FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jan 7

Trump Is Completely Out To Lunch When It Comes To Iran

by bcurry

Here we go again! Hasn’t the American administration learned from past mistakes in the Middle East?  Remember supporting the former dictator, the Shah of Iran, against the Iranian people who suffered terribly under his regime.  Remember the flimsy excuses given by Bush Jr. to invade Iraq based on false intelligence about  Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction”.  Remember how the American occupation of Iraq and failure of subsequent Iraqi governments led to the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIL) and subsequent years of terror in the region.

Now, we have an American President ordering the assassination of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who the Trump administration claimed to pose a “clear and present danger.”  One can always ask “why now”?  Seems all too convenient as a distraction for a President who is smack in the middle of the impeachment process.  Now, U.S. and NATO forces and Westerners in the region are at real risk from Iranian reprisals.  The Iraqi parliament has voted to kick American and foreign forces out of the country, despite Trump’s threats of placing stiff sanctions on Iraq and making the Iraqis pay for the al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq.  This important base hosts many U.S. troops and was a strategic key in the war against ISIL.  Indeed, the U.S.-Iranian conflict may have just opened the door for the reemergence of ISIL in the region which is a much greater threat to everyone.  Remember that Iranian-backed forces fought against ISIL in Syria.

The actions by Trump carried out by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo  and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper may have just complicated what is already a dangerous situation in the region.  As was the past case in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration appears to have no strategy to deal with the likely escalation of U.S.-Iranian conflict that will most definitely follow.  Iran on the other hand has been given an opportunity by the American actions to distract the Iranian people from recent protests and uprisings within Iran against the regime driven by the country’s poor economic conditions.  In addition, the Iranian regime now has an excuse to recommense its nuclear arms program by withdrawing from the current accord which, under Trump, is no longer recognized by the U.S.

Canada, which has hundreds of military and other personnel in the region, has helped in the training of Iraqi security forces. With the recent events, they have been told to stand down.  The Americans have unfortunately paused their counterterrorism operations and are now focused on ensuring their security on bases throughout the region.  Some retaliatory moves by Iran are bound to happen, leaving Westerners throughout the region in a very dangerous position.  Trump’s further threats of potential reprisals, military or economic, may only add to what is already a very volatile situation.  Indeed, I would advocate that all Canadian personnel be withdrawn immediately and entirely from the region, in particular from Iraq.  Once again, why should Canadians pay with their lives for U.S. mistakes in the region?

Canada Donald Trump Iran Iraq Iraq Today Terrorism US

Leave a comment »
Dec 25

Accepting the Inevitability of Technical Surveillance is Just Wrong

by bcurry

I just finished reading a Washington Post article on how American colleges are turning students’ smartphones into surveillance machines, keeping track of their attendance in class and their activities around the campus. To say that this is highly disturbing is an understatement.  It’s bad enough that companies and even the authorities can track us at any time using surveillance software, but now even the privacy of students on campuses across the U.S. and Canada is under attack.

Officials like to employ euphemisms to justify their actions, including references to “monitoring” instead of “tracking” and moving toward “heightened educational vigilance”. In particular, colleges appear to be interested in tracking via smartphones the activities of those athletes in receipt of athletic scholardships.  You’d think that the purpose of grades would be enough to ensure scholarship requirements are being met.  Some have even suggested that such surveillance can be used to track the “behaviour” of students in order to evaluate their mental health.  Again, you would think that there exist adequate and available campus services to assist students in need while maintaining their privacy at the same time.

As data scientists and companies themselves recognize, much of the data collected is not always guaranteed to be “accurate, complete, correct, adequate, useful, timely, reliable or otherwise”. For example, this issue is one that has particularly been raised with respect to “facial recognition” software.  Unfortunately for students, tracking their attendance in classes, visits to libraries on campus, etc.,etc. may be misinterpreted due to faulty soft-ware or the misuse of data.

As the article points out, surveillance technology is becoming more and more ubiquitous in societies. People being constantly monitored — their peers, and themselves — feel that they can’t really do anything about it, thus “reinforcing a sense of powerlessness”.  The issue of privacy of our movements and activities has become even more pertinent with the increasing use of surveillance technology and expanding reach of “surveillance creep”.  Over 90 percent of North Americans now claim to use a smartphone, highlighting what will become the greatest privacy issue of the next decade.  I firmly believe in ensuring one’s privacy is protected as a fundamental right.  This is why, by choice, I don’t have a smartphone and prefer to go with a so-called “dumb phone” as my cellular option.  Think about it!

Canada Technology Surveillance US

Leave a comment »
Dec 15

Canada and the U.S. Trade Fall-Out From U.K.’s Brexit

by bcurry

Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Donald Trump issued statements congratulating Boris Johnson on his recent overwhelming electoral victory, pledging to co-operate on “issues that matter to both of our countries”.  One of these issues will be that of trade between our countries and the U.K. when it leaves the European Union (EU) with the implementation of Brexit. Although the U.K. now looks set to leave the EU on Jan.31, 2020, an “implementation period” will maintain its existing trade agreements through to Dec. 31, 2020. Currently, Canada’s trade with the U.K. is covered under the terms of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiated by Canada with the E.U. Donald Trump’s United States doesn’t currently have a trade agreement with Europe. Of course, Boris Johnson would love to enter into a free trade agreement with the U.S.  Good luck on that one.

The UK is by far Canada’s most important commercial partner in Europe and our fifth largest trading partner globally. According to Global Affairs Canada, two way merchandise trade in 2018, reached over $25 billion. However, Canada is not expected to make any moves on trade with the U.K. until it sees what happens with the outcome of U.K. trade negotiations with the EU. As it now stands, British trade policy is perceived as being in a mess, especially in the financial services and agricultural sectors. Depending on how things go with Brussels, the powerful U.K. banking industry may want more access to Canada’s market.  It’s very unlikely that Canada is going to be willing to give them something in that area. The Canadian banking and financial services sector is quite highly regulated and restrictive.

As for the U.S., next to the EU, the U.S is the top trading partner with 13.3% of total UK exports going to the U.S. in 2019, totalling about $64 billion (U.S.). It’s much more important for the UK to have access to American markets than it is for the U.S. to have increased access to UK markets. Trump has already made it clear that Boris Johnson wants to do business with the U.S. “so badly” — but at what costs? For example, concerns have been raised that parts of the Britain’s publicly-funded National Health Service (NHS) could be made available to U.S. markets by a Conservative government.

Whatever the case, as a result of the new Conservative government’s desire to move quickly on Brexit, 2020 will bring about some interesting and often troubling trade and domestic issues for the U.K. It is certain that Britain’s leaving the EU will lead to renewed independence initiatives in Scotland and the question of the potential union of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, both regions which strongly preferred to remain as part of the EU. Whether Brexit will lead to better economic conditions in the U.K. will be a determining political factor for the new government. Meanwhile, Canada and the U.S. can only sit back and observe the outcome before making any further trade-related moves. Many North American businesses which have U.K. subsidiaries are sitting on their hands and postponing any planned investments. Unfortunately, the British people are the ones who have to deal with the economic vulnerabilities and political uncertainties resulting from Brexit.

Canada Donald Trump Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with EU US

Leave a comment »
Dec 9

Accusing Canada of Not Living Up to Its NATO Commitments is Overkill

by bcurry

Canada has roughly the same population (approx. 36 million people) as the state of California. Despite this, Canada has a long and proud military history — having significantly contributed citizens and materials to two World Wars and more recently to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) involvement in Afghanistan and Latvia. With a relatively small number of regular military personnel who are well armed and trained, Canada has contributed to numerous peace time operations of both NATO and the United Nations.

At a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, NATO nations for some arbitrary reason agreed to the target measurement of 2 per cent of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for its total defence spending. Canada currently spends about 1.31 per cent of GDP on defence. However, tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. A number of expert observers have agreed that NATO’s defence budget formula is very flawed, and allows small obscure countries like Bulgaria and Estonia to declare that they are more than meeting the 2 per cent target. In such cases, the purchase of a new ship or aircraft and one can easily surpass this GDP target. However, these and other similar countries contribute little in actual on-the-ground NATO support or suffer casualties as Canada did in Afghanistan.

So along comes Donald Trump who threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO if all its members didn’t meet the 2 per cent of GDP target. The U.S., as a so-called super power and having its own foreign policy objectives backed up by an immense military-industrial establishment, now spends 3.42 per cent of its GDP on defence. Little surprise there, especially given vast American operations in the Middle East, South-East Asian seas and Afghanistan. For Trump to say that NATO is “obsolete” and frequently compliment Russian President Vladimir Putin are both absurd and even dangerous. After Russia’s “illegal annexation” of Crimea, NATO spoke of its solidarity with the Ukraine. Someone has to stand up to Russian aggression — if not NATO then who?

As part of its commitment to national security and to NATO, Canada is due to embark on major expenditures on fighter jets and the navy. Whether or not Canada meets some arbitrary target in defence spending is not all that critical. What is, is the country’s need to maintain a professional, prepared and well trained military.  I fully believe that the brave and competent men and women of Canada’s armed forces will continue to uphold the country’s proud military heritage. Something that the likes of Donald Trump cannot and will not fully appreciate.

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Military Prowess NATO Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Dec 2

Canada and U.S. Need to Consult More on How to Manage Artic Waters

by bcurry

Increasingly, the Artic waterways are open for a longer period to limited shipping, including commercial vessels, due to the impact of climate change in warming the oceans’ waters. For years, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have been building a greater capacity to travel through the Northwest Passage, even when the ice is still fairly thick. North of Russia shipping from Europe to Asia now takes place on an intermittent basis. Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers. Currently the U.S. has two heavy icebreakers that are in their last days of service, and no new replacements are under construction at this time. Under a previous Conservative government, Canada proposed building a heavy polar icebreaker, but almost no progress has been made toward its actual construction.

Besides the potential natural resources that the Artic has, the Artic waters are of an important strategic value, militarily and politically, to both Canada and the U.S.  This year Canada released a comprehensive Arctic policy framework that places the emphasis for future development on civilian development. However, Canadian policy does not address Arctic shipping concerns.  This certainly is not a way to reinforce Canadian sovereignty off our Arctic coast.  Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, recently proposed the creation of an Arctic Shipping Federal Advisory Committee to centralize discussions about shipping in Alaskan waters.

I would go one step further and suggest that a joint North American body needs to be created, just as we have one for common defense concerns in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) to deal with mutual issues involving the Great Lakes waterways, commercial shipping and environmental concerns. Not only do we need to monitor Russian activities in Artic waters, but both countries can better coordinate investments in the creation of an ‘Artic seaway’ and the development of Artic ports.

At this time, neither Canada nor the United States has much to offer in the event of a maritime disaster in North American Arctic waters. Isn’t it about time that both countries get together to share resources and expertise to counter the growing Russian influence in Artic waters.  Instead of investing in military capabilities in outer space, it might be wiser to invest more resources right here on earth where more immediate and important needs must be addressed.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Military Prowess US

Leave a comment »
Oct 24

Canadian Federal Election Says A Lot About Canadians

by bcurry

Like the U.S., Canada is a country of many diversities — be they regional, cultural, urban or rural, or economic. The recent federal election results demonstrated once again a wide spectrum of diversities and issues among the Canadian electorate.  Firstly, we elected a minority government giving the incumbent Liberal Party another term in office.  Secondly, the division of the votes and seats was obviously split according to regional support, again a further recognition of diverse interests.  After all, Canada is formally a confederation of competing provincial entities. In addition, the majority of voters rejected populism and far right-wing and left-wing policies.  Most Canadians prefer to maintain a more centrist position.

One now has greater representation by a nationalist party, the Bloc Quebecois, in Quebec whose only platform is to federally support only those policies that benefit the province of Quebec. The western provinces, mainly Alberta and Saskatchewan, overwhelmingly supported the pro-pipeline Conservatives. In addition, rural areas in most provinces primarily supported the Conservatives while urban and suburban areas such as Toronto and Montreal supported the Liberals.

Having become disillusioned with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government over unethical behaviour and failures to fulfill certain 2015 promises, the electorate sent a clear message by voting for a minority regime. One part of the message was a concern that a Conservative government would proceed to cut services and programs to return to budgetary surpluses and reduce deficit spending.  However, Canadians are not prepared to support a government bent on a number of social and environmental policies promoted by the left of center New Democratic Party and Green Party.  Once again, voters preferred to make safer choices which maintain the ‘status quo’.

What is particularly interesting this time around is that all the political parties had more candidates representing women, minorities and indigenous persons. This reflected their adherence to the multicultural and socioeconomic elements of Canadian society.  The most populist-oriented party, the newly formed Peoples Party of Canada, made no significant inroads and won no seats.  Not surprising given their anti-immigration policies.

Yes, there is always a degree of dissension among certain regions over the outcome. Overall however, the election results gave Canadians the type of government that they preferred at this time, rejecting much of the negativity displayed during the campaigns.  A minority government will have to gain the cooperation of the other parties in order to legislate and to avoid being forced to call another election during its term.  In effect, the Prime Minister will have to display a greater degree of humility, something certainly lacking under his majority government.

Canada Federal Election Populism in Canada

Leave a comment »
Oct 5

Can We Believe Canadian Political Parties on Promises to Deal with Climate Change?

by bcurry

During the current federal election in Canada, four of the major parties are each suggesting that they have the answer when it comes to dealing with the issue of climate change. Years ago, Canada under a Conservative government signed onto the Paris Climate Accord. An assertion was made that Canada would reach certain reductions in carbon emissions by 2020. Recent studies have shown that this won’t happen.  The current Liberal government did introduce a tax on fossil fuel usage and greenhouse emissions, but is facing several court battles spearheaded by several Conservative provincial governments.  While Canadians in polls tend to support tackling climate change as an important issue, they appear to not be willing to pay much in support of policies directed at the issue.  Especially where jobs are involved.

The recent demonstrations held across Canada and the world highlighted the concerns of future generations about the impact of climate change and the abysmal efforts of countries to seriously address the issue. One could not help but admire the anger of today’s youth over the lack of real progress in reducing carbon emissions globally and our continuing reliance on fossil fuels.  Indeed, in Canada, it didn’t help that the federal government bought an oil and gas pipeline in the hope of completing its construction down the road. It is hoped that oil from the Alberta oil fields would be transported via the pipeline to the coast of British Columbia in order to be shipped to overseas markets. Somewhat hypocritical, yes!  Then you have the federal Green Party and New Democratic Party stating that they would cancel all pipeline construction, instead preferring to invest in green and alternative technologies.  Somewhat unrealistic, yes!  The Conservative Party’s environment platform is pretty much straight forward: kill the federal carbon tax.  However, its leader has little to offer in the Party’s proposed policies, given few details, timelines and costing.  Some Conservatives, like the Republicans in the U.S., still believe that climate change is a hoax.

All in all, the major federal parties are nowhere near meeting the foreseen needs associated with effectively tackling issues surrounding climate change. The Green Party which represents the main party with a holistic environmental agenda has little chance of ever forming the government.  However, should the October election result in a minority government, the Green Party could become a major player in supporting either the Liberals or Conservatives in forming the government.  Should this happen, then Canada may just have a national government willing to deal with the urgent issues concerning climate change and carbon emissions. Perhaps, this is what Canada needs at this crucial juncture in human history.

 

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Oil and Gas Transport of Oil US

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Governments and Employers Have to Deal With the Implications of an Aging Population

by bcurry

According to Statistics Canada’s most recent population projections, by 2015 there would be more people in Canada over the age of 65 than under the age of 15. The number of seniors is expected to double over the next 25 years.  According to American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), today there are about 44 million adults in the United States who provide unpaid care for a loved one who needs support. The numbers of seniors are increasing every day in each country.  People are also living longer due to advances in medical and health sciences.  This has serious implications for society in light of issues surrounding elder care, an aging workforce, old age income security, long-term care, the increase in persons with health issues such as dementia and Parkinson’s, the impact on health care systems, etc., etc.

A 2017 survey by the U.S. National Business Group on Health, a coalition of large employers, found that 88 percent of employers think care giving will be a big issue over the next few years.  Surprisingly, it has been determined that the average age of care givers is 33 years old.  Many of whom are members of the so-called “sandwich generation”, whereby they have both children and elderly relatives to look after.  Many care givers are experiencing stress as a result of the dual responsibilities. In addition, we are already experiencing serious shortages in long-term care facilities for those seniors who have major health issues.

Many of the millions of baby boomers have turned 65 and their parents are living past 85, joining the fastest-growing segment of the population. The boomers who have retired must now not only look after their own costs of living and their own income security, but also have responsibilities for helping out their aging parents.  As the baby boomers themselves age, their children may also have to help them to cope with continuing to normally function in today’s society.  For those care givers still in the labour force, there are few companies that subsidize elder care benefits, have written policies about elder care or provide for paid elder care leave.

The lack of existing elder care policies in the private sector leaves governments with the responsibility to initiate new approaches to tackling the issues surrounding an aging population, as they did with child care in the past. Canada is in the midst of a federal election. It’s time that all political parties propose how they plan to deal with aging population issues, including old age income security, long-term health and home care, tax breaks for elder caregivers, labour standards directed at those providing elder care, universal drug and dental benefits, etc., etc.  Seniors represent about a quarter of all voting citizens, thus representing a major voting group which political parties cannot continue to ignore. They need to influence employers and future governments.

Canada Federal Election Health Care US

Leave a comment »
Sep 13

Why Is The Trump Administration Attacking Environmental Protection?

by bcurry

A recent article in the New York Times (September 12, 2019) noted that up until June of the year, 85 environmental rules had been rolled back under the Trump administration. Several rules, a number of which had been implemented under the Obama administration, were aimed at preventing pollution in air and water.  In addition, some were aimed at protecting endangered species and ensuring safer drilling and extraction related to the oil and gas industry.  A simple answer is that the rollbacks are aimed to please farmers, rural landowners, developers and the coal, oil and gas industry which make up a good portion of Trump’s support.

The most recent rollback by the Trump administration is the repeal of a major Obama-era clean water regulation, known as the Waters of the United States rule, that had placed limits on polluting chemicals that could be used near streams, wetlands and other bodies of water.  This rule was designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, protecting sources of drinking water for about one-third of the United States.  We all know about the repercussions from unsafe drinking water — just think of Flint, Michigan.

For years, one admired the work of the once highly-respected U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which often led the way in environmental protection measures that Canadian environmental agencies similarly adopted. Think of the bilateral work between Canada and the U.S. in areas such as dealing with “acid rain” and the clean up of the Great Lakes.  It’s a shame that under Trump the EPA is moving backwards in terms of protecting the environment and endangered species and away from its original mandate.  To reverse these measures may take years to accomplish and the country will see serious environmental repercussions.

In terms of dealing with carbon emission reductions — think climate change — the Trump administration has taken a “laissez fare” approach, and even aggressively attacks states such as California who are trying to do something about their carbon emissions. This includes Trump’s warning to the state that a recent emissions deal with several automakers may be illegal.  A letter from the EPA and the Department of Transportation is the latest sign of President Trump’s anger at California and car manufacturers that have bucked his plans to roll back regulations put in place to combat climate change. Inevitably, the matter may end up being decided by the courts — again prompting more delays and serious drawbacks in tackling air pollution and climate change issues.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
Sep 8

How Many More Mega-Storms Will It Take?

by bcurry

As I sit here, Hurricane Dorian has just hit the Canadian Maritimes (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick) with 160 km/hr winds, downing hydro poles and trees and removing roofs and flooding homes and businesses. After devastating the Bahamas as a Category 5 hurricane, Dorian continued up the U.S. eastern seaboard leaving further destruction along its path.

Scientists continue to warn us of an increase in particularly violent storms due to the impact of climate change on the oceans and across continents. Can we do something about its impact besides shoring up infrastructure, changing agricultural patterns, reducing carbon emissions, implementing more emergency planning and resources, relocating populations further inland or to safer locations, introducing new technologies, etc., etc.?  These are simply stop-gap measures.

Given the lack of global will of governments to seriously tackle the underlying causes contributing to man-made climate change, perhaps this is all one can do! A recent study, by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, shows that about 70 percent of Americans believe that the climate is changing, most acknowledge that this change reflects human activity, and more than two-thirds think it will harm future generations.  Yet the same study found that most Americans would support energy-conserving policies only if they cost households less than $200 per year — woefully short of the investment required to keep warming under catastrophic rates.  If an identical study involving Canadians were undertaken, it would probably indicate similar results.

Merely paying lip service to and recognizing the impact of climate change is no longer any good. Societies and nations have to act and act now in real and tangible ways.  Setting targets for carbon reduction is no longer enough if no real resources are applied and major societal changes take place.  Industrialized countries like Canada and the U.S. must help to lead the way.  The environment demands it, we all must demand it.  The impact of environmental issues will affect all economies.  Sustainable plans must immediately be put in place in order to ensure our economic future and that of the planet.  People must be convinced in order to recognize and support the necessary measures to effectively deal with this reality.  Moreover, we have to walk the talk.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

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