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. 

The Notwithstanding Clause and other Constitutional BS by the Premieres

I am old enough to remember the debate around the Repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Charter. True I was a teenager so my awareness was not that great but I did study politics in University from 1984 to 1988 so we got to study the process and the players soon after the fact.

One thing that needs to be remembered is the Clause was demanded by all of the provincial premieres and the Trudeau government agreed because it was the only way to get the deal done. None of the provincial premieres liked the idea of the Charter stopping them from doing what they wanted and the Clause was a way to make that happen. From the time the Charter was created it was inevitable that the Notwithstanding Clause would be used as Doug Ford is using it in Ontario. The only surprise is how long it took.

One other thing to remember about the Clause is the five year sunset provision. That provision means that any law that is maintained by using the Clause is automatically void after those five years, unless the government invokes the Clause again. So, statements that Mr. Ford is destroying the Charter are very overblown. Right now he is being raked over the coals by people who are against these actions. You can see it in his demeanor and in the demeanor of Mr. Lecce that they are feeling the heat. It might occur to them in the coming days and weeks that while they might win the battle against CUPE they may lose the war in 2026. So in 2027 when it is time to invoke the Clause again the Ontario government will probably let the opportunity pass.

There is an opportunity here if people would look past the overblown rhetoric. None of the rights and freedoms in the Charter are absolute. They all have limits. For example, you cannot incite violence against someone or yell "Fire" in a crowding room without facing consequences, despite your right to free expression. The Notwithstanding Clause is no different. 

Perhaps some enterprising lawyer could launch a lawsuit claiming the Ontario government is using the Clause in a way not intended by those who drafted the Charter. Right now the Clause is a black box and no one has tried to challenge its use or to test its limits. Any judicial decision could impose such limits. Of course, there would be a risk that the courts would find for the Ontario government but I do not believe so. I think our courts are smart enough and non partisan enough to realize that the Notwithstanding Clause is not a get out of jail free card for politicians who want to deny the rights of Canadians for political ends.

One last thing about what Doug Ford is doing. There have been some suggestions that the Federal government should use the disallowance provision in the 1867 British North American (BNA) Act to stop Mr. Ford. On the surface that seems like a good idea but it is not. First the provision has never been used in the history of Canada. Second, the drafters of the BNA Act intended the Federal government to be the senior level of government in Canada with the ability of override the Provincial governments and it listed a bunch of powers in Sections 91-93 as examples. Then a couple of decades later (before the beginning of the 20th century) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) decided that those sections listing the different powers were exhaustive lists and not just examples, effectively knocking the Federal government off as the Senior government. From that point forward the use of the disallowance power would have lead to a legal challenge for which the Federal government would have lost. The same is still true today. If we want to stop Doug Ford or someone like him in the future it will be done by the courts and the voters, not the Federal government.

A word on the stupidity of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding their "Sovereignty" laws. These laws violate the BNA Act so they are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. If these governments try to enforce their new laws the Federal government will take them to court and the provinces will lose. Of course, that is the point of all of this anyway. It is a tried and true tactic of provincial governments to create tension between them and the Federal government because it has been demonstrated in the past that doing so can garner votes. This is the usual kabuki play that we have been seeing between the Federal government and the Provincial governments for over a century. It should be treated as such.

The Emergencies Act Inquiry

Well the inquiry is unfolding as I expected.

As each witness testifies the talking heads, both the professionals and the amateurs, cherry pick the testimony that backs up their particular biases and many have already concluded the Inquiry's findings. Of course, we have only heard from some of the victims of the "Convoy" , the city government and law enforcement, who have been collectively engaged in a cover-your-ass operation since they took the stand. 

We still have some of the key players from the "Convoy" to come, who will have to testify under oath and we also have the Federal government representatives, including the PM and some Cabinet Ministers to testify. Then the Inquiry will have to sift through thousands of pages of documents.

In short, the inquiry is far from over. All of the testimony from witnesses has not been heard and none of the evidence has been considered by the Justice conducting the Inquiry and his team.

So coming to final conclusions at this time is pointless. The inquiry will have the final say in a few months.

Some observations:

1. The invocation of the Emergencies Act (EA) was not taken lightly by the government. They would have considered it for some time, including having government lawyers weighing in on the legality of doing so. If those lawyers would have stated that the government would have been on shaky legal ground by invoking it the government would not have gone down that road. All of that would have been documented and it has been entered into evidence.
2. Related to that the Justice running the Inquiry is only allowed to consider the evidence presented to him. Most of the evidence is going to come from the Federal government. The evidence from the Federal government will indicate a pretty compelling case for invoking the EA. The Inquiry will consider the evidence in its entirety. It will not cherry pick from it.
3. The Federal government handed over thousands of pages of documentation to all of the lawyers involved in the Inquiry, including those who would like to assert the government did not reach the threshold necessary in the Act to invoke it. If there was a "smoking gun" showing the government was not justified it would have been leaked by now. The same if true if those lawyers believed that the government held back documents.
4. So far they are only talking to witnesses and those involved in ending the occupation of downtown Ottawa. The Inquiry still needs to examine events that took place elsewhere in the country.
5. Having witnesses being cross-examined makes "cover-your-ass" operations very difficult. Any spin a witness puts on their actions or the actions of their organization is quickly revealed to be just that. I have not watched all of the testimony but I have seen some and more than a few witnesses have squirmed under that cross-examination. 
6. While I know that many would like the Inquiry to expose the Conservatives' role in the "Convoy" I do not believe it will and I have never believe it would. Unless witness testimony or something in the documents points to something which would compel the Inquiry to summon Conservative official to testify they will not testify.
7. If Doug Ford does not testify the Inquiry will only be able to consider the evidence from the Federal government in rendering its decision on whether the Federal government was justified in invoking the EA. See points number 1 and 2 to see what that would probably mean.

While I am not going to conclude that the Inquiry will find the invocation of the EA was justified I am going to say that I would be surprised if it did not. Also, I will not be surprised that the findings will contain all sorts of caveats and nuances because that is what judges do when they render legal decisions.

In the end there will probably be enough in the findings to allow all interested parties to cherry pick what they need to advance their particular agendas.

We Really Do Not Deserve Democracy Do We?

So the average voter turnout for the Ontario municipal elections was less than 30%. The turnout for the last Ontario provincial election was only around 40% and the last Federal election pulled less than 60% of eligible voters into the polling stations.

Pathetic!

In order for democracy to work the citizens of a democratic country have to minimally participate by voting. They should participate much more between elections but at least they should drag their asses to a polling station when they have an opportunity.

I know many believe that their votes does not mean anything. The powers that be have worked diligently over the last few decades to reinforce that perception but of course it is not true. 

I have mentioned in this space before that democracy is not the default form of government. Authoritarianism holds that distinction. The past 300 years have seen an impressive run for democracy in the West but it is showing signs of breaking down everywhere, some places faster than others.

Part of the reason why is ordinary citizens have given up on it while some who have embraced authoritarianism are hijacking the language of democracy to push their objectives. The trend could be reversed if citizens would reengage but that is not going to happen. Those who fear the power of voters have successfully convinced those same voters that they have no power.

If I live long enough it will be interesting to see these new authoritarian regimes butting up against the impacts of climate change in 20 years or so. I have also stated in this space that we could see revolutions, in the current democracies, before the middle of the century and it is realistic to assert that it will be triggered by the impacts of climate change and automation on peoples lives and livelihoods and the lack of the political relief valves that are a natural feature of democratic systems.

But I digress. What it comes down to is we have the ability to change our world because we live in democracies. The most basic way to make those changes is to vote when given the opportunity, which although it happens regularly it does not happen that frequently. Being involved in politics between elections would be even better but barring that people have to minimally participate in the process by voting.  If we are unwilling to do that then the fall of the democratic systems is the inevitable result and the people who decided not to participate will have no one to blame but themselves for it.

Brian Mulroney has still got it

He is still a master of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

On the one hand he states that the Conservative Party is heading in the right direction and then he advises them to move to the centre. If they were moving in the right direction would they not already be moving in that direction? Would he have needed to give that advice?

I have stated in this space a couple of times, in the past month, that moderate Conservatives have no real home in the CPC. They just do not. It has been taken over by Canadian Trumplicans and they have absolutely no interest in moderating their views to make moderate Conservatives feel comfortable with the direction the Party is headed. I have also stated that the only way for them to maybe change the direction of the CPC would be for the Party to be humiliated in the next election. That is the painful truth. To think otherwise is wishful thinking and a recipe for losing any chance of influencing the direction of the country for at least a generation.

You would hope that they would look past the next election but Brian Mulroney has demonstrated that they probably will not. They just cannot bring themselves to do it. As I stated before they dislike Justin Trudeau just as much as the Trumplicans in the CPC they just do not want to see him hanged for treason. For many moderate Conservatives it seems beating Mr. Trudeau is more important that actually having real influence in Canadian politics and society.

My Jewish father-in-law has a word to describe such people: schmucks.

Subtle Change in Climate Change Deniers

It is becoming harder and harder to deny climate change and its impacts. In less than a week two very destructive hurricanes have devastated Florida and Eastern Canada. Here is Ottawa a freak May thunderstorm left a third of the city without power, many for over a week. In Europe droughts have impacted crops and dried up rivers and the list goes on.

Recently I have seen a subtle change in the arguments of those who have been denying climate change. While they are not admitting climate change is a problem they are beginning to assert that if it is then we only need to develop the right technologies to adapt to it.

So the argument goes, stop investing in ways to prevent climate change, because it is probably not real, but let's develop new technologies to adapt to it just in case it is.

With such an argument they can demand that the Federal Carbon Price program be eliminated while money should be spent on carbon capture technology and other technologies.

It is a convenient argument and it will probably be the focus of the Conservatives' proposals to "fight" climate change going into the next election. So, I hope their opponents are ready with the arguments against it when it comes.

Because of course they are wrong. Technology is certainly part of the answer. However, it is a simple fact that technology alone will not save us. We have to reduce ghg emissions as well. They will go hand-in-hand and there is not getting around it.

Look at it this way. We are in a boat on the lake and it has developed a substantial and worsening leak. We have a bucket to bail, which is keeping us from sinking but the hole is steadily getting bigger. For the climate deniers their solution is to use the bigger bucket, problem solved. Sounds stupid when you put it that way because, of course, the only real way to solve the problem is to patch the hole and then bail out the water that is still in the boat. 

That is where we are with climate change. We are bailing our asses off and staying ahead of the game but we continue to pump way too much ghg into the atmosphere and eventually it will get to a point where it will overwhelm the balance in our atmosphere with untold negative outcomes for our civilization and maybe our species. If we hope to have any chance to preventing that we need to reduce ghg emissions and develop new technologies that will allow us to adapt to the change in the climate that we are already experiencing. If we choose only one we are probably done.

I welcome climate change deniers at least acknowledging that something needs to be done but they still have some way to go. Hopefully, they get there when we still have the time or the concern about the climate and our future hits critical mass early enough and makes their denial irrelevant.

I continue to be pessimistic that we will either that happen before a global climate catastrophe befalls our civilization.

Is Mr. Poilievre flirting with touching the political third rail?

Last week, during successive Question Periods, in The House, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada kept insisting that the payroll taxes used to fund Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plans should be reduced.

First, let's make one thing very clear. They are indeed taxes, more specifically payroll taxes, levied to fund specific government programs. Unlike other taxes, such as income taxes and the Goods and Services Tax, these payroll taxes do not go into the general revenue fund. They go into specially established pots of money to be used to fund EI and the CPP. As such, reducing these taxes would reduce the funds available for these programs. Eliminating them would have the defacto effect of eliminating both programs.

So, talking about reducing the taxes on either one can be construed by their political opponents as having a plan to significantly reduce or even eliminate these programs and make no mistake their opponents will be working hard to make those very connections when they believe it is to their political advantage.

Talking like that is stupid on several levels.

First, EI is used regularly by seasonal workers, who use that program to carry them through their off-seasons. They largely live in rural areas of Canada. Right now these very people seem to lean towards the Conservatives but that could change if they believe their livelihoods are threatened. This is particularly true in the rural areas of the Eastern provinces. It is likely that the margins of victory for Conservatives in rural Central and Western Canada would probably save them from losing many seats there but the same cannot be said about the Eastern provinces. Pissing off seasonal workers there will hand those seats to the Liberals. For the Conservatives to win they need to take at least net 20 seats from the Liberals while hoping that they do not pick up any seats from the Bloc or the NDP. That is a very daunting task and if they hand six to eight seats to the Liberals in the East it will be a near impossible task. But here they are making threatening statements about a program that many of their potential voters depend on. That does not seem smart.

With regard to the CPP that is even more of a danger area for them. It is a simple fact that every Canadian over the age of 45 is making retirement plans that assumes the CPP will be available to them. If it is not there those plans will be shot to hell. It is also a simple fact that the over 50 voter is still the most reliable voter amongst the electorate. If that demographic believes that the Conservatives are a credible threat to their retirement plans the Conservatives would be creamed in any election and I mean reduced to 2011 Liberal territory. Again it seems kind of stupid to take the risk of having their statements spun to their detriment.

As well, to make it worse, they said all of this in the House of Commons, where every word is recorded and published in the official record of the House, namely Hansard. So, their political opponents will be able to take those words and use them in the future to make life difficult for the Conservatives and they would be hard pressed to counter any of their opponents' claims because they are a matter of public record from a completely non-partisan source. They would be required to explain exactly what they meant and as the old saying goes: If you are explaining you are losing.

So why would the Conservatives take such a risk? My guess is they are not thinking past the end of the day. What I saw in QP last week was the Conservatives trying to "win" the daily theatre that is QP. It really does show a lack of forward thinking and long-term strategy. As Evan Scrimshaw rightly pointed out during the Conservative leadership campaign Pierre Poilievre never seemed to look past the current day. Every statement, action, social media post and meme was about winning that day, with no regard as to how it might impact him and the party in the future. The same seems to be happening now that he has secured the leadership.

It is a simple fact that Pierre Poilievre has said some really stupid and offensive things over the years and that it has all been recorded. The only saving grace for him is he can claim it was in the past. However, now he is adding to the hopper as the Leader of the Official Opposition and the erstwhile PM-in-waiting and he will not be able to claim it is not relevant once someone brings them up. And make no mistake they will be bringing them up between now and the next election and with the amount of time left until that election they will penetrate the consciousness of the average voter. 

If Pierre Poilievre really wants to be PM he has to change his mindset and start to think strategically. Unfortunately for him and the CPC I do not believe he actually knows how to do that and I also think that he has surrounded himself with advisors who are unable to do it either. As someone who never wants to see him as PM I am fine with that but if you are a Conservative supporter, who can live with some of the crap he has promised in the last 6 months, then you should be concerned.

As Expected Some are Writing the PM's Political Epitaph, Again

With the election of Pierre Poilievre many of the usual suspects in the Canadian media have asserted that PM Trudeau is finished. They confidently assert that he will lose the next election. And right on cue a couple of polls came out today seeming to "prove" their assertions. 

Of course, this is nothing new. These bozos have been saying  this since forever. Indeed it never seems to stop. It became ridiculous a long time ago.

As I have stated many times you have to ignore the polls and pundits to see how politics is going. My attitude towards the public polls is well known if you read this blog. As for the pundits there is a reason why they are providing their services to a media outlet and not a political party. They suck at political strategy and prognostication. Criminy, my amateur ass is better at it than they are. 

Then again that is no surprise. I attended Carleton U back in the day where I earned a Political Science degree. That is, I studied politics. The University has a journalism school and I met more than one journalism student in my classes. The thing is, they usually only took one or two of those classes as electives. Naturally, they spent most of their time learning how to be journalists and not observing and analyzing politics. I have noticed a few of these folks are now "Political Correspondents" for major news outlets and I always get a chuckle from their political "analyses".

At any rate, if the PM's and the Liberal Party's political fortunes are as bad as the polls and the pundits would have us believe we would see it. Governments have survival instincts as keen as any living creature. If they really feel threatened you can see it. Looking at the current government they are showing no signs of any political distress. Hell, I have watched political leaders who knew they were in trouble and although they put on a brave face you could tell they were troubled and we are not seeing that with the PM. In all likelihood, their internal data is indicating that they are still in good political shape. 

Make no mistake the current government is getting long in the tooth and the next election will be very tough for them. They could even lose it. However, that election is probably not going to happen for at least another year and possibly later. 

Eventually, Justin Trudeau's political career will come to an end. I would say after the next election regardless of the final outcome. Either he will lose and he will move on or he will win and decide not to fight a fifth election, leaving the PM's post a year or so after that election. Until then the pollsters and the pundits should stop asserting the PM will lose the next election until that election actually takes place. They are just making themselves look foolish.

No F*cks Given

Ok folks let's remember that no one becomes the leader of a G7 government without having very good to excellent political instincts. That person could have brilliant political operatives as assistants but if the leader does not have their own they will not succeed.

So when Mr. Trudeau decided to belt out a Queen song, while wearing a t-shirt, in the lobby of a public hotel he knew that it would come out and that in this day and age video of it would be made public. Further if he thought it would cause him political harm he would have not have done it.

He knew the usual suspects would bitch about it but they have been finding things to bitch about him since 2013 and some of them started when he eulogized his father way back when. These people do not and have never liked him because of his name, his politics and/or the fact he kicked the old Liberal guard to the curb when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party.

So when the time came he let himself be himself. 

Politics and the Gifts that Keep on Giving

Political gifts that keep on giving are those policies, laws, regulations, events or people that a political party can use to keep its base angry or motivated and/or they can use to continually bludgeon their political opponents. They are quite rare and they are a precious commodity.

Canadian examples are the old Long Gun Registry and Justin Trudeau. 

In the United States Donald Trump counts as one but the greatest gift that kept on giving was Roe v Wade. That particular decision was extremely useful to the Republicans for decades

Considering their usefulness political parties are very reluctant to change them, especially since doing so could have some unintended consequences.

You only need to look at the Long Gun Registry to see what happens when a political party surrenders such gifts. The Conservative Party of Canada bludgeoned the Liberals for years over that registry and the fact its implementation went way over budget. It kept their voters angry and motivated. However, when they won a majority government in 2011 they eliminated it. I realize they did not have much choice but when they did that they gave up a weapon they could use against the Liberals. So in 2015, when the Conservatives accused the Liberals of planning on bringing back the Gun Registry it was pathetic to watch. You could tell the party was really missing that particular gift. Then the Liberals won the election and instead of creating another Registry they just banned military style weapons. You see, the Gun Registry was a compromise to control the military style weapons without actually banning them. The message being you can keep your assault rifles but we want to know where they are. Of course, many gun owners believed the Registry was just a way to find all of the guns so that "the Liberals" could take them away and they fought against it and demanded a Conservative government eliminate it as soon as possible. So, the next time the Liberals decided to do something about assault weapons they just banned them, something they would not have done if the Gun Registry had still existed. So, by having the Gun Registry banned the outcome was the one most gun owners feared. Schmucks.

As for Roe v Wade, successive Republican presidents and politicians strung their supporters along for five decades. They railed against it but failed to actually do anything concrete about it. It never failed to fire up the base come election time. Then the Tea Party took over the Republican Party and they made the strategic mistake of actually nominating Presidential candidates that nominated judges who would overturn the decision. It finally happened and now they have provided the Democrats with a winning issue for the foreseeable future. You see, with Roe v Wade in place Republicans could not actually attempt or suggest a national ban on abortion. The law prevented it. With that decision overturned Trumplicans are going to demand such a national ban and that is trouble for the Republicans. You see, the reason why Republicans did nothing about Roe v Wade for so long is because abortion is not a winning issue for them. It is an issue to fire up the base but if they want to win the last thing they want to do is actually talk about a national ban. On the other hand the threat of a national ban is a boon for the Democrats. It is just such an issue that will motivate Democratic voters to vote. If you have been paying attention to the last four years you will have noted that during the 2018 midterms, the 2020 Presidential election and the 2020 special elections in Georgia, Democrats came out to vote in record numbers. In all cases they won. The math is simple. There are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. The Republicans know it, which is why they pursue laws and measures to suppress voting. Giving the Democrats an issue they can use to motivate their voters is a bad idea. And this is an issue that will just not go away. Say the Democrats win the House and Senate in November. They may pass a federal law protecting abortion, which would force the Republicans to promise to repeal such a law when they got the chance, providing the Democrats with the opportunity to use the threat of an abortion ban to motivate Democrats to vote 2024, 2026 and so on. In short, Republicans will be forced to propose a ban on abortions during every future election which for most strategically minded Republican is a nightmare.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and why he has not yet been indicted. It is simple really. In 2020 the fact he was President brought out Democrats to vote in unprecedented numbers. His reaction and actions after the 2020 election brought out Democrats in Georgia, allowing the Democrats to win control of the Senate. His presence and the stuff he has been saying and doing leading up to the 2022 mid-term elections are being used by Democrats to convince their voters that they need to vote in November, which when combined with the Dobbs decision could allow them to hang on to the House and gain full control of the Senate. In short, Donald Trump is now the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats and they may be very reluctant to give him up by seeing him indicted. If his only alleged crime was he incited the January 6th insurrection they probably would not bother to indict him. The investigation would probably just drag on until after 2024. However, if there is evidence he kept nuclear secrets in his private home, after he left office, then authorities will have to act sooner but do not be surprised if they wait until after the mid-term elections are history.

Well Moderate Conservatives, what are you going to do now?

The results of the leadership vote for the Conservative Party of Canada should prove to you that you no longer have a home there. The guy that represented you did not even receive 20% of the votes and lost to the winner by around 40 points. Throughout the election campaign the winner kept stating that your guy was not even a Conservative, he said he was a Liberal. If you want further proof you only need to look to the reaction to the moderate conservative member from Quebec who quit the CPC caucus to sit as an independent. He has reported that he has received a ton of hate mail from Conservatives since his decision and non other that Ezra Levant has stated that he is not really a Conservative anyway so it is no loss.

So, I believe you have four choices.

One: Grit your teeth and keep voting for the CPC because we all know that to do otherwise is anathema to you and besides you do not like Justin Trudeau any more than Pierre Poilievre and his ilk. You just don't want him hanged for treason. Doing that of course could result in considerable hardship for countless Canadians, including yourself, because the CPC really has no interest in governing. They only want to tear down what has taken generations to build, pray at the alter of oil and gas, an industry in the twilight of its existence, allowing the opportunities presented by green tech and the the huge economic benefits of it to be taken advantage of elsewhere and implement their regressive social conservative agenda. You may believe that you can moderate the CPC from the inside but this weekend should put paid to that notion. If you vote for the CPC in the next election and they win any chance of you influencing that party in the future will be gone FOREVER.

Two: Form a moderate conservative political party. If you choose to do that good luck. You would probably be a thorn in the side of the CPC but like the PPC such a party would probably never be more than a nuisance to the CPC and it would also eliminate any chance of you influencing the CPC in the future.

Three: Grit your teeth even harder and vote for the Liberals. I know that such a notion probably gives you the heebee jeebees. Vote Liberal, NEVER!! However, maybe what you should do it stop thinking with your dick and start thinking strategically. As I have stated before if you really want to have a shot at taking back the CPC, the current party establishment has to be discredited and losing big to Justin Trudeau would do the trick. The humiliation of the Liberals in 2011 was a blessing in disguise because it allowed Justin Trudeau to come in, toss the party establishment into the dustbin of history and renew and refresh the party for the 21st Century. The humiliation of the CPC in the next election could have the same effect. Perhaps thinking past the next election is in order.

Fourth: Don't vote at all in the next election. I would advise against that because I would never suggest anybody not vote, even if they plan on voting for a party I would not like to see in power. However, this could have a similar effect to voting for the Liberals. One of the reasons why the Liberals were humiliated in 2011 was voter turnout for them was way down from the previous two elections. Or to put it another way, Liberals just decided not to vote. 

Whatever you decide, just remember that if you actually want to influence the direction Canada takes in the future you are going to have to find a political home and doing so will involve some tough choices and sacrifice. If you are unwilling to do that then you will be without political representation and influence for at least generation. 

Your move.

The Conservative Leadership Election

After yet one more Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, which had a few relatively minor oddities (the sudden disqualification of one of the candidates, representatives of one of the candidates handling thousands of ballots before they were counted) Pierre Poilievre won the post, surprising no one.

So what does it all mean? Who knows.

However, things are going to progress in a predictable fashion. He will try to begin the process of presenting himself as non-threatening and the media will let him because they are Conservative supporters themselves or they are afraid of being accused of bias by asking tough questions. Of course that is their main function in a democracy so if they are not willing to do that I again ask the question: "Is the concept of a free press still valid?" But I digress.

However, once the "honeymoon" is over he will find himself in the unenviable position of being the Leader of the Official Opposition and he will be there for a number of years before facing the voters. His overwhelming win is going to create high expectations for him going forward and one of those expectations will be to try to put the Liberal government off of its game. I don't know if anybody has noticed but that has not happened since they won power. If he is also unsuccessful he will have the same problems as his two predecessors. As well, Mr. Poilievre has said some things in the past and he will probably say some things in the future that could come back to haunt him. A compliant media will do what they can to shield him but his new found prominence will cause the more outrageous things he said to come out and people will pay attention. He is no longer a back bencher. He is the big cheese now so he will be scrutinized much more closely, despite the best efforts of his media friends. This is particularly true if the election really does not take place until 2025. Three years is a long time to hide some of the stupidly dangerous, offensive, and racist things he has said during an 18 year political career and it is sufficient time for it all to sink in.

Then there is the matter of leadership. Can he actually lead the Conservative Party of Canada, a Party with many factions, all of which will not water down their wine for the cause? That is the problem with leading a party of ideologues. They are all completely committed to their particular cause and if the Leader does not do his utmost to achieve their objectives then they will turn on him, even if that will deny the party power. You see ideologues believe that if the leader does not pursue their goals with single minded purpose they will be able to find someone who will and still be able to win a general election. If you do not believe me then I would point you to Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Scheer. The solution that his predecessors followed was to pander. It satisfied no one and lead to their ultimate political demise.

Ideally, he would use this time to renew and rejuvenate the CPC but that is not what he was elected to do. His job is to lead the Party created by Stephen Harper into the next election. To do otherwise is strictly forbidden. So he will follow the same strategy of Mr. Harper and his two successors. Throw red meat at the base to keep them angry and motivated and pivot to moderation when the time is right to shake loose enough voters outside of the base to eke out a victory. That strategy worked three out of the four times Stephen Harper did it but is was a dismal failure in 2019 and 2021. The Conservatives are hoping that Mr. Poilievre will be able to strike gold again using it during the next election.

Now of course the next election will be the fourth one for the Liberal government and the PM and the inevitable voter fatigue with a sitting government will be a factor in that election. However, things will be a little different from the last time the CPC replaced a Liberal government. Justin Trudeau is not Paul Martin, Maxime Bernier is stalking the CPC on the right, the stunning and decisive rejection of Jean Charest has demonstrated that there are very few moderate conservatives left in the CPC, and social media has completely blown up the ability of political leaders to control the message. Between now and the next election it is inevitable that he will have to deal with bozo eruptions from his caucus and prominent Conservatives. All of this will create drag on his efforts to replace the Liberal government.

Is it Time for the Federal Government be More Hands on with Healthcare?

It took awhile but the media has finally woken up to the fact that health care services in most of Canada have not been up to standard this summer. The media tried to ignore it for quite some time, instead talking about delays at Pearson Airport, Justin Trudeau's new hair cut and other banalities.

However, despite it going on for some time they could just not ignore the state of health care services any longer. As a result, health care has become the most pressing issue for Canadians, if you are to believe the latest public polls. 

The reason for the state of health care is the neglect of the system by Conservative provincial governments in this country of course. They all want to introduce some form of privatization into the system and they believe the best way to do that is to starve the public system so that people will accept more privatization as the solution. I do not believe that will actually work as they believe but they will still try.

One of the issues that has lead to this situation is the fact that provincial governments have taken funds from the Federal government, that were supposed to be used for health care, and used them for something else. It is probably not unreasonable to assume some of the $4 billion the Federal government transferred to the Ontario government paid for the licence sticker rebates before the last provincial election. Ontario was not unique but that has not stopped all of the provinces from crying poor and demanding more Federal funding to not spend on health care.

The Federal government is rightfully hesitant to throw more money at the provinces knowing full well that the money will be misappropriated. However that does not mean the Federal government cannot increase health transfers, they just need to skip over the provincial governments and transfer funds directly to health care providers.

In the next few months the Federal government should announce programs to do just that. The funding should be made available through Grants and Contributions programs, which are the most common way to provide funding to individual Canadians and organizations.

Such an approach would create a great deal of pushback from the Provincial governments but if the Federal programs are designed properly they would not have a leg to stand on. The administration of health care is the responsibility of the Provincial governments but that does not mean the Federal government cannot get involved in providing direct funding and assistance to health care providers. The programs would have to be designed so that they do not interfere with the Provinces' abilities to administer health care but it is doable.

Such as approach would also help the Liberals politically. Yes, the Provincial governments would have conniption fits but that is to be expected and it would have the same impacts on our politics as past Federal/Provincial disputes, namely none. With health care and its problems on everybody's minds proposing such programs would be widely appreciated by the electorate. The general sentiment would probably be "Finally, the Federal government is taking action to "save" our health care system". Such a proposal would put the Conservatives into a real bind. Their default position is to reject any proposal from the Liberals and to promise to cancel any program created by them. Having such a position with regard to programs designed to sustain and enhance the public health care system would turn off the very voters they would need to win an election. Even the Bloc would have a hard time opposing this for the same reason.

As for the NDP, I mentioned in my last post that the Liberals should move to vacuum up some of the centre-right voters, who currently do not have a political home, by proposing some policies that would appeal to them. Such a strategy could endanger the agreement the Liberals have with the NDP on money and supply motions in the House but the NDP would be hard pressed to reject them if it meant rejecting health care programs. They would do it if they believed the Liberals were in political trouble, we have seen that in the past, but if the Liberals are still in good political shape then they would not be able to bring down the government.

For decades Conservative provincial governments have been introducing privatization into our public health care system with impunity because they have been subtle about it. They have been nibbling around the edges. The pandemic has exposed the flaws these actions have created in the health care system, along with others that existed as part of the system to begin with, and it would appear that all of the Provincial governments have decided to be less subtle. Many Canadians are very worried about our health care systems, including Canadians who generally support conservative parties, so the situation is ripe for an intervention by the Federal government. If done right it could stabilize the system, wrong foot Conservatives across the country and help the Federal Liberals politically for the next few years.

The Centre-Right is there for the taking

Federal politics is in an interesting position in Canada right now. For the first time in all of the time I have been observing Canadian politics (almost 40 years) the centre-right is unoccupied by any of the Federal political parties.

The NDP would never move that far right. The current Liberal government has been the most progressive government since the government of Pierre Trudeau, meaning it has firmly planted itself in the centre-left, with some incursions into the centre proper. The Conservative Party of Canada, the Party you would expect to occupy the centre-right, has abandoned it and has moved far to the right, moving into populist, Trump, MAGA territory.

The Conservatives have a chance to move back to the centre as they are in the middle of a campaign to elect a new leader but the presumptive front-runner does not seem interested in that, one of the candidates that seemed to realize the opportunity was summarily disqualified from the contest and the other who seemed to realize the opportunity is a political has-been who probably has no chance of winning. There are still a number of weeks until the CPC announces the winner of that contest but it does not look like they will be electing a "moderate" conservative as their leader.

So, what are the Liberals to do?

I know that their instincts are to be progressive, to stay the current course. They have broken the old trick of campaigning from the left but governing from the right since 2015. However, they are a seven year old government, and counting, and they will be seeking a fourth mandate during the next election. The next election will be toughest one of all and they need to find a way to grow their support if they hope to win that fourth mandate. The Conservatives have given them an opening to do just that. 

Make no mistake there are many centre-right voters who would not vote Liberal no matter what. However, there are those who have voted Liberal in the past and would vote Liberal again if the party could find a way to appeal to them.

Most centre-right voters care about the economy and government spending and they are turned off by any kind of focus on social issues. With the economy seeming to be heading towards post-pandemic "normalcy" the government has the opportunity to address the economic and fiscal issues. Inflation appears to have peaked without the Bank of Canada raising interest rates too much. We will have to see but 2022 could just be the year of transition from the pandemic economy to a "normal" economy in 2023 and beyond. As well, as a result of this the government will be able to wind down the remaining pandemic relief programs, leading to less government spending and lower deficits. There are already signs that is happening with the government reporting a $10 billion surplus in the first quarter of this fiscal year. That will disappear in subsequent quarters but the surplus is something that can be used as a starting point for the economic update that will be delivered this fall and that can be expanded upon in the spring budget.

As for the social issues. The CPC is doing a good job of turning off centre-right voters by making them front and centre in their leadership election campaign.

Of course such an approach may alienate the NDP, which currently has a deal with the Liberals to support them in the minority Parliament but there is a way to deal with that, which I will write about in my next post.

For now, there are enough reasonable centre-right voters in this country, who are appalled by the direction that the CPC are heading and who would be looking for a political home during the next election. If the Liberals could capture their votes it could mean a rather convincing election victory for them.

You know what is really scary?

As I write this many of the historic and storied rivers in Europe are drying up. The Rhine, the Danube, the Loire and others are all reporting historically low water levels. I have a colleague who had to cancel her river cruise on the Danube in 2020 because of this thing call COVID-19. You may remember it. It was the talk of the town for a little while. She finally rescheduled for this Fall but now it might be canceled again or at least greatly reduced in duration and sites to see because of the low water levels of that river.

As I mentioned in my previous post one of the myths of climate change is the impacts would be felt in the lower latitudes first, because they are already the warmest latitudes in the world. Since most of the Third World is located in the Equatorial Region there were grand predictions of mass migrations from that region to the North and South temperate zones because it was believed that their climates would change for the better, increasing the size of the temperate zones as it warmed at the higher latitudes.

They were wrong. Less than a decade ago the average temperatures in the North began to increase dramatically, reducing sea ice in the Arctic to nearly zero, and causing the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica to melt at a prodigious rate, threatening the world with rising sea levels and changing ocean currents.

Now the impacts of climate change are being increasingly felt in the "temperate" latitudes. Prolonged droughts in the most agriculturally productive land on the planet are occurring everywhere. California, the great plains, the farm lands of Europe, the rice fields of Asia are all showing the impacts of these droughts and there appears to be no end in sight. We are already seeing the impacts of that with higher food prices, which were already increasing before the war in Ukraine and the latest round of punishing weather in the Northern Hemisphere.

So what is going to happen in the next decade or so? It was believed the impacts of climate change would start at the Equator and head towards the polls. Instead, it would appear they started at the polls and are moving towards the Equator. So it is very possible that the impacts predicted for the Equatorial Region are still going to happen, making an already very hot place even hotter, which could very well trigger the mass migrations that were predicted. Of course, those mass migrations are going to be people moving to the so called temperate zones, which will have been living with the impacts of climate change for almost two decades at that point.

That is the scary part. We may not be wrong in predicting the the Equatorial Region will become almost uninhabitable we we may only be wrong about the timing and about the fact that the so called temperate zones of the planet would be a suitable refuge for them.

The climate is a fickle thing so it could change again and the original predictions could come true. However, it is a little disconcerting to realize that it might not happen and we are heading for world that is much warmer and dryer everywhere. That is a recipe for disaster.

One Climate Change Myth Debunked

A persistent myth around global warming and climate change is that the earth and climate would warm and change for the worst at the lowest latitudes, such as around the equator, while more temperate and colder latitudes would become warmer, making countries such as Canada warmer and more livable.

The past few summers should make people rethink such myths. It has been remarkable that the places that have been feeling the greatest impacts of climate change have been temperate countries. Record heat waves in Europe and persistent decade long droughts in what was once prime agricultural regions of all of the continents is showing that our real time experiment with our climate is not working out as expected. Add to that the fact the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet and we can probably draw an initial conclusion that the original myths around climate change has been busted.

They got nothing

What can the Liberals talk about this week.

• Carbon Pricing rebate cheques are hitting bank accounts. 
• The economy is humming along nicely
• Unemployment has hit an historical low
• Gas prices are coming down, which should indicate we might have hit peak post-COVID inflation.

What are the Conservatives talking about:

• Justin Trudeau's hair.

Absolutely pathetic.

COVID Just is not Scary

I was recently surprised. I personally know three people who are against taking the COVID-19 vaccine and against vaccine mandates.

The first guy did not surprise me. He hates Justin Trudeau so it was inevitable that having his government urge Canadians to take the vaccine would elicit a desire to defy such advice. This guy might catch the virus and kill himself, his wife and/or his two teenaged daughters but in his mind he is owning Justin Trudeau and the Liberals so it is worth it.

The second person surprised me a bit but then again I do not know him well. We met a few times before the pandemic hit and he seemed reasonable. It turns out I am wrong. He has bought into the QAnon conspiracy about the vaccines completely. I guess he is just smarter than the rest of us, or at least he believe he is.

The third person surprised me completely. I have known this person for over 20 years. They are educated, intelligent and well traveled. If anybody would have told me at the beginning of the pandemic that this person would be against the vaccine I would have said "No way". However, this person truly believes that the risk of death from the vaccine is higher than the risk of death from contracting COVID. They are wrong of course and all of the data demonstrates that but there is no reasoning with this person.

This has lead me to question the reason why there has been resistance to vaccines and for those who resist hold a very ardent position against them. There really is no reasoning with them.

Part of it is politics but except for the first person I mentioned none of these three are overly political. And even with the first person his politics only extends to hating Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. There is nothing else to his politics.

One guess is the nature of the COVID virus is a big part of the reason why so many people are against taking the vaccine. It really is not that scary. Although the virus is easily contracted only 10% of people who contract it become seriously ill, meaning they need hospitalization, and only 3% of people die from it. That is extremely low for a virus. It is significantly higher for influenza and all of us are familiar with it so COVID is not that big of a concern. In short, may antivaxxers firmly believe that if they contract the virus they will be fine. 

I would imagine things would be different if COVID was scarier. Imagine if it had been discovered early on that men, who contracted the virus and even showed mild systems, had a 50/50 chance of suffering permanent and irreversible erectile dysfunction. I am certain that would have profoundly changed the dynamic of the last two years. Men may risk death but they will not risk Willy.

Then again, if the virus would have been a little more dangerous things would also be different. Say the virus makes 50% of the people who contract it seriously ill and it kills 10%. Further all of those who survive the virus are hideously scarred and at least half of those are also crippled and/or blinded. Of course, I just described Small Pox, which was eradicated because everybody was REQUIRED to receive a Small Pox vaccine without exception. At the time no one protested because Small Pox was and is a very scary virus.

That does not describe COVID so the antivaxxers can avoid receiving the vaccine and they have a high probability that they will not suffer serious consequences for their stupidity. Not as high as those of us who are fully vaccinated but still worth the risk in their minds. 

Of course, viruses mutate. COVID could mutate itself out of existence or it could mutate itself into something much more dangerous and the longer this pandemic goes on the greater the odds of either outcome. It could go either way but just imagine a virus with the illness and death rates of Small Pox and the ease of transmission of COVID. A truly scary prospect and if it comes to pass those antivaxxers will probably change their tune but it would be much too late for many of them.

The Collapse of Bitcoin Does not Make it a Ponzi Scheme

First of all I do not own any Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency and I have never owned any. So, I have no personal stake in them. I do however strive to find the truth in any situation and what I have been hearing about cryptocurrencies, from people who should know better, has left me scratching my head.

As I stated in a previous post, cryptocurrencies are a commodity, created out of the virtual world that has grown out of our increasingly integrated civilization. An integration that has been facilitated by information technology and the growing quantity of data being produced by us on a daily basis. 

Like all commodities it is going through a down period, a so called Bear market. That is not unique to cryptocurrencies and it is not a surprise. The reaction to it on the other hand is something of a surprise. In 2008 the price of oil hit the $180/barrel mark and stayed above $150/barrel for quite some time. It became conventional wisdom that it would stay there for over a decade it not longer. Instead, it collapsed to below $100/ barrel just before COVID-19 hit us in 2020, which promptly caused it to collapse to less than $50/barrel. At the time, you may recall, there were tankers full of the stuff that could not be unloaded because no one wanted it. At no time during that period did anybody state that the oil commodities market was a scam, as a result of the price collapse. There are those who believe it is a scam for other reasons but that is another story.

Yes, cryptocurrencies are not something you can touch, smell and feel, like oil, but neither is data. Like data, cryptocurrencies have an intangible quality to them but that does not take away from the reality of their existence. Remember, cryptocurrency is to data, what oil is to physical material. 

So, cryptocurrency and the commodity markets that go along with it will remain. As with other commodities markets a sharp downturn into Bear market territory will clear out of the casual and amateur traders, leaving it to the professionals. Many of them will see the decrease in prices as an opportunity to buy so that they can reap the profits when the market goes up again, which always happens in commodity markets.

Crypto is not a scam, a scheme or a con. It is a virtual commodity traded on a commodity market. Like all other commodities markets the crypto market is subject to Bull and Bear markets and when they happen it is just the normal course of business. 

Manipulate and Distract

One constant activity of our ruling class is their efforts to manipulate and/or distract those that they rule. It is constant and it is necessary because they have been screwing it up so badly for the last 30 or so years that ordinary people are noticing. Ruling classes screw things up for those they rule all of the time. It is the state of nature but usually they do not screw it up so badly those they screw notice. That is no longer the case hence the more determined efforts to manipulate and/or distract.

This line of thought was created by the kerfuffle that rose up a few days ago when it was revealed that a Global Affairs official had attended a garden party at the Russian Embassy. There is a perfectly valid reason why they would do that and we will get to that in a minute.

However, the reason why it became an issue has nothing to do with Russia or its war with Ukraine. If you seriously believe our ruling class really cares about either of these issues then you are lacking in critical thinking skills, aka, you are an idiot. The professionals at Global Affairs Canada care but that is because it is their job.

The real reason why this became an issue is because one of the major factions of our ruling class is going through a really tough time right now.

The hearings in Washington are laying bare just how far reaching the sedition went on January 6, 2021 and some of that is spilling over into Canada where we had our own January 6 moment, which dominated the news for three weeks in February of this year. I am not convinced the public inquiry into invoking the Emergencies Act will be as harmful to the Conservative Party of Canada as many progressives hope but the possibility is certainly there and they are acting like they know that fact.

The erstwhile front runner for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada is proving himself, almost on a daily basis, to be wholly unqualified for the position of being the leader of a political party, let alone the leader of a government, yet it looks like no one can catch him which may make winning the next election very difficult for the Conservatives.

Despite their best efforts, with the full throated support of the media, the Conservatives have been completely ineffective in even making Justin Trudeau sweat, let alone actually threatening his government. The Liberal government gets longer in the tooth daily but it is the Conservatives who are becoming unhinged these days.

Hence the distraction of a garden party. THE HORROR. 

Of course, it might not matter in the long-run and the Conservatives could still come out on top because ordinary people have proven that they are easily manipulated by the ruling class again, and again and again but it must still be disconcerting to see just how ineffective they have been in the last few months.

As for the garden party. The issue that the world has is with the Putin government not Russia or its people. Eventually the Putin era will come to an end, either because someone will remove him or mother nature will demand he be "returned to the soil" as all of us are expected to do at some point. Once that happens things will probably change. Russia has a history of leaders who turn away from the West only to be replaced by a successor who turns back to the West. Mr. Putin is just another in a long line of Russian leaders who have maintained this historical pattern. When that change happens, relations with the Government of Russia could change as well. Having one of the professionals from Global Affairs attending the garden party is designed to keep the lines of communications open for when the change takes place. It was completely justifiable and appropriate.

No, Campaigns Really Don't Matter

Neither does the political news that bombards us on a daily basis or social media.

I called the 2022 Ontario election in 2018. I knew then that Doug Ford would win, probably winning another majority. I was correct although I was mistaken about which party would become the Official Opposition.

The simple fact is all of the political minutiae that we are hammered with by the MSM and social media only registers with those of us who are politically inclined. For the rest nada. So, all of the stuff progressives have been talking about with regard to Doug Ford was just wind in a progressive echo chamber. The same is true with regard to the BS we have been hearing from conservatives regarding Justin Trudeau and his government. The vast majority of people who do not live and breath politics on a daily basis do not care.

Ordinary, non-political, people sleepwalk through political life. They do not pay attention during elections so it is a given they do not pay attention between them. That is one reason why I always chuckle when some political commentator states "Voters are not paying attention to the election yet" early in a campaign. I got news for you. They only paid attention for the few minutes it took them to get to the polling station and vote, if they even bothered to do that. The rest of the time it was all just noise to be ignored.

Some are blaming the media for this but this has been true for a very long time, including a time when the MSM actually did the job it was designed for. So, although it would make some feel better, the MSM cannot be blamed for this, which still does not excuse the modern MSM for their utter uselessness at informing their audiences of what is really going on in the world.

So what we are left with are historical voting patterns, something I have talked about at length in this blog. I wondered if a global pandemic would disrupt that pattern for just one election but considering two world wars failed to do so it should surprise no one that the pattern held this time.

Ordinary people, in all of the legacy democracies, have been sleepwalking through history, ignoring the old adage that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is one reason why I tend to be pessimistic about the future.

It is also something I recognized way back in 2006 when I started this blog, which is why I chose the quote from Plato that appears at the top of it.

American's Descent to 2nd World Status Continues

We know this because the so called richest country on the planet has a nationwide baby formula shortage. And it is not just a small shortage it is the kind of shortage where the USAF has to go to foreign countries and load pallets of the stuff on USAF transports. Remarkable.

Remember 2nd World countries are not necessarily poor countries. They are countries that can be quite wealthy but that wealth is so concentrated in the hands of a small and powerful elite that ordinary people actually live in poverty comparable to 3rd World countries. A country that finds it difficult to adequately feed their infants falls into that category.

One other aspect of 2nd World countries is they tend to be authoritarian. The US has not gone all the way there yet but it is certainly moving in that direction.

For now, Americans can still claim they live in a 1st World country but that is changing and recent events would seem to indicate that change is accelerating. 

The Ontario Election: What Party will Win?

My guess, at this time, is the Ontario Conservatives of Doug Ford will win the election on June 2. The only question is whether it will be a majority government or a minority government.

If were still not living through a global pandemic, that has disrupted out lives for the past two years, I would say the Conservatives were a lock to win another majority. It would be a smaller majority and the Liberals would leap into second place, but it would still be a majority. The reason is historical voting patterns. It is very rare for a first term majority government to not be returned with a second, smaller majority, and it is almost unheard of for a first term majority government to lose their second election.

Of course, most of that history did not occur with a global pandemic as a backdrop. The pandemic has changed politics in this country but it is a question of by how much. Did it change it enough to overcome a century old voting pattern? We will see.

Homo Sapiens are just not that bright

Although there are obvious exceptions, as a species we humans are very stupid. I would point out that the distribution of intelligence amongst humans looks like a bell curve so half of the people fall below the median intelligence. I would also point out that the median is really not that high either, so even those whose intelligence is above it are not overly intelligent either.

This thought was triggered by the recent election in France. France and indeed all of Europe was convulsed by a war that cost 10s of millions of lives and virtually destroyed all of the physical infrastructure of the continent because of fascism in it many forms. France itself had half of its territory brutally occupied by a foreign country while the other half was ruled by a puppet regime that was only allowed to exist because they had the same ideology as the occupying power and it took orders from that power. Millions of French citizens risked summary execution by resisting the occupation and the puppet.

So you would think after all of that they would run away from any political party that had even a hint of fascist tendencies. Nope. The last election in France had an openly fascist political party come in second during the general election and it was competitive during the runoff. 

I would understand that if all of the negative outcomes happened hundreds of years ago. The French might forget about most of them but that is not the case. Yes, the generation that had to live through it are mostly gone but it was recent enough that the generations that came after should have a clear idea of what fascism did to their country. I believe they do but they do not care because....

I do not know how to finish that sentence except to say "that they are not that bright". And they are not unique in this. It has become more and more apparent that this is a problem of the species and not just a given group or collective of it. 

Considering the existential threats that we will be facing in the next few decades I have to say that I am more and more inclined to believe this will be our fate instead of the alternative.

Cryptocurrencies

With Pierre Poilievre hocking cryptocurrencies as part of his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada people have increasingly been trashing them. They have largely described them as some kind of scam and they are mistaken.

Cryptocurrencies are a logical extension of the the current technical revolution that we are going through. Remember before the Industrial Revolution and the resulting need for more and more energy to make it work petroleum was a useless substance. Hell, even coal, which has been used since antiquity, was not that big of a deal. For centuries, the only coal that was mined was the stuff that was near the surface. If you had to put in any more effort than that to get to it the cost was too prohibitive. It was only after the invention of the steam engine that coal and petroleum products became the important commodities that they have become.

Since the current technical revolution is essentially a virtual revolution, as its main commodity is data, it stands to reason that some of the commodities that would feed that revolution would also be virtual and cryptocurrencies are exactly that, a virtual commodity.

A market for commodities always develop when they become important and one forming for cryptocurrencies should surprise no one. As with all commodity markets the prices fluctuate according to market forces, leading to volatility. 

Incidentally, it should be noted that most national currencies have become virtual as well. There was a time when we used to exchange actual specie, bills and coins, for goods and services. Now we use bank cards. With a few key strokes some electrons move between computers and servers and money magically moves from one account to another but no real money is actually exchanged. It is a virtual transaction. So the difference between say Bitcoin and the Canadian Dollar is much less than people think and those differences are being reduced quickly.

So the problem with Mr. Poilievre's proposal is not cryptocurrencies it is his gross misunderstanding of them.

Although there are a few exceptions most commodities are not suitable to be used for facilitating the exchange of goods and services, which is the function of money. No one would suggest that I buy my next car using wheat, coal, or pork bellies. There was a time when gold or silver might have been appropriate but those times ended when we invented paper money.

The same is true of cryptocurrencies. Since they are a currency they can be likened to gold and silver but like those two commodities they are not practical for the everyday use of buying and selling goods and services and it will remain that way as long as there are national currencies. If countries ever get out of the business of "printing" their own currency, cryptocurrencies could fill the gap. But since that is not going to happen cryptocurrencies will just remain another commodity, to be bought and sold in a commodities market.

Mr. Poilievre is an idiot for suggesting otherwise but the problem lies with him not the cryptocurrencies.

Big Crowds for the Conservative Front Runner

So the media in our country is all a flutter about the crowds that Pierre Poilievre is attracting during this run for the Conservative leadership. They breathlessly assert that this could be a sign that the Conservatives could win the next election. Hell, even some Progressive media commentators, who I find usually have level heads, are giving dire warnings about their significance.

While it is always wise never to underestimate your political opponents and it is also true that if the current Federal government lasts until 2025 (it probably won't) the Liberals will have been in power for a decade, which could lead to a strong desire for change, one should not read too much of what happens during a party leadership campaign into politics in general.

Then there are the specific arguments that we have been seeing that shows that the political class, which includes all of these "journalists" never look more than a few days out.

Mr. Poilievre is indeed drawing big crowds but he is doing it in the West, specifically BC, which always splits its votes three ways in a general election. So one-third of the BC electorate will vote for the Conservatives regardless of who leads them so it should surprise no one that large crowds come out to see him. As well, it should also be noted that many of these people who do come to see him are being bussed in from various parts of the province which would indicate that he does have support in the province but not more than his two predecessors. Finally, it will be interesting if he can attract similar crowds in the East, particularly in the suburbs. 

Then there is the notion of whether having huge support of members of the Conservative Party can be translated into sufficient support amongst the electorate to win an election. More than a few commentators, who do not work for the MSM, have stated that such a feat would be an uphill climb. The simple fact is being successful at winning the leadership of a political party often does not translate into winning a general election. Just ask Erin O'Toole, Andrew Scheer, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion and every leader of the NDP during its history about that. I am certain they would have some really good insight on that topic.

Some of the commentators who are stating that Mr. Poilievre could be a real threat are pointing to the red hot housing market and the fact that young people cannot afford homes anymore so that could be a real problem. Such assertions are silly on so many levels.

First, the younger generations are the most educated generations in our history. They are also the most forward looking and progressive generations. It is no coincidence that those who support right wing populism tend to be older and less educated, while more educated voters tend not to vote for them. So while they may be upset about housing prices they are also very keen on addressing climate change, before they and their children are really left holding the bag in a couple of decades. As well, most of them will not go for rolling back gay and abortion rights as many in the CPC would want. So, Mr. Poilievre's housing plans, such as they are, may appeal to the younger generations but his lack of a viable and effective plan to fight climate change and his party's turn towards hard social conservatism will turn them off completely.

Second, old people vote and young people do not. There are more young voters than old but the last three elections were decided by the 50+ voting blocks. And they are quite happy with the rise in housing prices because most of them are mortgage free, so the rise in their housing prices is pure equity for them to take advantage of as they head towards retirement.

Third, during the 2019 election I made the joke that Royal Lepage was going to win my riding because of all their signs on the front lawns in my neighbouhood. In short, three short years ago it was a buyers market and the current torrid pace in the rise of the price of houses is unsustainable in the medium to long-term. If anybody believes that housing prices will still be a hot issue during the next election they are probably wrong.

Fourth, predicting what will be the important issues during an election, months or years before said election, is impossible and anybody who says differently is full of crap. Remember folks the important issues of the 2019 election were Mr. Scheer's citizenship and whether he was completely truthful in stating he had a real estate licence and blackface. And in 2021 the big issues were the Conservatives' plans for gun control and whether protesters threw rocks or pebbles at the PM. In neither case no one predicted that those would be the issues the elections hinged on and in neither case were real issues discussed during the election so anybody who states that the next election will be about inflation or the price of houses is wrong. 

Pierre Poilievre is probably going to be the next leader of the CPC. He may be able to parley that success into an election win but that is not guaranteed regardless of the crowds he is currently attracting. People who assert or suggest otherwise are out to lunch.

Some Thoughts

The War in Ukraine: I would caution everybody not to believe what the media is saying about what is happening in the war. It is probably true that the war is not going exactly how the Russians believed it would but it is also probably true that Ukraine is not winning. I guess the big question is whether the Russians can sustain their effort for the medium to long-term. I do not believe so. Let's remember that the Russian economy, before the sanctions, was about the size of the Italian economy. The Italian economy could not sustain a prolonged war so the Russian economy will not be able to either. It is interesting, if Russia did not have nuclear weapons they would be as relevant in international affairs as Italy, probably less because at least Italy is a G7 country. 

In the meantime, NATO should stay the course and avoid a direct confrontation with Russia

The Liberal/NDP Agreement: Let's not call it a coalition. Mr. Singh was not named Deputy PM and no other NDP MP has been named to cabinet. This is exactly what they say it is, an agreement to vote for confidence motions, budgets and other money bills, until 2025. However, make no mistake, if the Liberals run into some prolonged political trouble between now and then the NDP will break the deal. 

The deal does have the potential to allow the government to make some serious headway in accomplishing its objectives. The same could be said for the NDP but that was going to happen anyway. The only real big difference between the two election platforms last year was the timing of accomplishing objectives. 

We will have to want and see if this deal actually has legs.

The Conservative Leadership Race: The entrance of Mr. Charest was an interesting development. He has no chance of winning of course because the Conservatives have gone full on Trump. However, he could have provided Conservative members a true alternative to Trumpism. To put it another way he could be running a campaign completely different from his opponents and showing all voters, not just Conservatives, that there are reasonable alternatives to the Liberals. Instead, he decided to run the typical Conservative leadership campaign; no real substance, half baked policy ideas and "Trudeau bad".

It should be noted however that the campaign has proven one thing. There is no longer a centre-right alternative available to Canadians at the federal ballot box. The Liberals occupy the centre-left, with a heavy lean to the left, the NDP occupy the left and far left and the Conservatives and PPC are vying for the far right. If Conservatives were smart they would be looking for a leader to take advantage of the fact no party now represents the centre-right. A party that could take advantage of that fact, siphon off some disaffected Liberals and convince some of the more reasonable right wing Conservatives to water their wine a bit could form a solid government. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if at all.

Easing COVID Restrictions: A dumb idea at this time. It probably would have been better to ease them instead of getting rid of them immediately. What governments could have done was be transparent about it. They could have indicated some benchmarks that need to be achieved before easing given measures. They have had months to develop those very benchmarks. Instead they are doing it piecemeal and hoping for the best. Oh well, if we could very well have a sixth wave and if be do it will probably manifest itself in the late Spring and early Summer, which would suck for all concerned.