Suck It Up Millennials

Although I feel for the plight of millennials right now I am having difficulty with their sense of entitlement and the fact that they seem to believe their plight is new and unique.

I graduated from university in the middle of a major recession. The unemployment rate was around 10%. People who had established careers, who had 10-15 years of experience, suddenly saw their jobs disappear and they were forced to take entry level position, at half the salary, just to pay their mortgages, assuming they could find the jobs. While mortgage rates were coming down they were coming down from around a peak of 18% and they were still in the double digits.

As a result, I was forced to take a job that paid way below the average, had no benefits and provided me with no skills that I could use for a future job. I languished there for three years before the job market perked up enough for me to go looking for something where my degree would be useful. However, although I had the degree I did not have any experience so I had to go from gig to gig to build a resume, having no financial security for the 5 years it took me to do that. Finally, after close to a decade after university I found a career and the relative security that goes along with it. I call that part of my life the "lost decade" and although I am currently doing well that lost decade will have an impact on my retirement.

During that decade I lived in a dive apartment in a sketchy part of town because the rent was dirt cheap. I drove a beater that I prayed would stay together for yet one more year every year during that period. Buying a house was a fantasy. So what millennials are going through now is not new or unique.

However that does not stop them from having a sense of entitlement because between 1993 and 2019 the economy was in pretty good shape. The financial crisis of 2008 caused a short but sharp recession but the Bank of Canada lowering interest rates to below zero cushioned the blow for people and allowed for almost uninterrupted economic good times. In short, for much of the life of millennials they and their families had it pretty good.

Of course, it could not last and there were already signs that the good times were coming to an end before the pandemic brought that end much more quickly than anybody anticipated. Now millennials find themselves in the same position I found myself all of those years ago.

My advice to them is to realize that the world owes you nothing. Suck it up, do what you need to do to change your circumstances and realize that the change is not going to happen overnight. Oh yes, I would also suggest that you demand governments to change labour laws to make forming unions much easier. Vote for governments who will do just that. That is the only way you are going to be able to raise your salaries and increase your financial security. As well, use whatever power you might have to demand Universal Basic Income and again vote for governments that will establish it. That will help you and it might prevent a future generation from going through what you are going through now and what I went through a few decades ago.

Oppenheimer and Barbie

If you would have told me last year that I would use both of those names in a title of a post I would have called you crazy but here we are.

I saw both movies this week.

Oppenheimer is a fantastic movie. I already knew the history but the movie gave it life and it was compelling. However, as I was watching it I was reminded about just how fickle governments can be with those that help them as I remembered what the British government did to Alan Turing.

Both Oppenheimer and Turing were vital in the war efforts for the US and Britain. 

Without Turing's breaking of the Enigma machine it is probable that the British would have been knocked out of the war in 1943. You see, Alan Turing's work allowed the British to hear what the German navy command was saying to its U-Boats. That was huge factor in the allies winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Indeed, this historian would say it was the deciding factor. Without it the pressure on Britain would have come to a head in 1943 and they would have had to sue for peace. Which, of course, would have lead to a post-war history much different than the one we got.

It can be argued that Robert Oppenheimer saved the lives of 10s of thousands and maybe 100s of thousands of US servicemen and likely many more Japanese. The atomic bombs finally convinced the Japanese of the futility of continuing the war. 

Neither of these facts saved either one from the wrath of their governments once the war ended and they were deemed undesirable. Or more accurately, neither of these facts saved them from the machinations of narrow minded, stupid politicians. 

I found the Barbie movie to be uneven. Some parts made me laugh out loud while I found other parts just plain weird. Really I found the movie to be "meh".

I can see why some on the right are pissed at the movie though. The feminist message of the movie is about as subtle as a kick in the crotch. Then again, since Barbie has always been about teaching girls that they can be just about anything they want to be I have to ask why anybody would be surprised by the movie's message. 

Being a democracy everybody has a right to disagree with the movie's message but the over-the-top reaction of some on the right reflects more on them than on the movie. Here's a thought, why don't you come up with arguments to refute the message instead of crying about it? 

The reason of course, is because it cannot be refuted. The simple fact is the world has been run by men for the benefit of men for thousands of years. That has not changed but the feminist movement started nibbling away at the edges of that reality about 50 years ago and many men resent that. I have never understood why as nothing has fundamentally changed but I guess even a little change frightens some men. 

Personally, I have no problem with it.

I would highly recommend Oppenheimer. I would suggest you make of point of seeing it.

Barbie was enjoyable in some places but not in others but I would still say it is worth seeing if you have the opportunity. 

Of Polls and Cabinet Shuffles: Updated

Being a political animal I checked my usual sources to learn more about the cabinet shuffle today only to have the latest Abacus poll to be shoved at me.

On the face of it that poll is bad news for the Liberals, although if you look at the actual changes in the estimates compared to their last one you will note they are all within the Margin of Error, which means the changes are all statistically insignificant. Which makes sense since nothing has happened in the last month or so that would move the political needle one way or another.

Anybody who has read my blog before knows what I think of the public polls and that view has not changed. Quite frankly I do not believe any of them, regardless of whether they are good or bad news for the party I support.

Can someone please tell me why that when the Liberals have a good week or the Conservatives have a bad one a pollster always seems to come out with a polls that can only be interpreted as bad news for the Liberals. That has to be a coincidence, right?

As I have stated before I have no faith in polling companies to be on the up-and-up with regards to their polling, especially outside of election campaigns. They have no incentive to be so. No polling company actually makes money conducting political polls. They use them as a marketing tool. So, a polling company could be like Nanos, who is the in-house polling company of Bell/Globe media. They can use that fact to sell their services to clients that will actually pay them on more than a cost recovery basis. 

If, on the other hand, the polling company is not employed by a media company they have to make their political polls stand out if they are going to be effective marketing tools. One way to do that is to be different from everybody else and claim they are seeing things differently from the rest of the "herd". There are no consequences for doing so when no election is taking place because their polls will never be tested against the actual results of an election. Therefore, they can publish polls that say almost anything if they wish.

We only need to look at the 2021 election to see this. Before the writ was dropped the polls were all over the place. Almost exactly one day after the writ was dropped the variance in the public polls disappeared. Suddenly when the testing of polls was imminent the herd regathered.

I have been saying for some time that if you want to see what is really happening in politics you need to look at what the political parties are doing.

For the Conservatives, Pierre Poilievre and his brain trust decided he needed a makeover. Political parties that are comfortable with their leader and message do not change the appearance and image of that leader.

For the Liberals they had a massive cabinet shuffle today. A superficial assessment of that shuffle would be that the Trudeau government is feeling the heat and they have decided that a major change is in order to salvage their political fortunes. There might be some merit in that argument. After all the government is not getting any younger and they can expect the next election to be their most difficult one yet.

However, you have to go a little deeper to get the whole picture and a deeper dive shows that the PM had to construct a cabinet where seven existing Ministers were dropped from cabinet. That is a seismic change and with the necessity to have a cabinet that is gender balanced and regionally and provincially representative combined with having to bring in seven new cabinet minister the need to make huge changes becomes clear. 

So the extent of the cabinet shuffle is probably a combination of the two, plus considerations that only the PM and his team would be privy to. Certainly their internal data is telling them that things are not a rosy as they were a few years ago but that should surprise no one, including them. As well, the need to integrate so many new ministers and meet the other needs of cabinet making required all of the changes that were made today.

By the way, the core of the cabinet did not change so that should also be taken into consideration when assessing the motivations behind the cabinet decisions. If their internal data showed that they were in real trouble there would have been changes in the core.

Update: I read in passing that when asked the PM stated that he would not rule out breaking the agreement the Liberals have with the NDP before 2025. I doubt they would but the fact he did not avoid the question (We are focused on serving Canadians and not on elections.) can also be taken as an indicator that things are not as bad as the public pollsters would have us believe.

Some Summer Thoughts

It is summertime so I am not paying as close attention to politics as I usually do but I have noticed a few things on which I can comment.

First, Pierre Poilievre's makeover is yet one more example of the underlying disrespect Conservatives seem to have for voters. He is the latest Conservative/Canadian Alliance/Reform Party leader to do so. They actually seem to believe that a politician's looks matter. It is one of the reasons why so many Conservative commentators are always going off on Mr. Trudeau's hair or socks. 

Of course they are wrong. Jean Chretien is by no means a dreamboat and he also talks funny in both official languages. Yet he beat a somewhat attractive blond woman to win his first election, then he beat a made over Preston Manning and he finally beat Stockwell Day, his wetsuit and his jet ski. Stephen Harper has the charisma of a turnip yet he beat three Liberal leaders. He could not beat Mr. Trudeau but contrary to Conservative belief it was not because Mr. Trudeau is good looking.

Mr. Chretien, Mr. Harper and Mr. Trudeau won their elections because they were perceived to be men with substance. When people of substance goes up against those without it they win almost every time.

I have seen some speculation in the media about what would happen if the Conservatives won the most seats but not a majority government in the next election. It has all been out to lunch. Just remember that political pundits get bored in the summer because nothing is really happening so they usually try to make something up to justify their jobs. Often times it is just good old fashioned election speculation, i.e. the government may call an election in the Fall. However, even they cannot sell such silliness this time because there is no way the PM is going to call an election and despite all of his bloviating there is no way Mr. Singh will vote non-confidence in the government any time soon. As well, there is no issue that the media can grab hold of and call a scandal right now.

So they have resorted to coming up with more and more convoluted arguments about how the Liberals can stay in power despite losing an election. It is all BS, not least of which because an election is not imminent so talking about the outcome of something that may not happen for two more years is pointless. So much can change before then. As well, all of their arguments go against how politics is done in this country, which is something all of them should know if they call themselves political pundits. 

Bottom line, the party that wins the most seats gets the first opportunity to form a government and seek the confidence of The House. If that is the Conservatives after a future election, but they do not hold the majority of seats, they will either dare the other parties to vote against a Throne Speech, triggering another election, or they will sell everything including the kitchen sink to the Bloc and win confidence that way.

It's fun watching Conservative commentators squirm when RWNJs overstep like they did in Belleville last week. They were spinning that event, what the protesters said and did and how the PM handled it so much that I would imagine all of them are suffering from severe cases of motion sickness. 

Climate change is real and its impacts are being increasingly felt with each passing year.

There will probably be a cabinet shuffle this week. Seeing that two years have gone by since the last election it is right on schedule. However, that will not stop some Conservative pundits from claiming it is a sign the Liberals are in trouble. Ignore them.

The June 19 Byelections

We had four byelections last Monday and the final results were the Liberals won the seats they were expected to win and the Conservatives won the seat they were expected to win.

That and the fact the the seat count in the House of Commons remains the same are the only things we can say with certainty. 

However, that has not stopped all sorts of people from trying to infer all sorts of things about the current state of Canadian politics from the results. Everybody is trying to read the entrails of the elections to come up with the bigger picture. It should surprise no one that the conclusions people are coming up with are supporting their preconceived notions.

It is true that the Conservative share of the vote was down for all of the byelections compared to the 2021 general election. That lead to a close race in Oxford and a blowout in the Winnipeg riding. If you look at the results it would seem that alot of Conservative voters decided not to vote.

The question then becomes why. For many it is an indication that many Conservatives are displeased with Pierre Poilievre and that this will not bode well for him during the next general election. Perhaps. Then again it could just be a combination of the usual low turnout for byelections with the fact all of the byelections took place in Liberal and Conservative strongholds. In such a situation there would be less incentive for Conservatives to vote because the results were pretty much preordained when the byelections were called. Why vote in a Liberal stronghold when it will not change the party who holds the seat? Why vote in a Conservative stronghold when they already have it in the bag? 

Of course, we do not know which is the truth. It could be that both situations contributed to the outcome or not. Regardless, coming to any sort of conclusion about the broader political situation in Canada based on the results Monday night is a mistake.

There are also questions about the accuracy of polls considering the byelection results. Are the polls accurate?

That's easy. No

Anybody who has read this blog before knows my disdain for the public polls. They were always next to useless and they have become even more useless because their MSM clients gave up reporting news long ago in favour of pushing narratives that would generate clicks and revenue. They are not going to pay for polling data that does not support their narratives.

Combine that with the fact there is no incentive for pollsters to be accurate in between elections, since their estimates will not be tested against the actual results of a general election, and you can safely conclude that the public polls can be safely ignored.

Passports, really?

How silly is our politics when the big story of yesterday was the release of the new Canadian passport? The amount of ink and bandwidth wasted talking about it was amazing. And yes I know I am adding to that with this comment but is was so preposterous that I just could not ignore it.

By the way I have passports going back 20 years. Each one is different from the previous one. So the fact they changed it this time is neither remarkable or significant.

New King, Foreign Interference and other things

Canada has a new King. He was coronated this past weekend. I am not overly excited about it but I am not overly unexcited about it either. For me, like many Canadians, the monarchy is just there. It does not impact my life one way or another. Which is why I am always wondering why the anti-monarchy crowd gets so worked up. Of course, they are even more worked up because they believe that the change from the Queen to the King will convince Canadians to come to their side. Maybe, but do they truly believe that it will convince them to actually go through the long and arduous process of turning Canada into a republic? I think not. I am certain most Canadians have better things to worry about than who is our Head of State. Note that most would not even correctly tell you who holds that title. Most are going to say the Prime Minister, who is our Head of Government but not Head of State.

The political interference in our politics issue has resurfaced again this week. It happened because a Conservative MP said something in the House and said something different outside of the House, about something that allegedly happened in 2021, for which he gave a pretty good explanation back then. Why he decided to bring it up a second time is pretty clear. By the way since the events he described reportedly happened to his family how are they still alleged events? Did they happen or not? 

If I were PM I would finally just say "Fuck it" and establish a Royal Commission on all foreign influence on our politics. Choose three former justices and have them look into all sources of foreign influence. Include direct foreign interference by other governments but also look at how foreign actors are influencing our politics by following the money. Look at the media, charities, think-tanks, political parties and social media. In two years, publish a report that provides a comprehensive picture of foreign influence on our politics and leave it up to Canadians to decide which kinds of influence they are OK with them and which they are not, maybe during an election campaign.

It took a few days but the government did throw out a Chinese diplomat after it was revealed he might have been involved in activities diplomats are not supposed to be involved in. The media and the Opposition are criticizing the government for the delay but taking such action is not done on a whim. The government had to do its due diligence before taking the decision, particularly since the diplomat in question works for the second largest country on the world. Of course the media and the Opposition know this but that will not stop them from blaming the government when China retaliates in the coming days because that is just how dishonest they are.

The Liberal Convention happened on the weekend and like all recent Liberal Conventions it was uneventful. (Contrast that to Conservative ones which are always shit shows.) The only really controversial thing to come out of it was Liberal members passed a policy resolution that if implemented would force newspapers to have to back up stories they publish with traceable information sources.

Of course, some in the media are screaming this would be an attack on freedom of the press but they fail to mention that such a requirement is actually what is taught in journalism school and it is supposed to be something of an industry standard. If a newspaper were to publish a story stating that a certain brand of toothpaste prevented all forms of cancer, without backing it up with evidence, it would be roundly condemned. So why is it OK for journalists to quote anonymous sources when publishing stories on politics? By the way, such a requirement would help all politicians. It was anonymous sources that derailed the political career of Patrick Brown in 2018. It was anonymous sources that gave the Senate Expense Scandal the legs to bring down Stephen Harper.

In short, making certain that journalist are only publishing verifiable facts from traceable sources is not a bad thing, regardless of the topic of a story. And maybe it would bring some honesty back into journalism again. 

Incidentally, I would love to see a "truth in advertizing" laws passed for political ads as well. Just like it is illegal for a toothpaste company to untruthfully claim its product prevents cancer it should be illegal for a political entity to lie or misrepresent facts for political purposes. Being unable to tell bald face lies in political advertizements might actually force political entities to talk about the relative advantages and disadvantages of policy again.

As well, it might also prevent some of the negative outcomes we have been seeing recently. It was lying in advertizing that lead to the election of Donald Trump, Brexit, the January 6 insurrection in Washington and the "Freedom Convoy" in Canada. In other words, if you want to reduce the effectiveness of populists in our politics make it illegal for them to lie.

And no, lying is not free speech or free expression.

Interesting Conversations

My wife celebrated her birthday a few days ago and we had some friends over for a small gathering to help her celebrate.

One of the friends who attended is Rob. He would fit the profile of a Conservative supporter. He is a 60 year old, white straight male, with a high school education who worked for 35 years in the trades. If we are to believe the polls (which I don't) he should be a lock for the Conservatives.

Rob knows that I am a political animal so of course politics came up when we talked. Two topics of note came up. 

The first was the Chinese interference controversy. He had no idea what that was all about despite the fact that media had been talking about it for weeks at that point. He was aware of it but could not provide any details. That just goes to show you how useless is our media in actually informing people, even when some in that same media would have liked to use the controversy to bring down the Liberal government. In the end he had no opinion one way or another about how it impacted his thinking.

The second topic was the Freedumb Convoy of  2022 and I have to say his opinion surprised me with just how much it pissed him off. He had nothing but contempt for them and he even got the nuance that they were trying to overthrow the government. He even used the word "coup" to describe it. He was also very aware of Pierre Poilievre's support for the Convoy and he had nothing but contempt for him as well.

This is just an anecdote but if the Conservatives want to win the next election they have to gain the support of people like Rob in urban ridings like mine. It would appear that he has failed in at least one case.

Things are not Going as the Conservatives had hoped

The Conservatives in this country were hoping that the allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 election would do to the Trudeau Liberals what the Sponsorship Scandal did to the Martin Liberals.

Of course they were always dreaming because the Sponsorship Scandal was actual, provable wrongdoing by people working for the Liberal Party of Canada, while the stories we have been seeing in the news about Chinese interference have been based on unproven allegations and innuendo. I have stated many times that in the 40+ years I have been observing Canadian politics there have only been two instances of true corruption at the Federal level. One of those instances was the fiasco of the Sponsorship Program. Although it was a good idea it was hijacked by unscrupulous people who helped themselves and the Liberal Party to some of the funds of that Program. The Liberals deserved their fate for that event.

The Chinese interference in our political system is not the same. No one party has benefited from their interference. All parties, at both the Federal and Provincial level, have probably benefited from it and I would wager a fair amount of money that none of them knew they were benefiting from it. I refuse to believe any politician in this country would knowingly take support from a sometimes hostile foreign government.

However, the Conservatives were hoping that they could infer just that by focusing on one such instance in 2019. That is why they want a Public Inquiry that focuses on only that one instance. Anything beyond that would only prove that they have also been compromised by Chinese interference in our politics, which would waste a scandal that would finally bring down the Liberals. It was never going to happen but the current iteration of Conservatives in this country have never let reality get in the way of a good story.

So any action by the government that did not give them that one focused public inquiry was always going to be met with outrage. That and the fact that the Conservatives have decided their best hopes of winning an election is to stoke that outrage in their followers. Hence the reaction to the announcement that David Johnston has been appointed the Special Rapporteur.

At the risk of prejudging his recommendations I think it is safe to say that he will not recommend just focusing on that one instance in 2019 if he decides that some sort of public inquiry is necessary to get to the bottom of foreign interference in our elections. 

In the end the idea that a public inquiry into foreign interference in our elections would bring down the Liberals was always something of a pipe dream. 

It must be exhausting

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for Pierre Poilievre just like I did with Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Scheer.

Him having to go full QAnon Trump on his twitter feed this past weekend followed by his capitulation in making the three MPs, who attended and had their pictures taken with a known neo-Nazi, suffer any consequences must be taking its toll.

All of the recent leaders of the CPC have had the same problem. They feel it is politically necessary to keep the most ardent MAGA Conservatives happy. They are a minority of the party and society but they are loud and they have the emotional maturity of a toddler. Really, if Mr. Poilievre does not constantly pay attention to them and their perceived needs and constantly validate their warped view of the world they throw a collective temper tantrum and make his life Hell. As an aside, it should be noted that they have not impacted Mr. Trudeau or his government one whit despite their best efforts. It is the CPC who they hurt the most and that is remarkable.

For some reason Mr. Poilievre and the leaders before him seem to go along with this and they do not even try to push back. 

I think the reason why is the misreading of the Harper victories. Remember that the CPC was only created in the early 2000s. They have gone through 7 elections and only won three of them. And two of those three were not very decisive victories. 

Finally, in 2011 Stephen Harper won a majority government for them. The way he did that was to throw red meat at his base for the first half of that election before pivoting to appeal to more moderate Canadians in the final three weeks. Helped along by an inept Liberal campaign and the collapse of the Bloc in Quebec, to the benefit of the NDP, and the CPC majority was born.

The CPC wanted to use the same strategy in 2015 but it was very apparent by the time they should have pivoted that victory was probably not going to be theirs so they just campaigned to save the furniture.

Both Mr. Scheer and Mr. O'Toole wanted to do the same in 2019 and 2021 but their efforts were always scuppered by their own followers.

The problem is the more rabid base of the CPC was not as big, loud and influential in 2011 or 2015 as it is now. Stephen Harper was able to pivot away from them during the 2011 election and subsequent government without too many problems. In short, the CPC was a different beast then.

Twelve years later the "right wing nut jobs" are the tail that wags the CPC dog. If Mr. Poilievre has any hope of hanging onto his job, let alone winning an election, he has to keep them happy, which is impossible when their whole political identity is to be profoundly unhappy. They are not going to let Mr. Poilievre pivot when it becomes necessary. 

And the situation is only getting worse. Mr. Scheer had this problem when he was leader but it was worse for Mr. O'Toole and it is becoming even worse for Mr. Poilievre. If an election does not happen until 2025 I can only imagine how much worse it will become for him.

Maybe, just maybe, he will push back and try to get a grip on the party. Then again, I have always questioned his political acumen so I am not so certain he will be able to do it. If he does not he could very well squander the opportunity to take advantage of a government that has been in power for a decade and for which many Canadians could be convinced to move on from if they like the alternative.

I imagine that the next few months and years are going to be even more exhausting for Mr. Poilievre.

Book Review: Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline

I finished reading this book which was written by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbotson. 

There are two major schools of thought around our species' demographic future. There is the "pessimistic" view which roughly states that the world population will continue to climb throughout this century until we hit 11 billion people by 2100, with all of the social and environmental problems that would come along with that. Then there is the "optimistic" view which argues that in fact our population will peak around 2050 or so at around 9 billion before dropping off to around 7 billion in 2100. This book, as the title implies, falls squarely in the "optimistic" camp.

The authors do a very good job of explaining the opposing point of view and they acknowledge that the main proponents of that point of view, the demographers of the United Nations, have a very good track record of predicting demographic trends. Even though they only spend a little time on it they still present a compelling argument for believing the "pessimistic" view could be our future.

Then the authors refute that point of view in a way that is rather unique when it comes to writing about demographic trends. They combine statistics with personal interviews. The authors traveled the world to speak to people. They spoke to rich Europeans, poor Brazilians in the favelas of Sao Paolo, professionals in Nairobi, Mexican migrants in the US and Aboriginals in Austrailia. This leads to them pointing to a possible correlation of low birth rates with increased urbanization, increased education and the usual increase in living standards that goes along with both. They rightly point out that in all regions of the world birth rates are coming down, including in India, China and Africa, the places many demographers point to to argue that we are facing a demographic bomb. 

Once they have established this they spend a good part of the book writing what the implications of it could be to the various parts of the world. In some places the implications could be dire as depopulation and the aging of what is left could make it very difficult for countries to remain prosperous and stable. 

Being Canadian the authors argue very persuasively for the Canadian approach to immigration as the model to follow to mitigate the impacts of declining birthrates.

The books conclusion very effectively pulls together the various arguments contained in it into a very plausible vision of what the world could look like in 2100 and what may happen between now and then. It is speculative but the speculation is largely backed up by the arguments and facts presented in the book. In just a passing sentence they suggest there might be a correlation between urbanization, female empowerment and and political and economic development. That would be something that might bear further exploration.

However, (there is always a however) I found the book somewhat lacking in three areas.

The first was the book does not break any new ground. Although their method of reaching their conclusions are rather unique the arguments they make and the conclusions that they draw from them are not new. Although breaking new ground was probably not the purpose of the book anyway.

The second is their assertion that the United States will probably go through the century escaping the most negative impacts of the decline in population. They base this argument on them believing the US will continue to take in immigrants, with all of the positive impacts that come from that. This book was written in 2018 so it was before COVID and before it became obvious that MAGA had metastasized out of the White House to the Supreme Court, Congress and many States but the two authors are political commentators so they should have at least considered such a possibility. As well, it is argued in the book that as birth rates goes down around the world and living standards go up the number of people actually wanting to emigrate to other countries, the US or otherwise, will be greatly reduced. That puts a spanner into their argument about the driver of the US's continued success.

Finally, while being plausible their view of the future may be a little too rosy. Certainly their arguments support their views but alot of things would have to go right in order to achieve that future, which cannot be safely assumed. Currently there are 7 billion people on this planet and we are killing off other species at a prodigious rate, emptying and polluting our oceans, denuding the last of the major forests on the planet and consuming other non-renewable resources, such as rare-earth minerals, at an unsustainable rate. Even the authors agree that the world population will hit 9 billion people in the next few decades, which will probably only exacerbate these problems. By the time we get to the 7 billion people in 2100 the only nature that may be left could be in those small areas of the world protected by governments. The rest of the world will probably be dominated by us and the plants and animals that we have domesticated. At the end of this century there may only be as many people living in it as there are now but those 7 billion people may be living in a much less hospitable world.

All that being said this book is well worth the time to read, especially if you only have a passing interest in the topic of the book. It is a very accessible. It uses statistics to prove its arguments without getting bogged down in them and the writing style is easy to understand and follow without resorting to dense science speak and jargon. It is a book you can start to read at 1pm and be done by suppertime and have a good understanding of the issues and arguments surrounding the future population of our species when you are done.

Pierre Poilievre has a NAZI Problem

Let us state right off the hop that Pierre Poilievre is not a Nazi or a fascist. He may be an opportunistic career politician with limited real world experience, with no idea of how to actually form policy, with extremely limited political acumen and completely lacking in political scruples but he is not a porn star...Sorry, channeling my inner Grandpa Simpson...but he is not a fascist.

However he does have a problem with them.

He is not unique. The old Reform Party always had a certain percentage of supporters who had fascist tendencies.  The were very much in favour of using the power of government to control everything from who you slept with to deciding what is art to only financially supporting the industries they favoured. They have always seemed comfortable in the Party and the Party really did not do a whole hell of alot to discourage them. The fact a very heavy white English Christian only thread ran through this crowd should surprise no one. When the Reform Party gobbled up the Progressive Party of Canada that wing of the party came along with it.

Stephen Harper knew this when he took over the Party as its first leader and he was at least adept at keeping them at bay. Let's be honest though, he made promises to them and then broke them as soon as he won government. Of course, when Stephen Harper was the leader we did not have social media and that wing of the party was much smaller and much less radicalized. Oh yes, Stephen Harper also did not have the Peoples Party of Canada stalking him on his right flank. It should be noted that Mr. Harper's betrayal of the more far right members of his base laid the groundwork for the creation of the PPC. His short term strategy to stay in power had longer term consequences for the party he left behind.

So Pierre Poilievre would not be able to do what Stephen Harper did even if he had the political smarts to do it. So now he has to deal with an ever radicalized and loud group on his right flank while also trying to convince more moderate Canadians that they are not what the CPC really represents.

That goal was complicated by the Convoy (you know what I am talking about). That event laid bare for everybody to see that there was an element of our society that does not believe in Canadian democracy. They parrot democratic rhetoric but that is only to cover up their fascist tendencies. It is to his ever lasting discredit that Mr. Poilievre rode the publicity generated by them and actively courted their support to win the leadership of the CPC. They have been a millstone around this neck ever since he won. Watching him trying to keep them in the CPC tent while also trying to entice more moderate Canadians to his side has been fun to watch, since he is failing at both to a certain extent.

What Pierre Poilievre might really need to do is to completely cut ties with this wing of his party. Doing so will certainly be a gift to the PPC but what he loses on the right might help him gain support in the centre, particularly as the Liberal government gets longer in the tooth. If he had any political instincts at all he would be working towards that.

That brings us to the dinner where an avowed fascist, representing an avowed fascist party in the European Parliament, was the guest of honour and where four members of the CPC were attendees of the dinner. One of those Members is a person who ran for the leadership of the party, twice, is a senior member of the shadow cabinet and who would probably be a senior cabinet minister if the CPC wins government. Some are saying that they did now know who the MEP was but she attended that dinner in Alberta so all of these MPs would have had to travel to attend it. All of that would be on the government dime which means the trips would have had to be planned. No MP is going to go through that effort unless they know exactly why they are doing it. So their protestations are bullshit. They attended this dinner because they agreed with the views of the MEP and thought it would be worthwhile to listen to her and meet her. To most Canadians this is unacceptable and it will further remind them of their unease with the CPC as being a home for Canadians with extreme right wing views, something that has haunted the CPC since its creation. 

However this event might also be a perfect opportunity to break with that wing of the CPC, if Mr. Poilievre had the political acumen and guts to take it. By removing all of these MPs from caucus and forcefully denouncing the views of the MEP he would create a sea change in the CPC and he would set up a shift of the Party to a more moderate conservative party. It could be that what he loses on his right he would regain in the centre.

Then again maybe not. It could be that the whole of the conservative movement in this country has grown more radicalized and the number of Conservative voters who would desert the party would be much higher than I am assuming. 

I am not certain at this point but I suspect that the CPC rank and file has grown more radicalized. I believe that "moderate" conservatives are a dying breed and that breaking with the really radical elements of the party would cost votes that could not be recovered from moderates.

In which case we can repeat that Pierre Poilievre really does have a NAZI problem.

Foreign Interference in Canadian Politics

Allegations of interference in the nomination of a Chinese Canadian Liberal candidate in Toronto, by the Chinese Government, before the 2019 election have surfaced.

On the face the allegations are hard to believe. First they are all based on anonymous sources, quoting documents that have not been released to the public and those anonymous sources are from CSIS. That is an organization where leaking operational data to the media carries heavy jail time if someone from that organization is caught doing so. Hell, people from CSIS are even forbidden from actually admitting they work for CSIS. Second, the meat of the allegations is a CSIS official briefed a senior member of the Liberal Party about suspicions of the candidate being supported by the Chinese government. It should be noted that a CSIS official would not brief anybody until it went through a rather comprehensive approval process and the particulars of that meeting would be recorded by both CSIS and the officials in the Party. Judging by the details in the news story it would not take long for both CSIS and the Party to figure out who was involved in that meeting, which means the journalist outed his source by publishing those details. I am no journalist but I am pretty certain that journalists are not supposed to do that and I am pretty certain that he would not do that. That sort of brings into question the verity of the whole scenario described by the journalist but he need not worry because neither CSIS nor the Party will produce any evidence to confirm or deny his allegations on national security grounds. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

That has not stopped Conservative supporters in a couple of media outlets from calling for a public inquiry into the whole thing. Such an inquiry would be pointless because the MP involved in the allegations would have the right to see the evidence against him, which is held by CSIS, and they will not release that evidence to a public inquiry. Of course, any inquiry could legally compel CSIS to release the information but that would severely damage CSIS's relationship in the Five Eyes, the partnership between the intelligence agencies of Canada, the US, Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand. That in turn would actually compromise Canadian security much more than what was described in the news story because it would cripple the ability of CSIS to gather intelligence but who cares if it would be an opportunity to own the Libs.

On the other hand some sort of public inquiry on the broader issue of foreign interference, all interference not just this one allegation, would be an eye opening exercise. After all I would bet my house that such interference has been going on for decades. That will not happen either because it would also be pointless. 

This story has been circulating social media for a couple of days but so far we have not heard a peep out of the CPC. You would think they would be all over this. The reason for this is they are probably aware that they have been receiving assistance from foreign actors for years. They did not invite it and there is really nothing they can do to stop it but with the state of Canadian politics right now people would assume the worst, which they do not need because many already assume the worst. That has not been helped by revelations that several CPC MPs, including a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet had dinner with an avowed fascist member of the European Parliament. (More on that in another post)

So here we are. Who knows where this will go but I am certain that a public inquiry will not be called and those very same Conservative commentators will scream cover-up, with the rubes eating it up. 

A word about Chinese interference in our politics. One of the issues exposed by this leak and the reaction to it is how petty and provincial is our politics. The Chinese do not care who is leading Canada because they consider the Canadian government to be largely irrelevant in the international community. There goal is not to influence Canadian policy. China is the second largest economy in the world, they are endeavouring to make it the largest and they are spending alot of money and effort to increase their military might. In short they are trying to become a superpower, if not the superpower, and the biggest obstacle to that is the Western democracies. They still set the agenda for international relations and China wants to change that. One way to do that is to undermine the political and democratic institutions of the Western democracies.

So the petty details of how they might have interfered in the nomination process in a single Federal riding are not relevant except in the context of their overarching goal. It is piecing together that bigger picture using these individual instances that we should be focusing on, or more precisely the Canadian intelligence community should be focusing on, and not going down a rabbit hole of a single instance.

The Ukraine War, One Year Later

If you would have told me this time last year that the Ukraine war would still be going on in a year I would have disagreed with you. While I did not believe Ukraine would just roll over I also did not believe that they would be able hold as long as they have.

A few months after the war started and when the Western media was saying that Ukraine was actually winning the war I stated in this space that they were probably overstating the case. Since then the Ukrainians have recaptured some territory but the Russians have still not gone away. Indeed, they have dug in for a long war.

Western media and many commentators are still saying the Ukrainians are winning and the Russians are losing. I am not so certain. From what I am seeing neither side is winning right now. It has descended into a war of attrition and the winner will be the one that can last the longest.

The Russians have the manpower advantage. They can keep calling up reservists and throwing them into the fray. Yes, their casualties will be high but so will be those of the Ukrainians, who do not have the manpower reserves of the Russians. The hope that the Russian people will grow tired of the war and boot Mr. Putin is probably false hope. If he is still there now he will probably be staying.

The Ukrainians have the money advantage. They are receiving financial and military support from the West that should allow them to hold out much longer than if they did not. The Russians on the other hand are short of both money and military equipment. I noticed in a non-western media report last week that the Russians are starting to deploy their third string tanks. That is the new units being formed to continue the war are going into battle in tanks that were obsolete when Pierre Trudeau was PM of Canada. Having them go up against Western first line tanks and modern hand held anti-tank missile systems is a recipe for much death and destructions amongst Russian tankers.

So it is a question of which one will no longer be able to sustain the war first. Will the Ukrainians just run out of men to fight? Or with the Russians just run out money and equipment? 

I do not know the answer but I can say that the longer this goes on the weaker the Russian strategic position becomes. That will not change regardless of the eventual military outcome of the war. Then again, the Ukrainians are not going to come out of this war in great shape either and I would bet a sizable chunk of money that if they do prevail the same Western governments that supported them militarily will be alot less generous with funds to help them rebuild.

Like I said I do not believe that either side is winning and in the long run both will probably come out losers of this war.

Die Media Die

I have stated in this space before that I believe it is time to rethink the idea of freedom of the press and it looks like they are in the process of eliminating themselves from the national landscape. The latest example is the layoffs reported by the National Post a couple of weeks ago. For a news organization that was bare bones before the layoffs we can now say they are cutting the bone now. They are not alone. Everywhere we look the media in this country is showing signs of distress and the only thing that is keeping them afloat is support from the government, the same government they have been assiduously trying to overthrow for almost a decade.

Of course the reason for their distress is simple. I have stated before that the media in this country cannot turn their backs on around 70% of their audience and readers and expect to be successful. But then again that is to be expected when you consider that all of our news media, with the exception of the CBC, is owned in part or in whole by American business interests. These business interests are pursuing the same business strategy as they are pursuing in the US, namely appealing to conservatives and nut jobs where it works somewhat because there are sufficient numbers of them to make such a strategy viable. These companies are trying to pursue the same strategy in Canada even though our political culture will not sustain such a strategy. They are doing this for ideological reasons instead of business reasons, hoping to make Canada more "conservative" but they are not succeeding and they are running their companies into the ground in the process. 

The Liberal government could accelerate this process by stopping all support to these companies. If faced with tons of red ink in their ledgers these American businesses will abandon the Canadian market pretty quick. Sure they may hate Liberals but they hate losing money even more.

Some would argue that such action would leave Canada without a news media. No, it would leave us with a changed news media. There is always demand for news. We need to be informed. If the current group of media organizations cannot make a go of it something will rise up to take their place. In fact, the competition for the Canadian media space would be so fierce that the replacement media companies would have to be innovative and develop business models that are completely different from the current legacy media, which still has not really adjusted to the current news environment, trying to maintain a centuries old model instead of really embracing the opportunities presented by the internet.

So, I wish the legacy media would just hurry up and die already and/or the government should facilitate that by eliminating support and subsidies for them. The sooner that happens the better off all of us will be.

The Findings of the Emergencies Act Commission Surprised Me

When the EA commission was doing its work last fall and everybody was building their preferred narratives by cherry picking the parts of the testimony that supported them I mentioned everybody was wasting their time and the final word would go to Justice Rouleau. I further stated that in the end the findings of the commission would be equivocal and that everybody would be able to spin them to their own advantage.

I was wrong. The final conclusions were quite unequivocal. The Federal government was justified in invoking the Act because the situation last winter met the very high threshold outlined in the act to do just that. End of story. I knew that the commission would come to this conclusion but I was expecting some nuance.

What this decision means is Justice Rouleau completely disregarded the testimony of the Convoy Organizers that testified at the hearings. They spent close to a week pushing their woe-is-me-we-were-just-peacefully-protesting schtick. He did not believe a word of it. Remarkable.

He also did not take anything the various law enforcement organizations said either. They all engaged in "cover your ass" operations on the stand and none of what they said appears to have been considered. The same goes for the testimony of the City of Ottawa.

I stated that the Federal government would not have invoked the EA if they did not have their ducks in a row beforehand. So I knew that the final report would find that they were justified in invoking the act but I always thought that finding would be tempered by the testimony of the convoy leaders and law enforcement as Justice Rouleau would be compelled by his brief to consider their testimony. He did and he rejected all of it pretty much out of hand. 

Wow.

The report is also not very good for the Provincial government. But then again the Premier never took the opportunity to put his side of the story into the record. He just sent a subordinate in the person of the Provincial Solicitor General to testify, which did not have the same impact as the Premier testifying. As I stated last Fall by not testifying Doug Ford essentially made the Federal government version of events the only version Justice Rouleau could consider. 

As for the Conservative Party of Canada they are not mentioned in the report so they will not be hurt by it. Throughout the hearings, whenever testimony contradicting the Federal government line was presented, the CPC surrogates in the media kept pushing the "Trudeau government overstepped" narrative but the silence of the CPC itself was deafening. The reason is they knew that if they did speak up they increased the chances of compelling Justice Rouleau to ask that they testify at the commission. That would not do so they kept their mouth shut. 

I did not see it but Pierre Poilievre did have a news conference today where he talked about the commission, after it had finished its work and could no longer call him, but I pretty much know what he said: "Trudeau bad". The guy really is a schmuck.

So this sordid chapter is now behind us. As expected the government was justified in invoking the EA, unexpectedly the commission was unequivocal in that finding, once again Doug Ford has been proven to be incompetent when it comes to actually governing and Pierre Poilievre is still a schmuck.

Not Afraid to Make the Hard Decisions

Word today that the Federal government has withdrawn a couple of amendments to Bill C-21 that were quite controversial. They had the effect of banning some weapons that could be used by hunters even though those weapons did not fall under the definition of "assault weapons" per se but they had some characteristics in common. Note that there are such things as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have the primary purpose of being used for hunting. Looking at them they do not look like assault weapons, such as the AR-15. My father owned both a semi-automatic rifle and shotgun when he was alive. I had no problem with the amendments as I stated in my previous post but I also have no problems with their withdrawal either. To be honest I really did not care that much either way. I could see both sides of the argument for and against and I agreed with parts of both.

Of course, this will not stop the usual suspects from claiming that the Liberals "surrendered", capitulated" or "flipflopped" and of course they would be wrong.

It is actually quite rare for governments to give into pressure, especially when the policy they are pursuing is popular amongst the coalition that put them in power and they know that it will not hurt them because the people most effected by the policy would not vote for them any way. There were several instances where the Harper Conservatives found themselves in the same position and their reaction was to dig in and then spend alot of money on advertizements attacking the Liberals and/or the leader of the party. 

The current Federal government did not do that. They actually weighed the evidence and reconsidered their initial decision, despite knowing how it would play with their opponents, knowing that it would not help them one bit with those rural voters who already hate them and knowing that their gun control policies are quite popular with their voters. It was a hard decision and they made it.

One other thing. I have always said that we should ignore the polls and watch what the political parties are doing to gauge which way the political winds are blowing. If we are to believe the polls the Liberals are down, in relation to the Conservatives, but this decision would seem to indicate otherwise. Quite frankly, if the polls were correct the Liberals would not have taken this decision. They would be doing whatever they could to maintain the support of the coalition that put them in the government benches and their gun control policies are very popular with those very voters. Instead they took this decision, which will not help them one bit politically. A very strange decision from a government that pollsters are saying is in trouble. 

By the way, if you are one who does believe the polls I am looking for investors to build a bridge between Victoria and Tokyo Japan. If you are interested please leave your banking information in the comments to this post.

This government has shown that it is not afraid to make tough decisions, even though such decisions might be controversial. The two big ones were to finally pull the plug on the farce that was the Parliamentary Committee to examine electoral reform and the purchase of the TMX. But those two decisions were rather early in their time in government. The fact that they are still making tough decisions at this time is quite telling.

The Latest Gun Bans, Carey Price and the Stupidity of it all

I have written about gun control in the space before. I have very few problems with the latest round of gun bans proposed by the government.

Yes, it could very well impact hunters, instead of just those who want to buy and use assault weapons just for the sake of buying them. That is unfortunate but it should be noted that the proposed amendments to the C-21 may cause some hunting rifles and shotguns to be banned but not all of them. Hunters will still have plenty of options to buy weapons that will allow them to pursue their sport. So the overheated rhetoric we are seeing from the gun lobby and the Conservatives is just that. You would think that after the 2021 election they would be a little more circumspect about giving a full throated defence of gun ownership. It really is a losing issue in the parts of the country where the Conservatives need to pick up support in order to form a government.

And now it has been revealed that the government will review the amendment in order to make certain any impacts on hunters are reduced. Gee, it is almost like our Parliamentary system works, despite the rhetoric we hear from the Conservatives and their media apologists on a daily basis.

I am a fan of the Montreal Canadiens and I am a fan of Carey Price but him inserting himself into the debate, in such a high profile manner, just days before the anniversary of the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique is the most politically tone-deaf intervention I have seen in a long time. Further what he said is wrong, him being a First Nations Canadian, as he is exempt from the provisions of C-21. Now, he is doing the inevitable backtracking, through the Canadiens organization, and that backtracking is extremely ham fisted. By the way, if he wants to back track he should do it and not leave it up to the Canadiens. It makes me wonder about the sincerity of any reflection he may be undertaking. Instead it looks like damage control, and not very good damage control to boot.

Make no mistake, Carey Price has the right to state his opinion but those who disagree with him have the very same right and they are exercising it. If he believed he could jump into this debate, as a public figure, and not experience some backlash he is very mistaken.

Now this whole thing is stupid because the arguments never change. Periodically, this topic comes up and all of the same arguments are trotted out by the usual suspects on both sides. Neither have had any new material in over three decades. To the gun control opponents. Shut up. You lost the debate when that dickless wonder, whose name I will not mention, massacred all of those women in Montreal, in 1989. It was only a matter to time before the weapon he used and others like it would be banned. He guaranteed it and the events of Dawson College and Nova Scotia just made your arguments even less effective. To the gun control supporters I would tell you to shut up as well, unless you can come up with some original arguments. 

To the Conservatives, this issue is not the effective wedge issue you think it is but by all means keep pushing it. It cost you the 2021 election and it will cost you future elections as well. 

As for celebrities injecting themselves into debates I would say that it is a wasted effort where you are more likely to lose than win. The simple fact is no one is going to change their minds because a celebrity supports this policy or that policy. If you believe otherwise, you have a much inflated perception of your impact on the world outside of your celebrity. The most likely outcome of any intervention is the tarnishing of your reputation, brand and future legacy.

Some More Thoughts

I have not been paying too much attention to the Emergencies Act Inquiry because hanging on every word of peoples' testimony is pointless. The person who will have the final word is Justice Rouleau, in about four months. Until then trying to come up with conclusions based on a particular day's testimony is silly. That has not stopped Conservative commentators, both professional and amateur from doing so. However, it is interesting that Pierre Poilievre is not taking up the narrative being pushed by Conservative commentators. He is lying very low and I imagine the reason for that is he does not want to inspire, convince or compel Justice Rouleau to summon him to the Inquiry. I will let you decide on why that might be.

It is interesting that Mr. Trudeau had what can be described as a confrontation with Mr. Xi last week and Conservative commentators are condemning him for it, taking the side of Mr. Xi. I am old enough to remember when Conservatives made some political hay over some statements made by Mr. Trudeau before he became PM, where those very same Conservatives had nothing good to say about China. I am told that partisanship is supposed to end at the water's edge but I guess Conservatives no longer believe that.

Apparently around 11 candidates who ran for Parliament in 2019 received some support from the Chinese government. Now some people are demanding to know who these people are. Such silliness. First, if the Chinese did interfere in the 2019 election then the government would be investigating that and they will not make any findings public until that investigation is complete. That is just how things are done and I believe those braying for the name know that but they are counting on their followers not realizing that. The second thing is I cannot believe any candidate, of any political stripe, would knowingly accept support from agents of the Chinese government. It is not like some person went to these candidates and introduced themselves as an agent of China and then offered to provide them with funds and other supports for their campaign and then having those candidates accept. What probably happened is the funds or support looked like it came from legal and legitimate sources so the candidates accepted it. It was only after the fact that they would have found out the source. That is probably the focus of any investigation, with the candidates being targeted as being a secondary concern.

So Donald Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election, he cost the Republicans to lose the 2020 Senatorial elections in Georgia he probably cost the Republicans control of the Senate and big wins in the House in 2022. As I have stated in this space before he is just a gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. Now he has announced his intentions to run for President which should help the Democrats in the Georgia run-off election for the Senate seat still up for grabs. As well, there are some rumblings that if Donald Trump does not win the nomination for the Republicans he will run as an independent. That would almost guarantee the Democrats retaining the presidency as many Trumplicans support Donald Trump and not the Republicans. If he runs as an independent millions of his supporters would follow him siphoning off voters from the Republicans in the swing states. Donald Trump knows this of course but he does not care. He is not a Republican and he has no loyalty to that Party. Then again they do not have any loyalty towards him either so it's all good.

Going around stating that Canada is broken is not a winning election strategy so please continue saying so Mr. Poilievre. Certainly, it might play well to the base but the last three elections have demonstrated that the Conservative base is not enough to win. They have to win over the non-aligned voters, who have voted for the Liberals for the last three elections, and they will not respond the same way the Conservative base responds to the Party's rhetoric.

The US Did not Step Back from the Brink...

But maybe it stopped there to decide what its next move will be.

That could be one takeaway from the 2022 mid-term elections. Part of the reason for making such a statement is the fact that all of the candidates for election officials who believed Donald Trump won the 2020 election lost. Perhaps that will prevent a "legal" coup in 2024 if the Democratic candidate wins the Electoral Collage vote.

Of course, some pessimism is warranted. The results in Florida, where the Governor is showing clear signs of being an illiberal democrat, are cause for concern. I have stated here before that the US could fall into authoritarianism in one fell swoop during a Federal election or one state at a time. Those who cherish democracy should begin to take that seriously. We certainly know that those who do not cherish it have discovered that the states can be used to advance their cause.

Oh well, we will have to wait until 2024 to see if Americans will actually step back from the brink or take that final leap.