FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Dec 19

Impact of Social Media on How We Perceive Foreign Wars

by bcurry

A very recent poll by the New York Times indicated that American youth are more inclined to oppose President Biden’s handling of the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza.  For example, the poll noted that voters between 18 and 29 years old, traditionally a heavily Democratic demographic, jump out.  Nearly three quarters of them disapprove of the way Mr. Biden is handling the conflict in Gaza.  On the other hand, older voters were far more sympathetic to Biden’s efforts.  Fifty-two percent of registered voters 65 years and older approve of Biden’s actions on Israel, 12 percentage points more than those who disapprove.  Biden’s administration has refused to officially call for a cease fire, while pushing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

In Canada, the governing Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has take a more moderate stance, now calling for a cease fire to allow more aid for Palestinians into the devastated region along with the release of the hostages held by Hamas.  In either case, there is no win-win scenario for President Biden or Prime Minister Trudeau.  Pro-Palestinian protests in both countries are continuing, with a good deal of growing support on university and college campuses.  One of the main factors influencing the youth in both countries is the daily rapid access to scenes in the war zone, especially violent imagery of civilian casualties and hospital bombings, often through social media such as TikTok and Instagram.  Young people who use social media primarily to get their news find such images as being horrific and merciless. 

The same result can be seen in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.  Besides mainstream media, social media is also being used by both sides to influence our opinions of the war.  In some cases, recorded events are most likely going to be used to support allegations of war crimes against the Russian forces.  News media tends to slip between both conflicts, reporting mainly on the most significant and often horrendous events involving loss of life and mass destruction.  Everyday, terrible scenes of innocent civilians fleeing the war zone are propelled across our television screens and onto our tablets and cellphones.  At no other time in history has so much instant coverage occurred, influencing viewers and policy makers alike.  The most affected of course are young people who did not live through 9/11 or the Iraq war.

As more time goes on, the initial causes behind conflicts are often forgotten and become less important than the most recent revelations of atrocities and humanitarian crisis.  The longer the conflicts continue, support for current foreign policy positions will take a hit.  We see this among European Union countries, most notably Hungary, where support for Ukraine may be waning and opposition growing.  The same can be said for the Israeli-Hamas conflict which increasingly is turning into a broader conflict with the Palestinian population, not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank.  Israel still retains healthy allegiances in the U.S.  However, as the above noted poll indicated, the future of such sentiments is unclear.  Among young voters, 46 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians, against 27 percent who favour Israel.

There is little doubt that the opposing parties will continue to use social media in order to win over support their causes.  Especially by young people, it’s 24/7 and it’s readily accessible and most often not authenticate or corroborated.  Whether or not you think that it’s a form of propaganda, the use of social media will continue to play a very important role.

Foreign Policy Israel Justin Trudeau Media Social Media The Middle East The News Media US

Leave a comment »
Sep 16

Canada Has Its Own Mini-Trump Running In Current Federal Election

by bcurry

In Canada today, there are a number of small parties running in the current federal election.  Among these is the self-described hard-right populist People’s Party of Canada (CPP) founded in 2018 by Maxime Bernier.  Bernier was once a member of Canada’s Conservative Party, but left due to differing views with the party on a number of policy issues.  Overall, he believed that the Conservative Party had strayed from some of its traditional right-wing beliefs.  In its first election in 2019, the CPP received 1.6 percent of votes, placing it well behind other small parties, such as the Greens (6.5 percent) but well ahead of others, such as the Christian Heritage Party (0.1 percent).  Currently, the CPP does not have a seat in the national parliament.  Recent polls show that the CPP could get slightly more than 6 percent of the popular vote, but again the party is not expected to win any seats, including that in the riding where Maxime Bernier himself is running.

The primary difference with the emergence of Donald Trump in the Republican Party is that Bernier decided to offer his ultra-right views by forming a new national party.  However, many of the same positions taken by Trump’s followers are reflected in the CPP’s platform.  Bernier is attempting to appeal to a portion of the Canadian electorate who are disgruntled with the current political establishment in Ottawa, be it Conservative or Liberal, and are simply angry about the current state of Canadian society and big governments.  Like Trump, Bernier is in favour of reducing immigration, preventing refugees from entering Canada illegally, promoting the construction of pipelines, denying the human contribution to climate change, pushing for a single national identity, moving away from promoting multiculturalism, eliminating foreign aid funding and repealing existing firearms laws. Fortunately, unlike Trump, Bernier has not to date raised issues about voter fraud or rigged elections.

What has really brought out the CPP supporters to the federal election are the restrictive measures taken by the federal and provincial governments to deal with the coronavirus pandemic.  Bernier has referred to COVID-19 public-health measures and vaccine policies as being “tyrannical”.  He has often told his supporters that: “People are fed up and they want to get back their freedom.”  This is a common theme, declaring that government public-health measures are an attack on one’s liberties, especially when it comes to lockdowns, mandated vaccinations and vaccine passports. 

What’s unfortunate about the participation of CPP supporters in the campaign is that their anger has gotten the better of their common sense and civility.  Supporters have been part of a number of often-violent demonstrations protesting the other parties’ leaders, especially at events being held by the current Liberal leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  The protesters have attempted to drown out the leaders at campaign stops and have revealed signs with vulgar and insulting slurs and graphics.  What’s regrettable is that Maxime Bernier refuses to condemn the incivility and lack of respect shown by CPP supporters against the opposing leaders, and in particular the PM.  In these difficult times, there is no doubt that there is a lot of pent-up anger among those whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively affected by the pandemic and some of the public-health measures that had to be implemented.  However, given the severity of the pandemic, Canadian support for such measures and the current growing fourth wave, it doesn’t appear that the CPP will gain very much additional support.

Unlike in the U.S. with its firmly established conservative base in several regions, there is little chance that Canada will see a similar ultra-right populist administration in power anytime soon.

Maxime Bernier himself does not like to be compared to Donald Trump for obvious reasons.  Unfortunately, his party has tended to politicize some of the more critical issues such as public-health measures aimed at preventing more COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths.  Unfortunately, the anti-vaxxers now have a political means to promote their virulent opposition to such measures.  By encouraging unfounded and unreasonable protests, Bernier does appear to have taken a page from Donald Trump’s agenda.

Canada Donald Trump Federal Government Justin Trudeau Populism in Canada US

Leave a comment »
Aug 2

Ethics Scandal Hits Prime Minister of Canada Once Again — So What!

by bcurry

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is in the headlines once again for a situation involving a potential conflict of interest. This time it has to do with a proposed contract to a supposedly non-profit organization called the WE Charity Foundation, run by two brothers: Craig and Marc Kielburger. The federal government initially awarded a sole-sourced contract for $19.5 million to WE Charity to administer a $912-million student grant program— meaning no requests for bids.  Post-secondary students could volunteer up to 500 hours to receive a grant up to $5,000 under the proposed new Canada Student Service Grant (CSSG). The problem is that the PM’s family has close ties to WE Charity with his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau hosting a podcast called WE Well-being.  Both Justin Trudeau and his wife have spoken at WE Days, as have the PM’s mother, Margaret Trudeau, and his brother, Alexandre Trudeau.  It was uncovered that Margaret Trudeau had been paid $250,000 for 28 appearances and Alexandre Trudeau had been paid $32,000 for eight appearances.  When the matter of awarding the contract for the CSSG came before Cabinet, neither Trudeau nor his Finance Minister Bill Morneau, whose family also had ties to the WE Charity, recused themselves from discussions about the contract.  A big mistake for which the PM has now often apologized even before Parliament, the House’s Finance Committee and Canadians in general.  Moreover, the CSSG contract to the WE Charity was withdrawn by the government as a result.

What makes matters worse is the fact that this is the third time that the PM’s actions have been investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. In the previous two cases, Trudeau was found to have broken federal ethics rules.  Neither decision was sufficient to force the PM to resign and install an acting PM.  Given that the opposition parties really don’t want to bring down the government at this time, in light of the pandemic and everything else, it is highly unlikely that Trudeau will resign and call an election.  This despite the fact that he has a minority government and requires opposition support to govern.  However, such scandals can eventually influence the electorate as people may not be ready to forgive the PM for his latest transgression.

Of course, the media loves such scandals and continue to uncover certain dirt with respect to the WE Charity itself, accusing Craig and Marc Kielburger of financially benefiting from the foundation, especially in its real estate holdings. As a result, the foundation is itself under close scrutiny for significant real estate holdings that received charitable status last year, the firing of half its workforce and the resignation of several Board of Directors members; including the former Chair, Michelle Douglas.  Indeed, it appears that new information about WE financial irregularities preceding the scandal had come to light of which the Prime Minister’s Office should have been aware.

What does all this mean? The PM’s popularity rating had risen due to the federal government’s fairly good handling and coordination of national policies and programs in response to the coronavirus pandemic.  However, recent polls show a slight decline in his popularity, but not enough to force Trudeau to resign or to dissolve Parliament.  No one, including the official opposition Conservatives, wants an election at this time or in the near future.  While any so-called scandal currently makes for good press and suggests incompetence, over time it usually dies out unless more serious revelations about political improprieties come to light.   There may be a shake-up in Cabinet such as moving the Finance Minister to another portfolio, but that’s about all.  In the meantime, the government must keep on governing in response to the pandemic, which in my view and that of most Canadians should be its priority.  The nation and the economy need a steady hand at the helm, even if it may be shaking right now.

Canada COVID-19 Justin Trudeau Political Scandals Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
Jul 8

Should Canada Get Into a Trade War With China?

by bcurry

Andrew Scheer, leader of the opposition federal part Conservatives in Parliament, has come out on the national campaign trail swinging against China. He has called for placing tariffs on Chinese imports in retaliation for China’s recent blockage of Canadian agricultural products such as pork and canola. Much of China’s actions have to do with current extradition hearings, requested by U.S. authorities, against Huawei Technologies Co. Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Ms. Meng is being held in custody in her Vancouver mansion awaiting the start of these hearings which could take months. In retaliation, China has charged two former Canadian diplomats with espionage and they are being held in detention.

Next to the U.S., China is Canada’s major trading partner. Canada has been pushing for entry into the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, negotiations for which the U.S. withdrew from under President Trump. The TPP would allow Canada to strengthen economic ties with Asian countries and reduce its reliance on the U.S. markets. Then there is Canada’s current relationship with China’s Huawei corporation which is a world leader in wireless technology. Pressure is being put on Canadians by the Americans to limit the involvement of Huawei in their telecommunications sector due to national security concerns.

Prime Minister Trudeau has to be very careful in his government’s approach to China given the potential negative impacts on the Canadian economy. With respect to the two Canadians in Chinese custody, he has correctly obtained the support of Canada’s major allies to put diplomatic pressure on China. However, getting into a trade war with China would not be advisable at this time given that billions of dollars of trade would be at risk. Canada would be better off looking to diversify its trade with other Asian countries such as Vietnam. Vietnam has been Canada’s largest trading partner in the ASEAN region since 2015. In 2017, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Vietnam reached $6.2 billion, up from $5.5 billion in 2016. In 2017, Canada’s merchandise exports to Vietnam in 2017 amounted to approximately $1.1 billion. India is another country to be seriously considered for trade expansion as Canadian exports to India were over $3 Billion (US) during 2017.

Chinese companies provide Canadians with many affordable goods (just think of Walmart and Dollarama) and trade opportunities. Any move to imposing tariffs would only hurt the average Canadian through increased costs for such goods.  The China-U.S. trade war, which is hurting average Americans, has only further complicated matters.  Yes, there are political and humanitarian concerns with China’s domestic policies, but so are there similar concerns in other industrialized countries. Throwing more gas on the fires is not going to help resolve anything at this time.  As a middle power caught in a dispute between the world’s two largest economies, I would suggest that the Canadian government continue to take a slow, calculated and cautious approach to these issues.

Canada China Justin Trudeau Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with China US

Leave a comment »
Jun 7

Has Canada Become A Country of Huggers?

by bcurry

Today I saw a photo in the local paper of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hugging Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland after she had given a major foreign policy speech in the House of Commons. Standing next to the Minister, wouldn’t a simple handshake by the PM have been sufficient? There is little doubt that Trudeau likes to hug, especially females, but not exclusively.

If compulsive hugging is not listed in The Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which deals with defining mental and personality disorders, then maybe it should be.  Not only are we confronted by a Prime Minister who likes to hug everyone, even the opposition members, and everything, you now have individuals on street corners with signs suggesting that you may need a hug.

It used to be that Canadians were depicted as “hewers of wood and drawers water”. Now, we have become a country of huggers, including the usual hugging of trees by environmentalists.  It may not be a bad thing, but at times it appears to have gone a little too far.  Not everyone wants to be hugged, including Canadian comedian Howie Mandel.  Maybe we should follow the lead of Sweden, where in 1994 it had the highest number of women members (40 percent) of parliaments worldwide. Or Norway where the proportion of women parliamentarians has increased from less than 10 per cent in the early 1970s to almost 40 per cent by the mid-1990s. Today, Canada has a record number of female Members of Parliament, with 92 women elected to the Canadian House of Commons in the 2015 election — however representing only 26 percent of total members. Instead of hugs, I believe that handshakes should suffice as a sign of professional respect and encouragement.

Yes, there may be appropriate times for hugs, but the Prime Minister appears to be showing alarming signs of “hugism”. Should I meet the PM some day, a hardy handshake would be most adequate. And yes, please omit the usual selfie.

Canada Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
Apr 12

Why Expect Lifestyles of Political Leaders to Change Once They are Elected?

by bcurry

Well, here we go again with complaints about the costs of keeping Presidents and Prime Ministers in lifestyles they’re accustomed to. President Trump spends more time at his Trump Tower in New York and his Florida golf resort at Mar-a-Lago. American taxpayers are paying millions of extra dollars to provide additional security at both locations.  Everyone knew about Trump’s celebrity lifestyle, so why complain?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose father Pierre Elliot Trudeau led a lavish lifestyle, is continuing to frequent the hospitalities of rich friends. Like all prime ministers, Trudeau cannot fly on commercial airlines for security reasons and must instead travel on Department of National Defence Challenger jets, which cost about $10,000 per flying hour to operate. Sounds reasonable.

However, during winter holidays last year, the Trudeau’s flew to and stayed at the Paradise Beach Resort on the Caribbean island of Nevis. The private resort has a brand new collection of seven beachfront villas that come with their own personal butler and, apparently, monkeys.  Celebrity gossip site TMZ reported that Trudeau paid $2,500 US a night for a 3,400-square-foot villa.  Fortunately, Trudeau personally later picked up the bill for the pricey resort stay.

More recently, Trudeau and his family spent several days during a New Year’s vacation as the guest of the billionaire philanthropist, lobbyist and spiritual leader the Aga Khan at the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas. The Aga Khan’s island, Bell Island, is 115 km away from Nassau. A Canadian air force executive jet took the Trudeaus from Ottawa to Nassau. It was the Aga Khan’s private helicopter that took his family back and forth to Bell Island. This episode raised eyebrows because the federal Conflict of Interest Act prohibits ministers from using private aircraft without prior permission from Parliament’s conflict of interest commissioner. Apparently, Trudeau did not seek prior permission. Surprise, surprise!

Do you really expect Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau to change their celebrity ways? Complain all you might, but the electorate put them in power, lifestyles and all. After all, they’re both working to benefit us middle-class folk.

Canada Donald Trump Justin Trudeau US

Leave a comment »
Feb 21

Is There a Difference Between a Failure to Tell the Truth and a Lie?

by bcurry

As a student of the English language, I find that the use of certain phrases and words is becoming somewhat confusing. This is particularly true within the “bafflegab” found in political speeches, government pronouncements and social media.  For example, decorum dictates that one should suggest that the person wasn’t exactly truthful or had misrepresented the truth.  We never imply that the person lied, as lying is considered disreputable in societal terms, except apparently when applied to politicians.

A “fact” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a thing that is indisputably the case”. A “lie” is defined as “an intentionally false statement”.  Usually facts are founded on science-based investigations or the results of thorough studies.  Yet, now we hear about something referred to as “alternative facts”.  I suppose it is O.K. to cherry pick and manipulate the facts if it can be rationalized.  However, wouldn’t such actions border on encouraging “lies”.

Then there is the new phenomenon referred to as “fake news”, which appears to alter facts in order to better reflect one’s preconceived ideas or opinions. Editorialists are known to interpret events and facts to support their views and opinions on issues.  Journalists on the other hand are supposed to base their reporting on the facts as they are known.  How reliable the facts are is in turn based on the dependability and accuracy of their sources.  Thorough fact-finding requirements do not occur in the case of “fake news”, which has increased with the growth of ‘social media’.  Recent studies have shown that about half the population depends on social media for their daily news, including fake news.

We also have individuals who, after being interviewed or speaking, declare that they “misspoke” at the time. Otherwise, they did not mean to say what they said at that time.  This gives the impression that they didn’t think before their mouth uttered certain statements.  Politicians apparently misspeak a lot nowadays.  However, they never lie!  All any of us can do is obtain our information from as many ‘reliable’ sources as possible.  We will then hopefully be in a better position to discern what are facts, lies, opinions or fake news.  Good luck, you’ll need it.

Canada Donald Trump Federal Government Justin Trudeau US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Feb 9

Don’t Compare the Position of U.S. President to Canada’s Prime Minister

by bcurry

Recently, there was a poll taken in Canada comparing approval rates by Canadians for President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau. The poll looked at everything from the handling of policies related to the economy, security, immigration, foreign policy and health care — to name a few. However, such a comparison is really like comparing apples and oranges.  The role of the executive branch in the two governments varies greatly and the constitutional powers are significantly different.

Canada follows the Westminster system based on ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘responsible government’. The Prime Minister represents the political party with a majority of seats in the House of Commons, and the Cabinet is chosen from among the party’s elected sitting Members of Parliament.  For this reason, the PM depends on the support of his/her party to make policy and to pass laws in Parliament.  The President on the other hand is elected separately and chooses his/her cabinet usually from non-elected persons who support his/her policies.  While the PM sits in Parliament, the President must work to gather support from Congress to implement his/her policies.  The PM must maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to continue to form the government.  Otherwise, loss of a confidence vote in the House would mean that he/she must dissolve Parliament and usually call an election.  Moreover, the PM’s ability to formulate policies is very much dependent on the support of his party in Parliament, thereby limiting the PM’s ability to independently issue executive orders.  The President, unless he/she is impeached, normally resides comfortably for a four-year term.

The President is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. He has the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis and certain circumstances.  In Canada, the Queen is the head of state, and the Governor General officially represents her in the country.  The Queen is therefore the Commander in Chief, although through the Governor General as her representative.  The PM and the Government is somewhat limited in what military actions can be undertaken without Parliamentary approval, especially where new funding is required.  None-the-less, in domestic or foreign crisis, the PM and the Cabinet can react as needed under certain circumstances.  However, as in the U.S., there can be political consequences and negative electorate reactions to such actions.

Let’s face it, President Trump does not reflect all the views and positions of Republicans in both houses of Congress, especially when it comes to matters of free trade and immigration. Prime Minister Trudeau has no choice but to reflect the majority wishes of his party, which in this case is the governing Liberal Party.  Therefore, to compare the policies of a President and Prime Minister isn’t really a fair comparison, especially when you have a President issuing so many ‘executive statements’ without any direct Congressional involvement.  Furthermore, there appear to be a substantial amount of overt differences of positions between President Trump’s policies and the Republican Party.  Such overt differences could not happen in Canada given the need for Party solidarity to continue governing under the Parliamentary system. Thus, forget any irrelevant comparisons between the two and polls like the one by the National Post.

Canada Donald Trump Justin Trudeau Leadership US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 9

To Blog or Not to Blog, That is the Question

by bcurry

For about four years now, I have been blogging on a variety of issues within the blog entitled https://froliticks.wordpress.com/.  Blogging offers one an opportunity to express certain views on issues of the day, often in a satirical manner.  Whether they are read or not is often of little relevance as to why one bothers to blog.  If the writing is good and the subjects are current and interesting, one can only hope that its readers will enjoy the blogs and hopefully become better informed and willing to think about certain issues.

However, one must realize that there are thousands of blogs written every day. Besides keeping up on current events via print or on-line news sources, one only has so much time in a day to read blogs via the Internet.  For me, the frequent absurdities of politics in Canada and the U.S. make good fodder for any satirical writer. The current American presidential primaries are a perfect example of offering up plenty of comedic material for the likes of Saturday Night Live and late-night talk shows.  The total lack of real informed debate about serious issues is only one of numerous flaws in our political systems.  Both countries are among the wealthiest and best educated in the world, but have created leadership races involving mud-slinging and name-calling episodes worthy of the worst virtual reality television shows.

Select any important topic of current interest — be it the economy, climate change, inequalities among the sexes and races, national security, immigration, foreign policy, etc., etc. — and perspective candidates will respond with one-minute nonsensical sound bits. What is even sadder is the fact that voters and supporters continue to endorse such behaviour.  One would think that citizens would want to see well thought out and viable policies to deal realistically with today’s problems.  It was Otto Von Bismarck who said that politics is the “art of the possible”.  Moreover, it’s not necessarily about what’s right or what’s best. It’s about what politicians and governments can actually get done.

Listening to many of our politicians, you’d think that politics is the art of the impossible. Too many promises are totally absurd and lacking any grounding in reality and serious study.  This outcome has unfortunately culminated in the likes of Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton is not too far behind.  Canada’s current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tends to be more of a stuntman than a statesman, too often immersed in selfies with his admirers. This political evolution provides an immense amount of amusing material for bloggers like myself.  As long as the current output continues, there is plenty of incentive to keep on blogging.

Canada Conservative Political Groups Justin Trudeau US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 9

A New Younger Generation of National Leaders is Emerging

by bcurry

Guess what, as Baby Boomers our time has gone when it comes to political leadership. Take a current look at the recent arrival of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  He was born on December 25, 1971, and at 43 years old is one of the youngest Canadian Prime Ministers ever. Indeed, looking at the ages of newly elected Members of Parliament, it becomes apparent that fewer and fewer were born before 1965.  A new generation is emerging, representing more of those who make up what has become known as Generation X — those between that ages of 30 and 44.

Indeed, this transition is a good thing. Governments today have to deal with very complicated national and international issues.  These include the impact of globalization on our economic and social lives, work-live balance issues, climate change, rapid technological advances, renewable energy initiatives, etc., etc.  While Baby Boomers may have got the ball rolling, now a new generation of political, social and business leaders must carry the ball forward.  Experience may have been a key factor in the past, but energetic vitality and commitment will be more important attributes for current and future visionary leaders.

An older generation tends to be too preoccupied with the past and maintaining the status quo. What we need today are leaders who are willing to question the status quo and introduce new and more innovative ideas and policies.  They will need to question the existing establishment and the old ways of doing things.  They will have to reflect the views of younger generations raised in a totally new economic and social environment.  Instead of slow and mostly incremental policy development, more drastic and major policies will have to be quickly developed and implemented to tackle today’s most important issues.  Leaders will have to surround themselves with younger, savvy and more proactive advisors; thoroughly knowledgeable about such issues and interested in finding real long-term solutions.

Perhaps the emergence of Justin Trudeau is the first such significant case exemplifying a genuine changing of the guard. I sure hope so for all our sakes and for that of our children and grandchildren.  After all, it’s younger Canadians and Americans – Generation X and Millennials – who are in urgent need of advocacy.

Canada Federal Election Justin Trudeau

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.