IamCraig.com Rotating Header Image

hypocrisy

Dictators meet in Anchorage, Alaska, nothing happens

The world’s press has spent the last few days, and today (Friday here) in particular, trying to make a “nothingburger into filet mignon”, as one commentator said. Anyone with a brain knew well in advance of today that nothing substantive was going to happen without the presence of Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the summit, especially as trump wants so desperately to be seen as a friend of the enormously popular (excuse me while I retch) putin. After absolutely nothing happened except that putin got to ride in The Beast and watched a brief personal airshow, they both jumped in their planes and burnt a few more holes in the atmosphere to fly back to opposite sides of their continents.

All that I really saw was that the world’s most powerful dipshit and wannabe dictator spent the day sucking up to the world’s current biggest war criminal … who, I will point out, was not arrested when he landed, but this is no surprise given that the United States refuses to become a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), has been aggressive towards the ICC and has hosted other war criminals in the past.

In fact, it was just two dictators getting together for lunch; trump probably asked putin for advice on getting away with sending troops into his capital city!

But maybe we’ll never know what they talked about because, other than admitting utter failure to negotiate a peace deal (certainly not why putin was there), both sides have refused to say anything. So in the absence of any information we’re left to wonder if the world’s two super-dictators have cooked up some sort of deal where they both get richer and the little guy (Ukraine) gets shafted.

It was just a typical “nothingburger”! Nothing else to be said!

I’d like to get away from trump, literally and blog-wise, but … there’s Pete Hoekstra

The latest idiot to raise my ire is his ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, who has pissed me off in at least two ways recently:

  1. As I’ve said before — although I can’t speak for all Canadians, but this certainly applies to this Canadian — I am not boycotting travel to the United States where I regularly used to spend thousands of dollars a day (pardon my extreme exaggeration) because I am “punishing” Americans because I don’t like their choice of president. I am simply covering my ass because I don’t want to be caught up in some dragnet of an ICE raid of the day and dumped in jail in the southern United States because I am a foreigner. I’ve given examples for why I, as a law-abiding person, have a reasonable fear of that happening to me. There’s no way I am crossing the border until 21 January 2029 … under the assumption that trump doesn’t somehow change the constitution to allow himself to run a third time. (God, I hope he doesn’t live to see the end of his second term, never mind run for a third fourth time! [Sorry, fourth term; I forgot that he failed in his second attempt.])
  2. Now he (Hoekstra) is going on about how Canada is the party that has “pulled the rug out” from under the United States as far as tariffs and CUSMA are concerned! Hello! Did you ever watch one of your boss’ campaign speeches, in particular the one where he announced that he had discovered the word “tariff” and what a wonderful word it was/is? Are you aware that he does not know the difference between a “trade deficit” and a “subsidy”? Have you ever heard him refer to Canada as the “51st state”? Have you ever heard him whine about now “nasty” (a word you’ve used in the same vein) Canada and Canadians are? Sure, maybe you can look at that as all in good humour, but if we had the might and started referring to the US as our “cherished” eleventh province, I’m pretty sure you’d lose your sense of humour (humor) pretty quickly. So fuck you. It’s blatantly obvious to any onlooker who started this bullshit.

If you want to whine about where you find yourself because of your boss upending the entire world order, foisting the cost of tariffs on American consumers and turning decades of economic integration between our countries inside out, don’t blame Canada. We’re just spectators in this farce you and your boss have created. Having just scanned your Wikipedia article, you sound like more of a dipshit than a “diplomat” should be, but that doesn’t surprise me.

I’ll have more to say in the very near future about how you’re fucking up Ukraine as well.

Victoria Mboko wins the Canadian Open, wipes the floor with Naomi Osaka

I’m late posting this because of … excuses.

I hadn’t heard of Victoria Mboko until less than a week ago, now she is my heroine. She’s my heroine for two reasons: (a) all the bloody TV commentators who can’t/won’t pronounce her surname properly because they don’t know how to pronounce African names with successive consonants and African words in general, and (b) because she soundly beat Naomi Osaka.

As you will know if you’ve read me for a while, I am no fan of Naomi Osaka. For me she’s the female version of John McEnroe, a whiny crybaby, but the difference is that McEnroe had to have known that he was making a spectacle of himself. Per the article to which I’ve linked above, I feel that so-called professional athletes should learn, not only their sport, but also how to behave under pressure. That means not wimping out when the going gets though (the topic of the post to which I’ve linked), but also losing and winning graciously. Osaka has yet to acquire that skill, and she demonstrated that beautifully on the court with Mboko and off the court afterwards.

Hey, listen, elite athletes are getting younger and younger, which means top athletes are being evicted from their perches younger and younger and sooner and sooner! Accept it, and get over it. You’re not gonna be number one forever. Your pouty and pissed-off faces on the court and not even making an attempt to get to some balls only show how little you deserved the top spot in the first place.

Congratulations Victoria Mboko!

Green Party undemocratically shut out of national election debates

I am incensed!

As if Canadians needed another example of why the electoral system in Canada is biased — and indeed rigged — towards maintaining the status quo of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system where the Conservatives and Liberals take turn governing, look no further than the Leaders’ Debates Commission’s decision yesterday to rescind their most gracious (pardon my sarcasm) invitation to the Green Party of Canada to participate in the Leaders’ Debates.

Yet, the Bloc Québécois, WHO ONLY RUN CANDIDATES IN ONE PROVINCE, were allowed — and will be tonight — to participate!

This is supposedly based on these three criteria, two of which must be met:

  1. on the date the general election is called, the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party.
  2. 28 days before the date of the general election, the party receives a level of national support of at least 4%, determined by voting intention, and as measured by leading national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results.
  3. 28 days before the date of the general election, the party has endorsed candidates in at least 90% of federal ridings.

This is a classic case of the difference between pedantry and mastery, as espoused by George Polya, a mathematician who lived between 1887 and 1985:

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry … To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

The Leaders’ Debates Commission are, without question, pedants, not masters.

Let me also remind everyone that Canada is in an unprecedented war situation, with the President of the United States of America declaring a trade war on Canada, and coming within a hair’s breadth (so far) of declaring actual armed conflict.

The Green Party were ejected from both the French and English debates on the morning of the French (first) debate because they had apparently not met the second criterion above, yet there is absolutely no way that the Bloc can come anywhere close to meeting either the second or third criterion because the most candidates they can field are 78! That is 18% of federal ridings! And I, in British Columbia, cannot even vote for their party because they “intentionally” don’t run any candidates here! (The word “intentionally” was pointedly used in the Commission’s justification for barring the Green Party from the debates.)

If that isn’t hypocrisy — and pedantry — then I don’t know what is.

The Commission alleges that because the Green Party is now polling at below 4%, they no longer qualify, despite the fact that on 31 March (28 days before the election) they were indeed polling at or above 4%. Let’s also remember that the polling numbers in this election have changed wildly due to the war being waged against us. But more importantly than whether or not the Greens were polling at or above 4% on 31 March, is the fact that the Green Party of Canada is a national party competing in a national election, while the Bloc represents a very narrow slice of Canadian society, and therefore cannot ever hope to form an actual government, especially as Canadians in 82% of Canada’s ridings cannot vote for them!

It’s not too late, Leaders’ Debates Commission, to change your minds and DO THE RIGHT THING before tonight’s English debate. Show us that you are indeed not pedants, but masters of this undemocratic situation you have created.

This is why professionals with more than “common sense” are hired to do accident investigations

While perusing trump’s Bullshit Social (aka “Truth” Social) feed the other day when writing that gargantuan post about how and why he is so wrong on the subject of tariffs, I couldn’t help but notice two of his posts about the 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision between a US Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Eagle aeroplane. They are classic examples of why qualified, professional investigators are required to be allowed to do their work before any bullshit artists (aka, politicians) should say anything.

The first, posted on 29 January 2025, the very day of the crash:

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-01-29

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-01-29.

The airplane was on a perfect and routine line of approach to the airport. The helicopter was going straight at the airplane for an extended period of time. It is a CLEAR NIGHT, the lights on the plane were blazing, why didn’t the helicopter go up or down, or turn. Why didn’t the control tower tell the helicopter what to do instead of asking if they saw the plane. This is a bad situation that looks like it should have been prevented. NOT GOOD!!!

Where do you start with this one?!

  • “The airplane was on a perfect and routine line of approach to the airport.”: Wow, and he didn’t even know the race or gender of the pilot at that point when he described its approach as “perfect”.
  • “The helicopter was going straight at the airplane for an extended period of time.”: Yeah, you can see that on video after the crash with circles around the aircraft involved, but that wasn’t what either pilot saw.
  • “It is a CLEAR NIGHT”: Clearly trump is not a pilot. Not only does he not know the first thing about flying, he certainly doesn’t know anything about flying at night, so his focusing on it being a “clear night” is absolutely useless.
  • “… the lights on the plane were blazing …”: Of course they were … if the aircraft was flying towards you, or the camera that took the footage you saw. Clearly that’s not what the helicopter pilot saw.
  • “… why didn’t the helicopter go up or down, or turn.”: (Questions generally call for a question mark.) But good question, don! I wonder if that might be the focus of a professional investigation! Thanks for giving us a reasonable list of the helicopter pilot’s options.
  • “Why didn’t the control tower tell the helicopter what to do instead of asking if they saw the plane.”: (Again, question mark?) How do you know that anyone in the air traffic tower saw either aircraft and could tell, from their vantage point, that a collision was imminent? In air traffic control once a pilot tells a controller that he sees an aircraft he is supposed to avoid, the onus for their separation is taken away from the controller and assumed by the pilot. Oh, you didn’t know that? Then shut the fuck up! Professional investigators doing professional investigations and writing professional reports know this. Mere mortals sitting on the toilet in the White House do not, and so should not comment on things about which they are ignorant.
  • “This is a bad situation that looks like it should have been prevented. NOT GOOD!!!”: Thank-you Captain Obvious! What would we do without people like you so well-endowed with common sense?!

The second was posted two days later:

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-01-31

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-01-31.

The Blackhawk helicopter was flying too high, by a lot. It was far above the 200 foot limit. That’s not really too complicated to understand, is it???

  • “… by a lot.”: Your first grade English teacher could have done a gooder job teaching you English. Maybe he or she was a DEI hire.
  • “That’s not really too complicated to understand, is it???”: First, congratulations on all of the extra question marks. They pretty much make up for your forgetting to use them in your previous post. So yes, good point, so we’ll immediately fire the professional investigator now since you have clearly cracked the case.

This is a textbook example of why crash investigators — like the ones at DCA after the crash appearing before the press — go to great lengths, as they always do, not to prejudge the investigation’s and the report’s conclusions.

This is also a textbook example of why you cannot trust anyone who claims they have common sense, and who also claims that he’s the “least racist person in the world”.

trump apparently doesn’t understand the free market

The initial title of this blog post was going to be, “trump is a moron”, but the problem with that is that I can write a post every day for the rest of my life (or trump’s life) with that title. But the new title became immediately apparent when I realised the fundamental issue.

I also considered, “If this is how trump treats his friends …”, but we all know that he’s in love with putin (both spelled with an initial lower-case letter, as you will note), leader of America’s traditional enemy, so it’s impossible to know who his friends and enemies really are.

And what about, “The Dumbest Trade War in History“? Oops, already taken.

The issue here is that trump is clearly ignorant. He does not understand economics, and I don’t believe he has ever attended a history class or read a history book in his life!

I’m not an economist either, but I’d like to make a few points:

  • If an American imports a Canadian (or Mexican or Chinese) product that the Canadian sells for $1 (we’ll ignore currencies and exchange rates), the American is going to have to pay $1.25 with a 25% tariff. That directly penalises the American, not the Canadian, and will result in inflation increasing in the United States. Of course, the whole world knows that Biden personally wanted inflation to increase (it had nothing to do with the fact that inflation grew worldwide after COVID), and trump campaigned on ending the Biden tyranny, so trump’s going to look incompetent when he directly increases inflation with his tariffs.
  • The knock-on effect is that the American might (and probably will) decide to buy a different product; that will then penalise the Canadian, but I’ll get to that in a moment when I take apart trump’s moronic post on the stupidly named “Truth Social”.
  • Clearly, as trump states in his incorrectly named “truth” — seriously, the fact that it’s a lie is why “Truth Social” is a misnomer — his goal is that Canadian and Mexican and Chinese manufacturers (and every manufacturer in the world!) will up sticks and move their businesses to America, all while he cracks down on immigration! (Seriously! His left hand doesn’t know what his right hand is doing!) I can’t tell you the number of times I have wished that everyone in the world would see the light and host their websites and email with my company (it would make dealing with spam much easier), but I live in the real world where I realise that competition is a reality and I can’t do everything; the world is too varied to want exactly what my company offers. And in the same vein, as “great” as America is (or is alleged to be), it can’t be all things to all people. God help us if we were all to become Americans! (I’ll get to that in a moment as well.)
  • But, most importantly, trump doesn’t seem to understand that, likewise, America can’t do everything. I grew up in a country (Rhodesia) that was sanctioned by almost the whole world, and we tried bloody hard to “reduce, reuse and recycle” decades before that became a “thing”. We did a damned good job too, but we still imported goods from abroad from people and companies that were willing to trade despite sanctions. He doesn’t understand that in the “free market” Americans are choosing every day to buy foreign-sourced goods from counties like Canada, Mexico and China, and now he is limiting the freedom of Americans to freely trade how they wish. It’s typical right-wing bullshit: we support freedom, only as long as it fits within our narrow definition of the word.

Can Americans make widgets as well as Canadians can? Of course! But the fact of the matter is that they apparently don’t! That’s why some enterprising Canadian started making widgets the way they thought they should be made, and now Americans are buying (and importing) Canadian widgets because they’re better!

Taking apart trump’s bullshit

The idiot trump has made a couple of posts (“truths”!) on his moronic “Truth Social” account which conveniently consolidate a number of points that I will now debunk:

The “Tariff Lobby,” headed by the Globalist, and always wrong, Wall Street Journal, is working hard to justify Countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and too many others to name, continue the decades long RIPOFF OF AMERICA, both with regard to TRADE, CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!

The “tariff lobby”? Who the fuck are the “tariff lobby”? (And while we’re at it, who are/is “the Globalist”?) The “always wrong” “Wall Street Journal”?! Look, buddy, “The Wall Street Journal” isn’t on my reading list, but (as you well know) they didn’t become the pre-eminent publisher of business and financial news because they were “always wrong”. However, this is your way of communicating, in black-and-white absolutisms. I get it. You’ve been so rich for so long that people are afraid to say, “Come on, Donald, they aren’t ‘always wrong’. Remember that time they reported X, Y and Z?” Nope, your lackey’s just nod their heads and scurry off to do your bidding. Now, due to all of the people in your country who apparently have no “common sense”, you’re their president, and so the whole world can see what a fool you are.

And, “RIPOFF OF AMERICA”? Are you saying/admitting that Americans (including yourself, who negotiated the last version of the North-American free-trade deal that you’re now violating) are easy pushovers? I would disagree with that in general. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that anybody is being “ripped off”. That’s like George H.W. Bush claiming that his parents forcing him to eat broccoli meant he was being “ripped off”. But like most humans, Bush took it in stride as just one of the many things there are in life that we don’t like. You, on the other hand, just whine and complain like a baby that this, that and everything else you complain about are “not fair”, like any tempestuous seven-year-old does when they’re upset at the unfairness of their world. You might as well punctuate your “not fairs” with a stomp of your foot.

You’ve stated that you want “fair trade”. Again, I’d like to point out that it was you who negotiated the current United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, often known as NAFTA 2.0 because of the other ridiculous acronyms by which it is known. Maybe you should go back in time and fire yourself since you apparently negotiated such a bad deal for America. But hey, don’t fret; NAFTA 2.0 is supposed to be renewed (and possibly renegotiated) in 2026, so can’t you wait a few weeks or months? It’s not as if negotiations will start on the day the agreement expires. But of course you can’t wait, because everything has to be done yesterday.

And as I keep telling people, if “CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA” by the American Border Patrol and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) are problems, then you Americans need to get off your arses and beef up your own agencies! We in Canada are likewise suffering from the same epidemics (as well as the epidemic of American guns coming into Canada that are being used by criminals here) so we are not the source of the problem! Justin Trudeau himself (love him or hate him) is not the Vito Corleone of an operation that he personally oversees where he is feeding the insatiable American appetite for drugs! The moron that is currently President of the United States of America is blaming the wrong people! And let’s not forget that a grand total of about twenty kilogrammes (44 pounds for you Americans) of fentanyl have crossed the Canadian border into the United States in the year to October 2024, versus about five hundred times that amount from Mexico! (Illegal Immigration and Fentanyl at the U.S. Northern and Southwest Borders.) Where’s your fucking sense of proportion?!

As Forbes magazine says, the “Tariff On Canada Not Justified By U.S. Immigration And Drug Claims“, but you never let facts get in the way of your emotional tirades.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!

Yeah right.

The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we’re not going to be the “Stupid Country” any longer.

Who called you “stupid”? Sure, it’s an overused word, and certain people and certain actions (like your tariffs) certainly are stupid but, again, you’re coming to an unsupportable conclusion that you and your fellow Americans are all, well, stupid pushovers. How do you or can you come to that ridiculous (stupid?) conclusion? You can’t. Your office is supposed to be better than petty remarks like this that are only worthy of repeating in front of your similarly drunk mates at the bar.

As for “deficits”, yes, you’re technically correct, but it’s not a deficit that you (America) has to pay, and despite your claiming that, “They [Canada and Mexico] owe us a lot of money, I’m sure they’re gonna pay,” we don’t owe you any money either! (Mexico still owes you for the wall you built that you said they’d pay for!) Let’s just say that Bob and Jane own two different businesses; it just so happens that Bob produces some products that Jane’s business needs, and Jane similarly makes products that Bob’s business needs. Remarkably, Bob spends more on Jane’s products than Jane spends on Bob’s. Does that mean that Jane somehow then owes Bob some money? Of course not! I’m not going to get into comparing Bob and Jane’s products and prices, but the economy generated over many generations between Canada and the United States has seen the free market decide that apparently (according to you) your free citizens need more Canadian products than our free citizens need from you! Does anybody — including your free citizens — need to be punished over this supposed imbalance? No! If you want to “solve” this imbalance then do it naturally, but that doesn’t sound as sexy to you or your “base” or happen as quickly as they’d like than spitting out the best word in the world, “tariff”.

MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!

As I said above, most of us do not live in that fantasy world.

Why should the United States lose TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIZING OTHER COUNTRIES, and why should these other countries pay a small fraction of the cost of what USA citizens pay for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, as an example?

Who is losing anything here? Jim in the USA is paying a dollar to a Canadian (or Mexican) and in return he gets a dollar’s worth of goods. Nobody is losing! And how is Jim subsidising anyone, the Canadian or the Mexican? You’re obviously an idiot who hasn’t thought this through. And why are your citizens paying so much for drugs and pharmaceuticals? What the hell does that have to do with trade imbalances? Nothing, that’s what. It has everything to do with how you Americans run your fucked up society, bankrupting your citizens because they broke their leg.

THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA!

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.

Oh, so someone actually managed to whisper something in your ear in the last five minutes suggesting that tariffs are maybe not the best thing since sliced bread? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and this is as close as you will come to admitting it. I’m also thinking that you won’t pay much of a price, given your penchant for obtaining financing from the banks you bullshit, but Joe Schmoe way down the line will be expected to “subsidise” the American economy in a way that will cause him pain.

WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!

Typical marketing (i.e., lying) bullshit. I also love how you re-define “common sense” to be whatever bullshit comes out of your mouth. Please look up the definition.

We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason.

You do? There’s another word you should look up: subsidise (or however you Americans choose to spell it), Here, let me help you:

subsidize (also subsidise)
v. support (an organization or activity) financially. pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce its price.
DERIVATIVES subsidization n. subsidizer n.

What, exactly, are you subsidising? And who is “we”? It’s certainly not the government of the United States of America; it’s certainly not you personally; and it’s certainly not any of the American citizens who engage freely in the free-trade market between our two countries! You are delusional and don’t understand what a subsidy is.

Since you’ve never attended a history class or read a history book, you might not realise that Canada and the United States (as modern countries) both started out as colonies of the United Kingdom, France and Spain in about the fifteenth century. (That’s the 1400s, in case you didn’t know. And I’m not mentioning Russia’s peripheral role that is not really visible outside of Alaska.) Through periods of war and other upheaval, the two countries developed into two separate nations. Canada (as it later became) and its settlers remained loyal to the Crown of Great Britain, whereas you guys (the Americans) fought a war of independence against Great Britain. Since then you and the UK have kissed and made up, and now you have what is generally known as a/the “Special Relationship” (although I suspect that, under you, that relationship is becoming less special every day), and you and we have also developed the kind of close relationship one would expect two neighbours to develop. (This is pretty typical around the world. Viz. Ireland and the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia and South Africa, etc.)

So, as close as we now are (or were until a few days ago), we are two different and independent countries, nations and cultures. Like you guys, we have an economy, one good enough to be included in the G7 Group of Seven advanced economies. Contrary to your barroom braggadocio bullshit, we would not “cease to exist as a viable Country [sic]”. Would we be changed if the United States “built a wall” and shut itself off from us? Yes, of course, as would you, but we would not sink into the sea; that’s just moronic to assume. But to sum up this extremely brief history lesson, America as one independent, sovereign nation is not subsidising Canada, a separate, independent and sovereign nation.

End of lesson. You are wrong.

We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use.

Ha ha. You should probably consult a few of your citizens on that matter, the ones who are buying and importing our goods and services. Whether it’s need or want, Americans import billions of dollars worth of our goods, just as we import billions of dollars worth of yours. That’s how the free market works. No American president, under your current democracy (which I realise is in jeopardy at the moment), has any absolute power or sway over all of your people to change that. And anyone who uses the word “unlimited” is obviously someone who has spent too much time in sales and marketing, believing his own bullshit. And as for the cars, again, check with the CEOs of Ford, General Motors and Stellantis; they are not Canadian cars, they are North American cars made by the same “big three” on both sides of the border. Again, this is when reading a little bit of history would come in handy for you.

Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true!

Harsh and completely UNtrue! Please see above.

Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!

Ah, you’ve saved the best for last! This bullshit “51st state” crap, although, as a Canadian, I’m not feeling especially “cherished” by America right now. As clearly shown in my mini history lesson above, Canadians are not Americans, Americans in waiting, America’s “little brother” (although, since you are size obsessed, I hate to point out to you the we are bigger) or anything else along those lines. We don’t even want you guys as our 11th province, or even out 4th territory! That would be far more hassle than we’d be willing to tolerate. As a Canadian I wonder to myself, “What would the advantage to us be?”, and I can come up with nothing. I think that Americans should be proud to be American, and we Canadians are similarly proud to be Canadian; why should either of us confuse our identities? (And why would you want to become communists, as we clearly are?) No thanks. I kinda like our higher taxes and that they fund a government able to take care of its citizens in the way that governments are supposed to. And in fact, one of the ways our government protects its citizens is by not being so belligerent, ignorant and self-centred on the world stage, so as long as we don’t become the 51st state of the belligerent country of the United States of America, we don’t need your supposedly “far better military protection”, thanks very much. Hey, I’m not saying we’re perfect and have everything figured out, but neither are you and neither do you.

That’s why together as friends and allies and with our highly integrated economies that are not subsidising or taking advantage of one another — and in the other innumerable ways that other editorialists have enumerated in recent days, from world wars to your Iran hostage crisis to Iraq to Afghanistan to 9/11 — we are stronger.

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, "Tariff lobby."

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, “Tariff lobby.”

 

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, "Subsidize Canada."

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, “Subsidize Canada.”


Updated, 2025-02-08: Added screenshots of trump’s post on a site I have renamed “Bullshit Social” because that’s more accurate than “Truth Social”.

War in Ukraine not over

It has been more than 24 hours since trump was sworn in as president of the USA, and he has still not ended Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

First promise broken, a million more promises to break. What a joke.

I think Pete Hegseth reads my blog

It’s almost as if Pete Hegseth read my post “America and communism” in November and decided to prove I’m right. Seriously. Is there any other way to explain how he claimed, as reported by CNN on 12 December 2025 (when I initially started to write this piece), that “policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military [are] part of a ‘Marxist’ agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.” I mean … wow!

Look, I couldn’t give a flying fandango (from a professional point of view) who someone decides to have sex with, as long as they show up for their job and do it well. And, as I admitted in the “America and communism” post, I’m not intimately familiar with all of the writings of Karl Marx — on whose writings Marxism is based, in case that’s not obvious — but I have access to things called “search engines”. So I searched for “marxism homosexuality” and I was led to a number of articles. (You will be too, if you follow that link.) One of them was a “Washington Post” article entitled “Communist states have sometimes been havens for LGBTQ rights” where the author (Samuel Huneke) states:

Sexuality was not a preoccupation of communism’s earliest theorists. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who penned “The Communist Manifesto” in 1848, had little to say on the topic. What they did was contemptuous.

I suppose it’s possible that Marxist thinkers since Marx and Engels have modified Marxist thought since the mid-1800s, so I shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Hegseth, but what evidence do I have that Hegseth even knows who Karl Marx is, never mind that he knows anything about Marxist thought?! None, that’s how much.

And further opportunity to evaluate Hegseth’s thought process, and the thought process of trump and his transition team, comes in the CNN article:

In a comment to CNN, a Trump transition spokesperson declined to say what specific policies Hegseth might pursue as secretary of defense, including whether he would reinstate “don’t ask, don’t tell” or implement changes to current standards.

Of course not. It’s not as if taking over the leadership of the US Department of Defence requires much forethought and planning. That’s for amateurs.

Like President Trump, Pete wants to see the U.S. military focus on being the world’s strongest fighting force – not on cultural and social issues. Bottom line: If you can meet the standards, you can serve,” the spokesperson said. “But given the threats we face, our priorities shouldn’t be lowering standards and wasting taxpayer money to meet arbitrary social quotas – our priorities should be readiness and lethality.

Right, one’s readiness should be compromised by changing everything the previous administration changed to change the previous administration’s changes. Wha…?

The policy [the ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military] was reversed under Trump, with then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis implementing a 2018 policy barring those diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving, except in limited cases. President Joe Biden repealed the Trump-era ban in 2021.

Again, it’s time for musical policies. The music is playing, now everybody switch policies!

Speaking on “the Ben Shapiro Show” in June, Hegseth criticized a military ad campaign featuring a soldier with two lesbian mothers, calling it emblematic of a larger shift toward individualism in military culture.

Yes, we don’t want to encourage individualism in American culture, it just doesn’t exist out in the wild. Hey, I do get that individualism within the military is not necessarily desirable — unless, of course, it’s some individual carrying out some heroic act like storming a machine gun nest — but I suspect that the “military ad campaign featuring a soldier with two lesbian mothers” was for recruiting purposes, not purely military purposes. Coincidentally, recently I was looking up something about pedantry and I came across this definition or explanation:

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry … To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. –George Polya, mathematician (13 Dec 1887-1985).

Further, from Hegseth:

It was stuff like, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ which was their immediate target, right? Right out the gate, we need to change that and – say what you want about what about that, people are passionate on that issue. But it was most centrally, uh, demonstrated with women in combat this idea that there’ll be gender neutrality and selection.

Again, there’s a new sheriff in town, and this sheriff will be targeting “woke”. Anyone with their eyes open and tuned into the world will be shot. We don’t need that shit.

Idiots.

Karl Marx and Pete Hegseth.

Karl Marx (John Jabez Edwin Mayall, PD) and Pete Hegseth (cropped, [Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0])

Christy Clark pulls the plug

In a previous post I stated that Justin Trudeau had finally seen the writing on the wall and decided it was time he scurried away. It only took him a decade, although I suppose to be truthful it was really only the last year of that decade when he tried to cling to power. (I know anti-vaxxers will disagree with my timeline, but they’re idiots.)

So I suppose I should be charitable to Christy Clark for following the example of one of her successors in the BC Liberal Party (now BC United), Kevin Falcon (who folded under pressure) and give her credit for taking only a few months to come to the conclusion that her running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada was a non-starter. Thank the gods. I wasn’t looking forward to taking on her supposed upcoming leadership race.

However, to reiterate points I’ve already made, anyone so stupid as to think that she could pull the wool over Canadian’s eyes to make them believe that she was a Liberal and not a Conservative does not deserve to be trusted with the leadership of this (or any other) country. She is, to say it again, a bullshit artist, and she only pulled the plug once her claims not to have joined the Conservative Party were found to have been false. Oops, “I misspoke. Sh*t happens. Lesson learned 🤦‍♀️ …”.

Yes, 🤦‍♀️ indeed! Your “sticking with the status quo” — i.e., misleading voters — is definitely a losing strategy! Thankfully you won’t be leading Canadians down that path!

Finally! The CBC calls out Christy Clark

On the CBC National last night (10 January 2025), the CBC finally called out Clark on her claim to being a “registered [federal] Liberal” and not (“never”) a Conservative. The Conservative Party apparently provided a screenshot (not shown by the CBC) from their system showing that Clark misspoke … to put it extremely politely and generously. She posted something on her Twitter/X feed trying to take back her remarks/comments in some recent (previous) interview with respect to running for leader of the federal Liberal Party. (Video in link below.) Unfortunately, as I’ve commented before, Elon Musk is trying to make X unusable and so I cannot see her recent posts on her X feed (but it was shown on the screen by the CBC), but it was full of bullshit and Clark trying to cover up her l**s — a word I believe I can’t use without risk of a lawsuit. But I believe I can safely use the phrase “bullshit artist” to describe her. (Actually, thanks to the written article on the CBC website, I now have the link to and the text from her post below.)

Well, I misspoke.
Sh*t happens.
Lesson learned 🤦‍♀️ …

I have always been clear that I supported Jean Charest to stop Pierre Poilievre. Not backing away from that. He’s the most divisive politician we’ve seen in years and I felt it was my duty as a Cdn [sic] to stop him in his tracks. I’m thinking carefully about running because he still needs to be stopped. But if we want to do that, our party has to accept change.

Sticking with the status quo is a losing strategy.

My god, if a seasoned politician has to excuse her stupidity and economy with the truth with the vulgar phrase, “shit happens” (and claims she suddenly learned a lesson that is taught in Politics 101 and Honesty 101), then she is quite clearly unqualified to be prime minister of the country. It’s not that I think that politicians can’t be “vulgar” (remember the “[Pierre] Trudeau salute” and “fuddle duddle”?), but she’s covering up her so-called economy with the truth by claiming “shit happens” for fuck’s sake! (Oops, sorry, I was vulgar.) This is a person who can simply not be counted on for anything even remotely approximating truthfulness and trustworthiness!

Listen, Canadians, and especially federal Liberal Party members: Christy Clark is *NOT* a Liberal! She’s a conservative in thought and practice! Sure, she’s saying all sorts of nasty things about Pierre Poilievre the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, but saying that she is against someone or something doesn’t automatically imply that she is for someone or something, specifically the Liberal Party of Canada!

And don’t even get me started on her bastardising the French language, which she was clearly reading off of a teleprompter, and probably didn’t even understand because she got it off Google Translate. I’m not a big fan of the fact that Canadian prime ministers have to speak French, but if someone is going to claim that they speak it then they do actually need to speak it, understand it and converse in it, at least to some extent! Reading (and badly pronouncing) a script does not make you suddenly bilingual!

But seriously, I started my tirades against Clark (with respect to the Liberal leadership) only last month, but it’s beyond preposterous that anyone can seriously consider her a contender. She hasn’t even actually entered the race, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to take her herself seriously! She’s falling apart before she even positions herself at the starting line. I can’t seriously consider the possibility that she will even embarrass herself to have a go.

Christy Clark Twitter/X post: "Sh*it happens."

Christy Clark Twitter/X post: “Sh*it happens.”