the problem of forced labour does exist, the US tariffs are not the way to deal with it. 

I have looked previously at the whole issue of forced labour in Xinjiang, China - because that is essentially what we are talking about here -  and it is not as black-and-white an issue as it might appear. But the bottom line is, Trump is effectively using any justification he can to impose tariffs (because he's a "tariff guy", don't you know?), and if he can also engineer a hit on China at the same time, then all well and good.

These new tariffs cannot be imposed immediately, but must go through a period of public comment and review, starting with hearings in July. Given how many legal set-backs Trump has experienced in recent months, the tariffs are not the slam dunk they may have been even a year ago.

UPDATE

A new law proposed by the Liberals to placate Trump and his buddies on the matter of blocking imports produced with forced labour was tabled this week (mid-June), designating a list of specific goods, producers, countries or regions where there are "reasonable grounds to suspect" forced labour involved. The government maintains this was not in direct response to the Trump tariff threat, and that it had been innthe works since 2024, but the timing sure is propitious.

It all sounds a bit woolly, especially as the bill puts the onus on shippers to prove that their goods are free of forced labour components. How is that going to work, I wonder? Proving the absence of something is always fraught.

Correlation between education and voting in the USA

Here's an interesting little rabbit hole to go down. Based on US census data, the best-educated American states are:

1. Massachusetts
2. Colorado
3. Vermont 
4. Marylamd
5. New Jersey 
6. Virginia
7. Connecticut
8. New Hampshire
9. New York
10. Washington

The least-educated states are;

1. West Virginia
2. Mississippi
3. Arkansas
4. Louisiana
5. Kentucky
6. Nevada
7. Oklahoma
8. Alabama
9. Indiana
10. New Mexico

Well, maybe you could have guessed most of those. But what's interesting is the correlation of these results with election results.

ALL of the top ten educated states vote Democrat. And ALL of the top ten least educated states voted Republican.

Of course, it could just be coincidence.