FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Finally, One Can No Longer Ignore the Impact of Climate Change

Where I live in Ottawa, Ontario, one has seen an increase in severe storms like never before, causing much damage ranging from flooding to large trees, structures and electrical poles being toppled by wind gusts.  Indeed, the Weather Network has recently reported that Ontarians are feeling the hottest temperatures recorded in the last 90 years.  Temperatures felt like the low 40s across Ontario as the heat and humidity continued to ramp up.  As was the case not that long ago, what could compound the heat issues was once again wildfire smoke that reached parts of the province from neighbouring Quebec, lowering localized air quality and causing respiratory problems.

While tornadoes and flash floods are eye-catching disasters, extreme heat silently claims more lives than most other severe weather events combined.  One glaring example of this was the historic Chicago heat wave of 1995, where feels-like values rose into the 40s for days on end.  The heat claimed more than 500 lives, affecting most residents who lived in neighbourhoods lacking reliable access to air conditioning.  Another event was British Columbia ’s heat dome in June 2021 which claimed a similarly high toll, with nearly 600 people dying in the province as a result of the historic streak of high temperatures.  Most recently, data shows that Europe recorded over 10,000 excess deaths during a late-June heat wave.  Scientists have concluded that this heat wave would have been “virtually impossible” without ‌human-caused climate change, making heat waves more frequent and intense.

However, despite the fact that the U.S. produces around 40% of global greenhouse emissions, the current federal administration is cutting programs aimed at reducing man-made emissions, including initiatives promoting the development of green energy in favour of fossil fuels.  President Trump announced in February 2026 that he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet.  The action is considered a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.

In Canada, Prime Minister Carney is also pushing for more large energy projects involving the production and transportation of fossil fuels, particularly out of Alberta.  However, the federal and provincial governments are at least continuing to develop more electricity production sources involving green energy, such as in the nuclear sector.  However, previous Canadian targets for greenhouse emissions reduction have been put off until much later dates due to economic considerations.

There is little doubt that extreme heat events will become more common in the years to come.  It’s more important than ever to recognize the dire and silent toll that extreme heat can exact upon vulnerable populations, and work to mitigate the dangers posed by prolonged hot temperatures in communities that don’t have adequate access to ways to cool off.  In addition, communities will have to improve their infrastructure capabilities to better cope with extreme events ranging from flooding, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes.  Currently, it has become increasingly obvious that the existing infrastructure and prevention programs are inadequate to ensure our safety during such events.  Following the aftermath of such events, the monetary costs alone are enormous for victims, insurance companies and governments at all levels.

The time for governments to act is right now.  One must act against those who claim climate change as a “hoax”.  In order to encourage our two countries to transition away from fossil fuels and toward solar, wind and other nonpolluting energy, we must counteract groups of conservative activists as well as oil, gas and coal interests.  Otherwise, as eluded to by the American Environmental Defense Fund, one can expect that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 10 percent over the next 30 years.  Moreover, environmental concerns do not stop at our borders.

Leave a comment »

250 Years of Numerous U.S. Flawed Foreign Policy Excursions

Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century American ideology which held that the U.S. was divinely ordained to expand across the North American continent.  Coined in 1845, the concept justified territorial expansion, the spread of American democracy, and the displacement of Indigenous peoples and foreign powers.  The current president has even alluded to its re-emergence as a U.S.
foreign policy in the southern hemisphere.

One past result was the Spanish–American War of 1898, fought between Spain and the U.S., which  began with the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour in Cuba. The war resulted in the U.S. acquiring sovereignty over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines and establishing a protectorate over Cuba.  It represented U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and the Philippine Revolution, the latter later leading to the Philippine–American War in 1899. The Spanish–American War brought an end to almost four centuries of Spanish presence in the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific. The U.S. meanwhile not only became a major world power, but also gained several island possessions spanning the globe, which provoked rancorous debate over the wisdom of expansionism.

As for Cuba prior to the Cuban Revolution under Fidel Castro in 1959, the Batista regime was a U.S.-backed dictatorship in Cuba led by Fulgencio Batista.  Batista seized power via a military coup in 1952.  His government was characterized by extreme corruption, human rights violations, and a close alliance with the American Mafia, which controlled lucrative Havana casinos and hotels.  Shortly after Fidel Castro overthrew the much hated Batista regime, the U.S. portrayed Castro as a Soviet-backed Communist, something which was not true at the time.  However, following the failed CIA-supported “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba in 1961 and American sanctions levied on Cuba’s largest export “sugar” to the U.S., the Cubans had no choice but to seek economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union.

Then came the Vietnam War beginning in 1955 which lasted until 1973 when U.S. forces were hastily withdrawn following the downfall of the South Vietnamese dictatorship.  The conflict was the second of the Indochina wars and perceived by the U.S. as a proxy war of the Cold War period between the Soviet Union and U.S.  However, the Vietnam War was actually one of the postcolonial wars of national liberation, and an internal civil war between North and South Vietnam.  According to the National Archives, a total of 58,220 U.S. military personnel were killed or went missing in action during War. This total includes 47,434 who died from hostile action and 10,786 who died from non-hostile (e.g. drugs, suicides) causes.  Within the U.S., the war eventually gave rise to the so-called “Vietnam syndrome”— an aversion to American overseas military involvement, which, with Nixon’s Watergate scandal, contributed to the crisis of confidence that affected the U.S. throughout the 1970s.

Next came the U.S occupation of Iraq which lasted from 2003 to 2011, beginning with the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein and ending with the formal withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. The Coalition, led by the U.S., was the result of false American accusations that Hussein was directly involved in September 11th (9/11).  The occupation was marked by a rapid but contentious regime change in Iraq.  This resulted in the Coalition’s controversial governance, a devastating insurgency, and eventual phased troop draw-downs.  However, today Iraq is still facing economic and political instability, on-going insurgency and government corruption forcing the U.S. to maintain troops within the country.  The situation also resulted in the eventual emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a trans-national militant Islamist and terrorist group.

The war in Afghanistan was an armed conflict lasting from 2001 to 2021, the longest war in American history.  It began with an invasion by a U.S.–led coalition in response to 9/11 attacks carried out by the Taliban-allied and Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda. The Taliban were subsequently expelled from major population centers by American-led forces, thus toppling the Taliban-ruled Islamic Emirate.  In 2004, the U.S.-backed Islamic Republic was established.  However, by then, the Taliban had reorganized and begun an insurgency against the Afghan government and coalition forces. The conflict finally ended in 2021 when a Taliban offensive re-established the Islamic Emirate, resulting in the hasty evacuation of U.S. personnel and allied Afghans and leaving the Taliban once again in complete control of the country.

Today, one has an over four month war with Iran by the U.S. and Israel.  NATO allies were not consulted prior to the attacks, resulting in most countries not supporting the military action beyond destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. From the outset, the reasons given for the U.S. attacks on Iran were several, but very unclear as to the primary reason.  At various times, President Trump talked about possible regime change in Iran.  Other times, it was suggested that the main goal was to reduce Iran’s military capabilities in order to dissuade its regime from sponsoring terrorist activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially as they pertained to Israel.  Most recently, the reason give is the total elimination of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, something that the U.S. had declared destroyed after earlier targeted bombings of key enrichment sites.  However, in retaliation, no one appears to have seriously and in creditably envisioned Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz by military force.  Iran’s control over the Strait is primarily a “de facto” dominance achieved through geographic advantage and heavy militarization.  Under international law, Iran does not have the legal right to completely close or unilaterally block the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.  However, Iran is using its closure as a means to put pressure on the U.S. to end the war on its own terms.  The Strait’s closure and Iran’s attacks on oil and gas facilities in neighbouring Middle East states has led to a dramatic increase in the price of oil across the globe, including in the U.S.  At this time, there appears to be no sign of a meaningful long-term peace agreement between Iran and the U.S.  Moreover, one has a current American president who had clearly and vigorously campaigned on keeping the U.S. out of foreign wars.

Leave a comment »

Respective Roles and Governance of U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of Canada

The Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) is the central bank of the United States.  It manages the nation’s money supply and interest rates to achieve maximum employment and stable prices (a “dual mandate”), regulates banks to ensure financial safety, and processes financial transactions for the U.S.government.  The president cannot directly control the Fed, as it operates as an independent central bank designed to be free from short-term political interference.  However, the president does hold several key powers and avenues of influence over the institution.  The president’s formal powers include the ability to nominate the seven members of the Board of Governors, including the Fed’s chair and vice chair.  However, these appointments require Senate confirmation.  The chair and vice chair have only one vote each, as do each of the other governors.  Governors serve 14-year terms, which are intentionally staggered to span across multiple presidential administrations to insulate them from political cycles.  The limitations on the president include the fact that he has no say over the Fed’s interest rate decisions or its monetary policy.  These decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which includes the governors and regional bank presidents.  Also, by law, the president can only remove a Fed governor or the Chair from their position on the board “for cause”.  This generally implies serious misconduct or neglect of duty — not simple disagreements over policy.  Nevertheless, as definitely in the case of Donald Trump, presidents can use public statements, social media, and speeches to critique or pressure the Fed to adjust interest rates, though these actions carry no legal weight. 

Kevin Warsh became the Fed’s current chair, after being confirmed by the narrowest margin in its history.  Nominated by Trump, Warsh was officially sworn in on May 22, 2026, succeeding Jerome Powell.  Warsh has promised “regime change.”  However, under the new chairman, Fed officials voted once again on June 17th to hold interest rates steady for the fourth consecutive meeting, leaving their benchmark lending rate at a range of 3.5% to 3.75%.  This was despite Trump wanting to have interest rates reduced, and the result of another significant monthly increase in inflation.  Instead, according to their latest economic projections, Fed officials hinted at a potential rate hike later this year to combat the latest inflation spike tied to the war with Iran.  Interestingly, during his first post-meeting news conference, Warsh announced task forces in several areas that are central to the broad conduct of monetary policy.

Similar to the Fed, Canada’s central bank is the Bank of Canada (Bank).  Like other central banks around the world, the Bank promotes economic stability and supports the financial well-being of a country and its citizens.  Unlike the Fed leadership, the Bank’s governor (currently Tiff Macklem) and senior deputy governor are appointed by an independent Board of Directors. The Board provides general oversight of the management and administration of the Bank with respect to strategic planning, financial and accounting matters, risk management, human resources, and other internal policies.  The Board is composed of the governor, the senior deputy governor and 12 independent directors appointed to three-year renewable terms by the Governor in Council (the Cabinet).  The Bank sets policy independently within an agreed-upon monetary policy framework, without any direct interference by the government of the day.  However, the Deputy Minister of Finance can participate in Board discussions, but cannot vote on any Board decisions.  The Bank’s Governing Council reaches decisions by consensus and sets the policy interest rate on eight fixed announcement dates each year.  Given the Bank’s independent mandate and governance, the Prime Minister has little or no control over its mandate and composition, and in particular the determination of monetary policy based on current economic data.

Hopefully, given the legislative and independent authority attributed to each central bank, they will continue to carry out their vital operations utilizing economic data provided by independent and expert resources, including those within each country’s financial community and provided by impartial and objective government sources.

Leave a comment »

Impact on Canadian Small Businesses of U.S. Tariffs on Their Trade with the U.S.

Trade by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the U.S. ‘is an important part of Canada’s economy.  SMEs are defined as those with 1 to 499 paid employees.  According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as of December 2024 there were 1.10 million employer businesses in Canada.  Of these, 1.08 million (98.2%) were small businesses, 16,953 (1.5%) were medium-sized businesses, and 3,380 (0.3%) were large businesses.  Also, as of 2024, small businesses employed 5.8 million individuals in Canada, or 46.6% of the total private labour force, and medium-sized businesses employed 2.1 million individuals (17.0% of the private labour force).  Moreover, well over half of the Canadian labour force (almost 64%) was employed by SMEs.  In the same year, Canada’s exports of goods totalled $712.8 billion, of which 37.9% was attributable to SMEs.  A total of 48,036 Canadian enterprises exported goods, the vast majority of which were SMEs (73.3%), with the main destination being the U.S.

SMEs are well represented in Canada, as evidenced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) which represents about 103,000 small businesses and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber is the national voice of business uniting over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade representing more than 200,000 organizations across every region of Canada.  Along with other G7 countries, these organizations stand ready to support the G7 governments in modernizing a much-needed multilateral trading system, for their mutual future prosperity and growth.

The United States’ trade and tariff war with Canadais disrupting decades of cross border cooperation.  On both sides of the border, this trade war has created havoc among SMEs who for years benefited from free trade agreements between the two countries, the latest being the Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement (CUSMA).  Effective February 24, 2026, among the current tariffs affecting Canadian exports into the U.S., the Trump administration introduced a 10% tariff on non-CUSMA compliant goods.  This has added an additional cost on Canadian SME exports, whereby a number of businesses have simply decided to pay given the paper trail complexities associated with its current application vis-à-vis CUSMA.  In addition, effective August 29, 2025, the administration eliminated the U.S. de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, which affects goods valued at $800 or less.  This especially affects the exports by the smallest Canadian businesses which are now subject to all applicable duties, thereby raising the costs of their products for American consumers.  Without American consumer demand, many of the Canadian boutique class businesses will have not choice but to simply give up on exporting directly to U.S.customers.

Unlike the impact on larger companies (500 or more paid employees), such as those in the steel, aluminum, automotive and forestry sectors, SMEs on both sides of the border find it difficult to discover alternative markets for their products.  This situation implies that both American and Canadian SMEs will find it harder to export their products within the North American market. 

The impact on SMEs unfortunately is often forgotten in light of the majority of attention being given to those larger companies hit more extensively by tariffs.  This is unfortunate because SMEs often represent the best chance for employment growth in both countries.  In the past, SMEs were encouraged to expand their reach into the North American markets, resulting in the emergence of more and more franchises and increased business across our borders.  Now, the lost of open trade relations between the two countries has most definitely affected SMEs, and the potential for labour force growth in both.  This impact should not be discounted and ignored, especially since both Canada and the U.S. fundamentally support free enterprise and capitalism in all its forms.

Leave a comment »

American Questions About Albertan Referendum on Separation From Canada

Just this past weak, Premier Danielle Smith of the province of Alberta announced that she would ask citizens next October to vote on whether they want to stay in Canada, or hold a referendum to secede.  Although, the Premier knows that the vast majority of Albertans would vote to stay in Canada, she argues that in a democracy people should have the right to indicate their preferences.  This is despite the fact that a small minority of Albertans actually belong to separatist groups, and secession would result in serious political and economic consequences for the province.

Alberta is an energy rich province, and as such had to deal with past federal governments over issues related to environmental, other provincial and indigenous concerns when it comes to the construction of pipelines to the west coast to transport oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries in Southeast Asia, including China.  The dispute with Ottawa over energy development in Alberta goes as far back to the Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s National Energy Program (NEP) enacted in the early 1980s.  Following the two oil crises of the 1970s, the NEP had three main objectives: increase ownership of the oil industry by Canadians; price energy fairly for Canadian consumers; and provide Canadian energy self-sufficiency.  However, the NEP proved to be a highly controversial policy initiative and sparked intense opposition and anger in Western Canada, particularly in Alberta. The then Albertan Premier Peter Lougheed was a very vocal opponent of the NEP on the grounds that it interfered with provincial jurisdiction and unfairly deprived Alberta of oil revenue.  Although the federal government had reached a revenue-sharing agreement with the province, Albertan’s still blamed the program for economic hardships they faced in subsequent years.  Indeed, the term “Western alienation” was coined as a result of the NEP.  However, provincial revenue losses were primarily affected by the early 1980s recession and a crash in oil prices.  Although the NEP was repealed by successive Conservative governments, including the newly formed Reform Party based in the West, the past actions by the federal government still left a bad taste in the mouths of Albertans.  This resulted in a lot of frustration on the part of some Albertans who viewed the federal government, especially those under the Liberals, as mistreating Westerners and particularly obstructing the expansion of major energy related projects in Alberta.

Since then, a number of separatist movements have sprung up in Alberta, intriguing U.S. conservatives who believe that they have a lot in common with Albertan values.  From time to time, Albertan separation advocates have even reached out to American conservatives to plead their cases for an independent country.  For example, separatist leaders reportedly met on three occasions last year with Trump administration officials in Washington, although the State Department and the White House have dismissed those meetings as routine engagements with interest groups.  However, it appears that some supporters of President Trump and MAGA activists, most notably Stephen Bannon, have spoken publicly in favour of Alberta separating from Canada.  Although a small minority within the independence movement would like Alberta to become part of the U.S., separatist leaders have chosen to walk away from that position as it’s not popular with the majority of the movement. 

Currently, the two top federal parties — the Liberals under Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, and the Conservatives under the opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre — are firmly against secession.  Carney has sought to reverse the impression that his party wants to stifle Alberta’s growth and has worked with Premier Smith to propose a new pipeline to take more oil from the province to the British Columbia coast so as to ship to Asian markets.  Smith has said she hopes the federal government’s change in attitude toward oil will show Albertans that Canada and federalism can work for the province.  Americans would do well to avoid promoting Alberta’s secession, as such actions would simply introduce more negativity into already strained U.S.-Canada relations under the Trump administration, and would clearly result in charges of foreign political interference into the domestic affairs of another country.

Leave a comment »

Trump Administration Info About Increased Credit Card Use Is All About Misinformation

This past week, a key economic advisor to the Trump administration provided a clearly wrong message about the rising use of credit card usage in the U.S.   Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council since 2025, suggested that despite the hyper-inflation brought on by increased fuel costs due to the Iran war, the rise in credit card use indicates greater consumer spending as a good indicator of a healthy economy.  Hassett stood outside of the White House and told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that Americans are spending more money across the board.  Hassett said he had the head of one of the big five banks in his office go through credit card data.  Moreover, there is little doubt that Americans are relying more on credit cards than ever for everyday expenses such as gasoline, groceries, and rising living costs.  However, the primary reason is the higher costs of such staples and several other obvious reasons.

Even before the growing and full inflationary impact of tariffs on many products and services occurs, credit card use in the U.S. had increased significantly, often to manage daily expenses.  The result is that total debt had reached a record $1.277 trillion by the end of 2025.  However, much of the increased use was due to several reasons.  For example, it has been reported that Gen Z and Millennials are frequently using credit cards to build credit, while older adults (60+) have the highest ownership rate at 91%.  Furthermore, many consumers increasingly use credit cards for rewards or the security/convenience of not carrying cash.  Obviously, high inflation and rising costs for necessities like food and fuel have forced many households to rely on credit.  For example, since the Iran war started, business at gas stations alone rose by 15.5 percent from February to March of this year.

Suggesting that the higher usage of credit cards is an indication of greater discretionary consumer spending is totally misleading.  The reliance on credit is seen by most economists as a sign of stress for many working-class Americans facing higher rent, fuel and living costs.  Consequently, one of the negative results of greater credit card usage is an increase in delinquency rates (accounts that are past due).  Delinquency rates reportedly reached nearly 3% in early 2026, up from 1.53% in late 2021.  Indeed, increased delinquency rates are also a direct result of today’s high credit card interest rates.  For example, as of February 2026 the average credit card interest rate reportedly hovered around 21.52%, thus making debt progressively more expensive to repay.  More and more people are going into bigger debt then ever!

Once again, this is an example of the Trump administration highlighting economic information without fully explaining the whole picture as to what certain financial data really represents.  Nit picking information of this kind for obvious political reasons has been and apparently will continue to be the modus operandi of this administration.  As a result, one must be very concerned about the Trump administration’s biased and deliberate misuse of data to give a more positive account of the current economy.  The result is a blatant form of providing misinformation.  When I saw and heard Hassett’s conclusions about the implications of higher credit card usage, I immediately recognized another form of White House economic “bull shit”.  Moreover, one cannot help but see a pattern here.  Unfortunately, for many of us, this pattern will lead to increased mistrust in anything coming out of the White House and in particular from its economic advisors!

Leave a comment »

Is the U.S. Breaking International Criminal Laws and Laws of the Sea?

Let’s first start with the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran.  Under Article 94 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the Security Council has the authority to enforce International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) decisions. The ICJ can take a range of measures to ensure compliance, including economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and the use of military force.  The territorial jurisdiction of the ICJ is fairly broad, as it can deal with matters relating to any of the UN member states, which essentially means almost all the countries in the world. The ICJ, however, can only entertain cases where states appear before it.  It should be noted that the ICJ has no enforcement powers.  However, if states don’t comply, the Security Council, the organ of the UN primarily responsible for maintaining peace and security, may take action.  This means that the ICJ is more or less toothless as it requires unanimous agreement by Security Council members to take action, something inevitably impossible in this case given the U.S. is a Council member. 

Then one has the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is a criminal tribunal that can prosecute individuals.  The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC.  It has never ratified the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that created the court, and U.S. federal law actively prohibits most forms of cooperation with it.  As of 2026, the relationship apparently grew even more adversarial, with the current U.S. administration re-imposing economic sanctions on ICC personnel and declaring the court’s actions an “extraordinary threat” to national security.  American officials have consistently argued that the U.S. military justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting misconduct by its own personnel, thus making ICC involvement unnecessary.  In short, the U.S. ignores ICC deliberations except when the U.S. selectively cooperates with the Court in investigations targeting foreign leaders the U.S. also opposes.

Next, one has to deal with recent U.S.military strikes against vessels off the coasts of Latin America, most notably that of Venezuela.  One could consider the American actions as being questionable given International Law of the Sea.  According to the 1982 convention on International Law of the Sea (in effect since 1994), each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of what is referred to as innocent passage through this zone.  The Law of the Sea also applies to territorial waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, used for international navigation.  The navigational rights of foreign shipping are strengthened by the replacement of the regime of innocent passage by one of transit passage, which places fewer restrictions on foreign ships.  Moreover, Iran by threatening the safe passage of ships through the Strait is in violation of international law.  However, the recent declaration of a naval blockade of the Strait by the Trump administration could also be determined to be illegal.  The matter could be referred to the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for compulsory settlement, by arbitration, or by the ICJ.  However, once again, resort to these compulsory procedures has been quite limited in the past.

All said and done, none of these bodies would appear to be in a position to rule on the current conflict between the U.S.and Iran.  Through its overt aggression, the U.S.has thrown international law out the window.  However, should the U.S. decide to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran (e.g. energy, bridges, water desalination, etc.), as threatened by Trump, those American military leaders who proceed to carry out such attacks could be held responsible by the ICC as being complicit in such attacks. Consequently, they could be deemed to be “war criminals” under international law.  From a purely political viewpoint, the damage to the America’s image internationally would be devastating.

The actions of the U.S. will no doubt continue to be closely scrutinized by world leaders during this conflict.  Certain countries, such as China and Russia in particular, will take full advantage of the situation in their foreign policy.  Any attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran would most likely lead to a major humanitarian disaster.  How the American people further react to this war, time will only tell?

Leave a comment »

Donald Trump’s Name Increasingly Appears On Government Sites And Initiatives: But Why?

Since coming into his second term, Trump has, without any sense of modesty or rationale, placed his name on a number of government buildings and initiatives.  Why am I not surprised!  In my blog entitled Donald Trump and Extreme Narcissism in February 2016, I highlighted the fact that Trump has been described by numerous analysts as being an “extreme narcissist”.  I noted at the time that: “Basically, narcissism is recognized in psychologists/psychiatrists circles as a mental illness, often referred to as “narcissistic personality disorder”.  People with narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance.  They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behaviour.  They also have a strong need for admiration, are manipulative, but lack feelings of empathy.”

Well, Trump has certainly lived up to this description given his current mental state of mind and behaviour.  Moreover, it is of no surprise that he has a quest to name things after himself and to accept awards of nebulous merit, some often invented such as the FIFA Peace Prize and the just announced inaugural ‘America First Award’ from the Republican Party.  The list of renaming of federal buildings in Trump’s name continues to go on.  One can start with the performing arts complex, the Kennedy Center, to which Trump’s name was added in December of last year.  Next, the Trump administration renamed the U.S. Institute of Peace after himself and, following a protracted struggle for control of the institute, put his name on its headquarters.  This organisation, almost gotten rid of by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was renamed the Donald J Trump Institute of Peace apparently to “reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history”.  Around the same time, Trump announced the navy’s plans to develop the “Trump-class battleships” which are designed to meet the realities of modern maritime conflict.  In January, Trump rolled-out ​the government-supported investment “Trump Accounts” for American babies, calling on American businesses to contribute to employees’ family accounts.  Just today, the U.S. Treasury announced plans to put the president’s signature on all new dollar bills.  The move would be a first for a sitting president given that U.S. paper currency traditionally carries the signatures of the treasury secretary and the treasurer.

What does Trump’s obsession mean for the workings of the presidency, governance, the republic and the fundamental values ingrained in the American democracy?  Historically, self-aggrandizement has been in the domain of monarchs, dictators and autocrats for obvious reasons, having a lot to do with control of the populace and unrestrained power.  The American constitution was designed to prevent a president from pursuing the enhancement of the office’s power and image at the expense of the people’s house: “Congress”.  This past January, a CNN poll asked about Trump making changes to cultural institutions such as the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian.  Fully 62% of Americans said he had “gone too far” on this count.  Even 3 in 10 Republicans reportedly said the president was going too far with those cultural changes.  Politically, this self-glorification has not gone well with the American electorate.  Trump’s continuous pursuit for more personal tributes and praise has only added to the public’s growing discontent with his administration.

Through blatant narcissistic tendencies, the above noted poll also showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans now belief that Trump is mostly out for himself.  However, even though the emperor wears no closes as depicted in a fable, there have been few in Congress and elsewhere, including Republicans, that have courageously come forward to speak out in the republic’s defence.  Also, Trump’s quest to name things after himself seems especially ill-timed and inappropriate given the current state of the U.S. economy.  One can only speculate as to which institutions and government initiatives the president will want to proceed needlessly with name association.  Given that he is an extreme narcissist, I doubt that the buck stops in the Oval Office.

Leave a comment »

Once Again, Concerns Are Being Raised Over Newsprint Media In The U.S.

In several previous blogs (search under “media”) I wrote about various current serious issues surrounding mainstream media in the U.S. Today, as in the recent past, another example of the potential demise of a newspaper has surfaced in the case of the Washington Post.  As reported by people with knowledge of the company’s finances, in 2022 the organization was on track to lose money after years of profitability.  At the time, The Post had fewer than the three million paying digital subscribers.  Moreover, despite the losses, The Post’s newsroom remained one of the most formidable in the country.  In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, had become The Post’s owner.  Bezos said repeatedly since then that he wanted the company to break even, not to rely on his largess.  He initially invested heavily, and the company thrived for several years, with the newsroom doubling in size.  However, by this past year, The Post was running over $100 million in annual losses.  Consequently over the past two years, the newsroom shrank by nearly half to about the size it was when he bought it. 

Next came Donald Trump’s running for a second term as president.  Normally, Bezos stayed out of the paper’s day-to-day operations.  Apparently, he had not shown up in the newsroom since 2023.  However, in the past two years he has dipped in more forcefully.  His more direct involvement has resulted in a series of jarring upheavals in strategy and leadership at one of the country’s most decorated news organizations.  Problems at The Post started actually several years ago, when its audience diminished after expanding during the first Trump administration and the Covid-19 pandemic.  During the last presidential campaign, Bezos ended presidential endorsements, effectively killing a draft editorial that encouraged readers to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent.  As a result, there was reader uproar, as reflected in thousands of cancelled subscriptions. 

Bezos insisted an independent newsroom should be self-sustaining.  However, for example, foreign reporting is expensive.  As a key beat for The Post, foreign reporting is essential to keeping The Post competitive on national security.  Wanting to reduce the number of staff reporters in order to cut costs, Bezos further insisted that the newsroom perform today at the same level as before but with fewer staff.  However, there is no way to hit their target without affecting the scope of the newsroom’s coverage.  This resulted in most international correspondents and editors being laid off, including those in the Middle East, just weeks before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran.

At recent meetings with a group of top Post journalists and business executives, Bezos reportedly remarked that the company had gotten off track years ago because of inattentive oversight, including from himself, and a sluggish response to changes in the media business.  Nevertheless, he reassured the group that he was committed to its future, and said he had spurned several offers to sell The Post.  The Washington Post represents one of the premier news outlets, along with such papers as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  The lost of The Post would be a great blow to mainstream media.  Increasingly Bezos, in light of his closer relationship with the Trump administration, has more frequently outlined his political and economic beliefs, which boil down to a mix of libertarian and pro-business policies.  Indeed, in January of last year, he traveled to Washington and was assigned a seat onstage near Trump at his inauguration.  Weeks later, Bezos’ reorientation of the paper’s opinion pages became official.  The fallout from the change was immediate.  Subscribers once again cancelled in droves.  Several Post Opinion employees resigned, including the opinion editor David Shipley.  Interestingly, Shipley now works as an editor at The Times.

As a result of the newsroom coverage of the Iranian war, Secretary of War (alias Peace), Pete Hegseth, has gone to war with the American press over Iran coverage.  He alluded to the administration’s belief that major news media are overly critical of the war’s objectives and daily operations.  Instead, he stated that American news media should reflect the war’s outcomes in more “patriotic” terms. This highly defensive reaction feels tone-deaf at a moment when the nation is at war — especially as polls show Americans largely disapproving of the conflict and are unclear about its rationale. 

One can only hope that news outlets such as the Washington Post, by invoking journalistic integrity, will continue to report the sequence of wartime events in unbiased and factual terms without undue interference from the White House.  Perhaps Bezos should adopt this principled stance and better support the independent work of his newsroom staff, rather than insisting that it reflect his own personal values and bias.


.

Leave a comment »

Interaction Between the U.S. and Canada Summed Up in One Word: Confusion

When the Trump administration first introduced tariffs against specific industries in Canada (ex. aluminum, steel and lumber), it created a good deal of confusion and uncertainty because of the integrated market existing between the two countries.  The initial excuse was that Canada had failed to secure the border from the smuggling of fentanyl from Canada into the U.S., which only accounted for less than 1 percent of the total entering the States.  Secondly, Trump argues that Canada has long benefited from a trade surplus with the U.S., not accounting for the import to Canada of American services. Then, suddenly Trump was openly promoting the annexation of Canada, making it the 51st state: something neither the vast majority of Canadians or Americans have supported at any time in the past.

As a result of Trump’s tariff imposition, Canadians decided to elect Mark Carney, a Liberal, as the 24th prime minister of Canada in 2025.  Carney, a former head of Canada’s central bank, has had to take a careful and sensitive route in dealing with Trump on both economic and foreign policy issues.  Take for example, the current war initiated by the U.S.with Iran, which the Canadian government was not apprised of before American pre-emptive strikes.  Canadian support for the U.S. is a touchy and complicated matter, remembering that Canada is part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defence of North America.  As is the U.S., Canada is also a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and supports its allies in the defence of their sovereignty.  On the one hand, while Carney believes it is appropriate to support the U.S.; on the other hand, there are questions surrounding the legality of the attacks on Iran under international law and NATO’s non-involvement at the outset.  Also, the Trump administration’s primary motive for the attacks on Iran has been anything but clear from the outset, setting off confusion among NATO and other allies.  While NATO will defend itself against the resulting Iranian attacks on their bases in the region, there has been no indication to date that either Israel or the U.S. have sought the support of NATO military forces.  Once again, confusion reigns among the parties.

If any word can also express the current trade and foreign policy environment created by the Trump administration, it is “uncertainty”.  For Carney and other world leaders, this uncertainty has forced them to look at alternative economic, defence and trade arrangements, given the lack of American support for maintaining the normal global processes.  As a result, Carney has to seek alternative trade relations with other countries and has recently entered into formatting new arrangements with middle-power countries such as India, Japan and Australia — not to forget previous trips to several E.U. counties.  Indeed, just this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Japan’s Sanae Takaichi inked a new “strategic partnership” that signaled the next step in a recent drive to deepen military and trade co-operation between the two countries.  Just prior to that, Carney and his Indian counterpart announced what they’re calling a “new partnership,” a series of multimillion-dollar deals and a commitment to sign a free trade agreement by year’s end.  On March 4th, Australia and Canada signed new agreements on critical minerals as Carney made a landmark address to the Australian parliament, a sign of the developing bond between the “middle powers”.  The two countries will also deepen cooperation in areas including defence and maritime security, trade and artificial intelligence.

All if this is happening because of the political and economic policies under the Trump administration, which are confusing given that over 70 percent of Canada’s trade has always been with the U.S.  This close relationship with the U.S. has even been highlighted by the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement which Trump had negotiated and endorsed during his first term in office.  Now, it appears that he wants to replace this agreement with separate agreements with Canada and Mexico, which apparently would include new tariffs on their imports to the U.S.on selected products and services.  This has created a good deal of “uncertainty” and “confusion” within North American markets.

Moreover, when it comes to the U.S. policies, once can only foresee more confusion and uncertainty in the near future.  As Trump would no doubt brag, the ball now lies in the American court.

Leave a comment »