FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 17

COP26 on Climate Change Resulted in just a Lot More Hot Air

by bcurry

Nearly 200 nations gathered at a conference in the Scottish city of Glasgow, known as COP26, and struck a deal intended to propel the world towardmore urgent climate action.  Proposals aimed at reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming, and to end deforestation in the coming decade were considered big achievements of COP26.  However, climate change experts noted that such promises have been made and broken before.

The hard-fought agreement doesn’t go nearly far enough.  The agreement does not achieve the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris accord — to limit Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.  Instead, delegations left Glasgow with the Earth still on track to blow past that threshold, pushing toward a future of escalating weather crises and irreversible damage to the natural world.

In the streets of Glasgow, over an estimated 100,000 protesters marched to get the conference’s delegates to walk the talk and come to an agreement that included more concrete targets and specific funds to combat climate change.  Due to the objections of countries such as India, Australia and China, the agreement could not even target a phasing out of coal burning and fossil fuel subsidies.  Instead, the agreement only proposed to “phase down unabated coal”, most likely over the next fifty years.  Too little, too late.

Yes, the industrialized countries, such as the U.S., Britain and Germany, pledged funds to help the poorer, lesser developed countries cope with the environmental and economic consequences of climate change given that natural disasters are expected to escalate.  For example, President Biden has pledged to boost U.S. climate aid to poor nations to more than $11 billion a year — a promise that will require help from Congress.  However, the proposed funding amounts are nowhere near enough to effectively reduce the real impact on these developing countries, particularly from severe droughts and crop-destroying floods which could put millions of people at risk of starvation.  Then there are the environmental migrants, people who are forced to leave their home region due to sudden or long-term changes to their local environment.  For example, there is the devastating drought that has gripped Syria since 2006 and reportedly has driven more than 1.5 million people from the countryside to cities in search for food and economic normality.  The International Organisation for Migration estimates that there are now several million “environmental migrants”, and that this “number will rise to tens of millions within the next 20 years, or hundreds of millions within the next 50 years”.

The protesters, many of them representing today’s youth, shouted: “Hurry up please. It’s time.”  Unfortunately, all one what got was more “blah, blah, blah”.  Cautious optimism about the potential outcome of the talks gradually turned into overt pessimism.  Clearly, many participants, including delegates, left Glasgow with feelings of dismay and regret.  Once again, it’s now up to each individual country to sort out its “climate change” policies and the allocation of its resources.  No doubt, President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau will be discussing their plans at a joint meeting today in Washington.  It will be interesting to see if anything concrete comes out of the discussions given their shared mutual political and economic concerns about the impacts associated with climate change and fossil fuels.  We’ll just have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t hold my breath!  I’m expecting a lot more “hot air”.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Nov 13

Hyperinflation Could be the Death Knell of Current Federal Administrations

by bcurry

According to just released U.S. Labor Department data, the consumer price index (CPI) increased 6.2 percent from October 2020.  The CPI in Canada was not far behind, rising almost 4.5 percent on a year-over-year basis in September, the fastest pace since February 2003.  In general, monetary authorities like to keep the annual inflation rate at somewhere between 2 to 3 percent.  What one is seeing now could certainly be described as ‘hyperinflation’, which causes all kinds of major issues for governments.  Experts also predict that this current belt of inflation is not going to go away any time soon because of a number of underlying factors, many attributed to economic consequences related to the pandemic.

You don’t have to be an economist or a political scientist to figure out the daily concerns caused by the current inflation rates throughout both economies.  The average American or Canadian sees these concerns on a daily basis when they purchase a house or pay rent, go shopping for food, put gas in their vehicles, buy new vehicles, pay their electricity and heating bills, etc., etc. 

While wage rates have been climbing in recent months, higher consumer prices are eroding peoples’ buying power.  In the U.S., inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings fell 1.2 percent in October from a year earlier.  The longer high inflation continues, the more pressure will be put on Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada officials to end near-zero interest rates sooner than expected.  With the increase in interest rates, people with mortgages and outstanding debt will be faced with the greater cost of borrowing and additional debt-related issues.

One must remember that when George H.W. Bush was president, one of the major reasons that he was unable to win a second term in 1992 was because of the early 1990s economic recession during his administration.  Some suggest that he forgot about the most important political maxim that: “It’s all about the economy stupid!”  The impacts of the recession also included the resignation of then Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.  Administrations cannot ignore a situation of hyperinflation for very long.  Both President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau are caught in between a hard place and a rock.  With the end to financial assistance related to the pandemic and the economy’s lockdown, people are going to suffer.  Tough choices are going to have to be made, whether to put nutritional food on the table or cut back on medications and basic entertainment. 

Yes, the economy does appear to be opening up.  However, new COVID cases are on the rise once again in certain regions in North America.  Indeed, in these regions one has what is being referred to as “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Consequently, should governments choose to renew or introduce new financial assistance measures, this will only exacerbate the current economic situation by further increasing the ratio of government debt to revenues.  If interest rates increase as expected in light of inflation, the future interest on government debt will also increase accordingly.  Under these extraordinary circumstances, governments can only do so much.  If the current frustrating situation continues, we would most likely see a change in federal administrations in future elections, as was the case in the early 1990s.

Canada Economy Economy US

Leave a comment »
Nov 8

Irrationality Drives Unvaccinated Beliefs About COVID-19

by bcurry

Every day one sees articles or hears about unvaccinated men, women and children who are tragically and needlessly dying from COVID-19.  Some of the stories even involve people who have spoken out against COVID vaccines.  According to data by Johns Hopkins University, the sad part is that COVID-19 has now killed over 750,000 Americans and infected about 46.5 million since last January.  However, those numbers fail to paint a complete picture, since testing scarcity and delays likely left many COVID-19 cases and deaths undiagnosed, especially during the outbreak’s early stages.  In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that as many as 1 in 3 people in the U.S. have been infected, more than three times the official count.

Recently, we’ve seen articles about well-known athletes, entertainment celebrities, politicians, etc., etc. who have spoken out against vaccines for a whole number of irrational reasons.  Unfortunately, they have ignored the expert advice of scientists and physicians in favour of becoming “Facebook doctors” and relying instead of the associated reams of misinformation about COVID vaccines.  In general, ‘fear’ is a powerful emotion.  Then there are those who have simply ‘politicized’ the anti-vaccine movement for their own reasons, often stressing libertarian values over the health concerns of the community.  Simply put, being vaccinated and following certain protective measures will help prevent the spread of COVID and the emergence of new more dangerous variants.

The fact is that where more and more people have been vaccinated, coronavirus case levels have remained stable in recent weeks, and hospitalizations and deaths have generally continued to decline in some parts of the country, notably across the South and Northeast.  Still, we are looking at around 70,000 new infections reported daily in the U.S.  Infection levels continue to climb steadily in such states as California, Colorado and New Mexico.  Despite the optimism of some people, this pandemic is far from over.  Fortunately, as of this November, seventy percent of American adults are now fully vaccinated, and COVID vaccines for children have been or will most likely be approved by the CDC.  We are slowly on a road to potential recovery and so-called ‘normalcy’.

‘Vaccine hesitancy’ is now confronting the recent introduction of mandatory vaccine requirements in the U.S.  Interestingly enough, nearing President Biden’s coronavirus vaccine deadline, thousands of federal workers are apparently seeking religious exemptions to avoid the shots.  Moreover, the federal government will have to balance the right to religious freedom against the goal of creating safe workplaces for 2.1 million civilian employees.  However, it’s bizarre how one is determined to qualify for an exemption base on one’s religious beliefs.  Apparently, employees do not need to provide proof of a religious conviction to justify a claim, but must only attest that are “sincerely held.”  Some managers are even asking whether employees, despite their religious beliefs, received vaccines for other illnesses such as the flu, measles, shingles, tetanus or invasive pneumococcal disease.  Managers will soon assume the thorny role of having to decide whether someone is sincere or requesting such an exemption for political reasons.  In a directive issued in January, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the employee’s objections do not have to stem from an organized religion and can be beliefs that are new, uncommon or “seem illogical or unreasonable to others.”  Talk about muddying the waters!

A viewpoint or position is deemed irrational if it’s based on evidence judged not to be logical or reasonable.  I have yet to find any arguments that would convince me that opposing COVID vaccinations can be validated, even those supposedly based on one’s religious beliefs.  Most of those in opposition are basing their beliefs on information they’ve obtained in support of their position.  This is referred to by psychologists as a clear sign of ‘confirmation bias’.  They simply ignore information and data which clearly supports the urgent need for as many people as possible in a community to be immunized against this dreadful disease.

Coronavirus US

Leave a comment »
Nov 5

Two Trials in U.S. May Be Putting the American Justice System Itself on Trial

by bcurry

There are currently two trials of particular interest in the U.S. which reflect notable elements of American society.  One involves the killing by three white suspects of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man, in a South Georgia community in February 2020.  The other involves the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, who is charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020.  In both cases, the accused are arguing that the shootings were in ‘self-defence’.  Both events were video recorded and covered by American media outlets, including several national television news networks.  Both were tragic events and appeared to be partly racially motivated, at least according to the prosecution.

In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, you have a 17-year-old who travelled from his home in Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, in neighbouring Wisconsin.  He then picked up an AR-style semiautomatic rifle illegally from a friend and set out to act in response to mass protests and street unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man.  He is consequently charged with killing two men and wounding another during disorder.  All three victims were white.  Mr. Rittenhouse’s defenders say he was exercising his right to bear arms, in defence of liberty, and have claimed self-defence against perceived threats by the three victims.  However, there are a number of questions.  Why did Mr. Rittenhouse believe that it was necessary to carry out what is described as a ‘vigilante action’, especially since he was not protecting his own property and was outdoors long after an 8pm curfew imposed by Kenosha officials?  How will jurors decide whether or not the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances?  The law generally does not recognise your right to use deadly force to defend property, only your person.  Will the jurors condone such ‘vigilante’ action?  Some people see him as a hero and not as a villain.  As this highly politicised case unfolds, answering these questions will be a major challenge ahead for the jurors.

Then we have the case of three white men involved in the shooting of a black jogger, Ahmaud Arbery.  One of the defendants actually video recorded the incident which then went viral.  The two shooters claim to have shot the unarmed Mr. Arbery in self-defence.  Apparently, they chased him down believing that the jogger resembled the suspect in a series of alleged break-ins.  They have accused Mr Arbery of attacking them while they attempted to make a “citizen’s arrest”, resulting in his being shot and killed.  What’s really interesting in this high profile trial is the fact that a nearly all-white jury, with just one black member, has been selected.  The prosecution accused the defence of eliminating potential jurors based on race, noting that defence attorneys used 11 of their allotted 24 strikes to reject black jurors.  This in a town which is majority African American and a county where more than a quarter of people are black.  Kind of reminds one of a time when no black persons were allowed to serve on jury duty in Georgia, often related to the trials of white men involving the killing or injuring of black people.  Interestingly, studies have pointed out that Americans from ethnic minorities tend to be under-represented on most juries.  Should be also interesting to see the results of this highly politicised case!

With so many Americans armed today, these two incidents once again raise the ultimate question about whether one can legally act forcibly in ‘self-defence’ or pursue ‘vigilante’ actions with impunity?  Where does one draw the line?  Significant cases such as those described above may provide more answers or may result in even more questions being asked.  These trials are being closely watched by people around the world, including here in Canada.  Just as in the case of past police shootings, the performance of the American judicial system is also on trial.

Judicial System US

Leave a comment »
Oct 28

U.S. Intention to Increase Use of Electrical Vehicles Appears to be Unrealistic

by bcurry

Not long ago, President Biden declared his administration’s proposal to have electric vehicles (EV) making up half of new cars sold in the country by 2030.  While his intentions are good, the reality is that the sources of current electricity production and transmission will most likely make this proposal unrealistic.  Experts have already argued that the aging country’s electricity grid would need to have hundreds of billions of dollars invested to upgrade the grid in order to accommodate the increased electricity demands required for EVs and other domestic electricity needs.  Today, electrical grids barely function in times of ordinary stress, and fail altogether too often for comfort, as recent widespread blackouts in California, Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere have shown.  Apparently, fast chargers can replenish an EV in as little as 20 minutes but gulp huge amounts of electricity.

At the same time, the big challenge for policymakers and the utility industry is figuring out how quickly to invest in the grid while keeping the energy affordable.  While the President’s intentions are worthy because of concerns over the impact of climate change on the environment and the need to reduce harmful greenhouse emissions, there is a real question as to whether the American public is able and willing to incur the associated costs.  If one just looks at EVs, there are a number of factors to consider.  Among these, the top three reasons consumers give for not buying EVs are the lack of charging stations, the time to charge, and the cost of the vehicles.  In addition to spending on accessible charging stations across a country as large as the U.S., there is also the need for significant additional spending on long-distance transmission lines and power generating equipment like solar and wind farms.  Given the current re-charging needs of EVs, charging stations will have to be available at most if not all existing gasoline stations, hotels and motels, apartment buildings and municipal facilities.  Who is to pay for the installation and use of such charging stations?  Plug-in electric cars accounted for just under 1% of all 146 million new light-duty vehicle sales between 2011 and 2019 in the U.S.

While climate change is an obvious greater concern among Americans in light of the deadly increase in severe weather patterns and natural disasters, is their concern enough to persuade the average person that the associated costs with converting to EVs and other electrical equipment (e.g. heating, appliances, etc.) are acceptable?  Yes, many things can happen in the next ten years.  However, having almost come out of a pandemic and its economic consequences and costs, will people be ready to seriously tackle the projected negative elements surrounding our current living standards?  The answer is probably “no” at this time.

We will need major technological breakthroughs to make EVs much more reliable, energy efficient and cheaper before the average person could seriously consider the switch to EVs from combustion-engine cars.  In addition, the current electricity grids will have to be seriously upgraded in the next few years.  We must be ready to incur the associated costs with such major infrastructure upgrades.  Overall, the country’s 20th-century point-to-point grid, delivering energy over long distances, will have to become adequate enough to serve this century’s needs.  Hopefully, future electricity needs will be increasingly provided by green technology, such as that provided by hydro power, solar energy, wind power, and even nuclear power.  None of these sources alone can provide enough electricity to meet the needs of American communities and to replace the current use of fossil fuels, including natural gas.  In conclusion, plug-in cars are the future, but realistically the current grid isn’t ready.

Cimate Change Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Oct 26

Attempts by Governments to Reduce Consumption of Soda Pop Drinks Deemed Unsuccessful

by bcurry

Just recently, Canada’s first soft drink tax came to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and already critics are arguing that it may do surprisingly little to combat obesity.  Instead, the tax is seen as imposing disproportionate costs on rural communities where soft drinks are one of the only reliable forms of hydration.  Data indicates that Newfoundland and Labrador has Canada’s highest rates of both adult and childhood obesity.  Sugary beverages have been linked directly to obesity, diabetes and heart disease, which is why public health agencies have gone to great lengths to discourage their consumption.  Governments around the globe, such as California, New York City, Mexico, and New Zealand, have attempted in one way or another to examine ways in which to reduce the consumption of sugary beverages. 

Some of us may remember one such attempt by Mike Bloomberg, as mayor of New York, who in 2012 proposed a ban that would have prevented food-service establishments in the city from selling sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces and sweetened drinks with more than 25 calories per eight ounces.  The ban was set to take place in 2013 and failure to follow the ban may have resulted in a $200 fine.  However, the ban was reversed because the courts declared that the city’s Board of Health had “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority” by adopting the ban.  Few experts believed that such a ban would have worked anyway.

Then there are those American state laws that banned soda in schools — but not other sweetened beverages.  California, for example, became the first state to ban the sale of soft drinks in grade schools, in 2003.  However, a 2011 study showed that this ban had virtually no impact on the amount of sugary drinks middle school students buy and consume at school.  In states that banned only soda, students bought and consumed sugary drinks just as frequently at school as their peers in states where there were no bans at all.  Even in states with policies banning all sugary drinks in schools and where students had less access to them on campus, their overall consumption of the drinks did not fall — suggesting they were getting the drinks elsewhere.  In addition, there are a lot of misconceptions about which beverages are healthy.  For example, many kids think beverages like Gatorade are a healthy alternative to soda.

For years, the U.S. and Canadian dietary guidelines urged Americans and Canadians to drink fewer sugary beverages.  However, it would appear that the simple banning or increase in taxing sugary beverages may not be the answer based on past experiences.  Most health experts will argue that increased education and the availability of healthier alternatives is a better alternative, especially among people with lower levels of education and income.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that adults and children are both consuming roughly the same number of calories from soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages now as they did in 2009-2010.  While soda sales are down, Americans and Canadians may be turning in growing numbers to teas, flavored waters and other energy drinks with plenty of sugar added.  Among the reasons soda taxes might have such a mixed record is because margins for the drinks are so high that manufacturers, such as Coca-Cola, can easily absorb the cost of a tax and keep the price the same.

Millions of North American adults and kids still drink at least some sugar-sweetened beverage daily.  Obesity continues to be issue, especially since it leads to other significant health issues later in life.  More children today are found to have Type 2 diabetes then ever before.  For parents, that makes education and nutrition awareness all the more important, particularly in schools and community bodies.  Efforts to further reduce sugary drink consumption rely on reaching them, especially those in rural and lower income urban communities.  Subsidizing healthier alternatives to soda pop and other sugary drinks may be a better option, providing more affordable and healthier beverages to families.  Unfortunately, in communities under boil water advisories, such as those in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, soda is often seen as the cheapest option for hydration.  An additional soft drink tax really doesn’t help!

Canada US

Leave a comment »
Oct 20

Major Obstacles in Unionizing Private Sector Workers in the U.S.

by bcurry

No one denies that attempts at unionizing some of the biggest American employers in the private sector — Walmart, Amazon and Starbucks — can be hazardous to one’s job.  The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the union membership rate of private-sector workers was just 6.3 percent in 2020, down from 6.6 percent last year and from 6.9 percent in 2011.  Labor specialists cited several reasons for the continuing steep decline in private sector union membership.  Among the factors were new laws that rolled back the power of unions in Wisconsin, Indiana and other states, the continued expansion by manufacturers like Boeing and Volkswagen in nonunion states and the growth of sectors like retail and restaurants, where unions still have little presence.  Among those larger employers noted above, there is also the fact that companies engage in numerous anti-union initiatives to persuade or obviously prevent their workers from organizing at the plant, warehouse or local outlet levels.

Earlier in the past two decades, it was at Walmart in the U.S. and Canada that clearly intimidated its so-called “associates” from organizing at the local level.  For example, in April 2005, Walmart simply closed it store in Jonquière, Quebec, when workers there attempted to organize.  Nine years later the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the move was improper, illegal and contrary to section 59 of Quebec’s Labour Code and turned the case back to an arbitrator to determine the appropriate remedy.  Walmart at no time told anyone that the Jonquière store intended to go out of business or that it was experiencing financial difficulties.  On the contrary, from a perspective of five years, the store was performing very well and its objectives were being met.  Let’s face it, the closure was a clear warning to other communities and Walmart workers of the evident consequences of attempting to organize.

In another example, in April 2021, a vote on whether to form a union at the Amazon’s warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama, became a major labour showdown.  Unfortunately, the workers voted down the union drive following pressure from Amazon management.  The company’s decisive victory dealt a crushing blow to organized labour, which had hoped the time was ripe to start making inroads at Amazon.  Amazon is a rich entity.  Propelled in part by surging demand during the pandemic, people spent more than $610 billion U.S. on Amazon over the 12 months ending in June 2021.  This is even more than that spent by people at Walmart during the same period.  Amazon also added hundreds of new warehouses and hired about 500,000 workers since the start of last year, none of which are unionized.

More recently, some Starbucks Buffalo-area locations filed for a union election in late August of this year.  None of the nearly 9,000 corporate-owned Starbucks locations in the country are unionized.  However, a Starbucks-owned store in Canada did manage to recently organize, a first for Starbucks.  Starbucks has faced union campaigns before, including an effort in 2019 in Philadelphia where the firing of two employees involved in union organizing was deemed unlawful by a labour board judge.  Starbucks of course has appealed the ruling.  According to union officials, Starbucks management has employed other intimidation and often subtle methods to discourage employees from organizing.  The measures include holding meetings with employees in which company officials question the need for a third party to represent them.

As an apparent shortage of workers in certain private sectors due to the pandemic, unions may see an opportunity to assist in organizing workers because of the competition among employers for workers.  If anything, the situation has forced many employers to improve their working conditions and raise the wages offered in order to retain workers and to recruit new workers.  This is particularly the case in the retail, services and restaurant sectors.  Nevertheless, the ability to organize workers in the private sector still obviously faces numerous hurtles in the U.S.  Hopefully, as economies improve, current labour shortages may benefit all workers, whether unionized or not.

Canada Unionization US

Leave a comment »
Oct 16

When It Comes to Schools, A Latent American Parents’ Movement Emerged Partly Due to COVID

by bcurry

There appears to be a powerful frustration among American conservative mothers, who feel increasingly sidelined by school administrators and teachers.  Their targets tend to be sprawling — not only mask mandates but also curricula that touch on LGTBQ rights, race and discrimination, and even the way schools define a scientific fact.  Unlike in Canada, there has been more opposition against mask mandates in schools among certain American groups.  This despite the fact that a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in early September found that two-thirds of Americans support mask mandates in schools.  One of the parents’ groups that emerged recently is calling themselves “Moms for Liberty”.  According to the organization’s founders, in 10 months the Moms for Liberty grew to 135 chapters in 35 states, with over 56,000 members and supporters.

Like many American protest movements, Moms for Liberty believe they don’t co-parent with the government.  Restrictions implemented by school boards because of COVID-19, such as mandated masking in schools, brought such latent groups before the boards in protest, often using very outspoken tactics. They closely scrutinize the curriculum and textbooks used to educate students. They particularly attack any semblance of teaching related to “critical race theory” — an academic framework for examining systemic racism — which school boards have flatly stated is not part of any curriculum.  Needless-to-say, the Republicans quickly aligned themselves with such movements, hoping to garner political support for the GOP.  In Florida, for example, they are closely allied with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis. 

What I find interesting is that, if parents are dissatisfied with the teaching in public schools, there is always the option of “homeschooling”.  Indeed, according to the most recent federal data, 3 to 4 percent of the school-going population in the U.S. is currently homeschooled.  Homeschooling is the practice of educating a child at home without enrolling him/her into a formal school.  Homeschooling is also permitted in Canada, but only about .7 percent of Canadian students are currently homeschooled.  There are a number of organizations in both countries that assist parents in setting up homeschooling for their children.  There are a whole slew of reasons why parents choose to homeschool their children, including the provision of a safe environment, a need for individual attention, crowded schools and religious/morality beliefs.  One study indicated that some 25 percent of homeschooling parents surveyed felt that schools simply did not meet the needs of the children.

While homeschooling may not be advisable for every family, particularly where both parents are working and there are monetary costs involved, the choice is there.  In the U.S., some states even offer tax breaks for homeschooling families.  COVID-19 actually forced more parents to take a greater interest in their kids schooling, particularly where the students were forced to undertake on-line learning as a result of school closures.  However, the vast majority of parents really wanted their kids to return to in-person learning, often for mental health reasons and the benefits of socialization in a school environment.  School boards have done a lot to ensure the health and safety of the students and staff, including masking, mandated vaccination for the staff and physical distancing measures.  A great deal of credit needs to be given to the boards, school administrators and teachers for their roles in continuing to educate our children under very extraordinary and difficult circumstances.

Instead, we find groups such as “Moms for Liberty” attempting to politicize the teaching of children and adolescents for all the wrong reasons.  Instead of trying to undermine the critical role of schools in our society, disenchanted parents are free to turn to homeschooling as a legitimate alternative.  After all, one can’t please all of the parents all of the time!

Canada Education in U.S. US

Leave a comment »
Oct 11

Iraq: The Other Somewhat Forgotten American Combat Mission

by bcurry

With all the news today concentrating on what is happening in Afghanistan during and after the withdrawal of American and Allied troops, it is little wonder that the media has somewhat forgotten about the U.S. continued involvement in Iraq.  By January 2021, the U.S. had reduced its presence to 2,500 troops in Iraq.  However, as of March 2021, 11 U.S. soldiers had died in Iraq in 2020.  Iraq is still a very unsafe place to operate, particularly because of Iran’s influence.  Among countries where terrorist attacks are frequent, the number of terrorist attacks in 2019 in Iraq ranked fourth behind Afghanistan, Syria and India.  Of course, in previous years, many of the terrorist attacks were carried out by the followers of the Islamic State.  In April 2021, the U.S. Central Command stated that there were no plans for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, citing continued threats posed by the Islamic State insurgency and Iran-backed militias.  However, in July 2021, President Biden announced that he would end the U.S. combat mission in Iraq by the end of the year, although the U.S. will continue to train and advise the Iraqi military.

Earlier this month, Iraqis voted in parliamentary elections meant to herald sweeping change to a dysfunctional political system that has dragged the country through almost two decades of deprivation.  Unfortunately, Iraqi politics is still dominated by the three sectarian groups, the majority Shiite population, the Sunnis and the Kurds in the northern region of Iraq.  Critics believe that the U.S. shares some responsibility for the failure of governance in Iraq.  After the 2003 invasion by coalition forces and with the country in the grip of a bloody sectarian civil war, the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council established a system of sectarian apportionment, which continues to this day.  This quota system divides cabinet roles and ministries and their resources between the ethno-sectarian parties.  The results of the current election will likely once again be followed by months of negotiations between the main players.  Meanwhile, Iran’s influence in Iraq’s government grows, and Tehran continues to strengthen the power of Shiite Iraqi militias it backs.

According to political analysts, the current parties in power — many backed by militias involved in attacks that killed some 600 demonstrators — appear once more to be poised to dominate.  Sweeping anti-government protests had forced out Adil Abdul-Mahdi, then the allegedly incompetent prime minister, in May 2020.  While this led officials to push the vote up by a year, Iraq’s system of dividing up government ministries among political parties along ethnic and sectarian lines will remain unchanged.  Almost every major political faction has been implicated in corruption, a major factor in Iraq’s poor public services.  Electricity in many provinces is provided only for two hours at a time.  In the sweltering summers, there is no clean water.  And millions of university graduates are without jobs.  Unfortunately, given the current state of Iraq’s economy and political divisions, many young Iraqis say they don’t see much if any future for themselves in their country.

By October 2018, beginning with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing occupation, insurgencies and civil war, 4,550 American service members and 3,793 military contractors had died.  Although estimating war-related Iraqi deaths pose many challenges, we know that the number of violent civilian deaths has been in the hundreds of thousands and the amount of property damages due to the war, insurgencies and subsequent terrorist attacks — especially by the Islamic State — has cost Iraqis and Americans hundreds of millions of dollars.  Up until the end of 2020, it is estimated that the Iraq War has cost the U.S. nearly 2 trillion in current U.S. dollars, much of it to pay military contractors.  In the end, one has to seriously ask whether Congress or the American people got value for their investment in Iraq, in light of the tragic loss of American lives or the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out?

Iraq Today Joe Biden US

Leave a comment »
Oct 8

Emergence of Mandated Vaccination for Workers in Certain Sectors in Canada

by bcurry

Back in July, I blogged briefly about the issues of Mandatory COVID Vaccinations vs. Civil Liberties in North America  and To Mandate COVID Vaccinations or Not?.  At the time, these issues had more to do with colleges mandating full COVID vaccinations for students in residence or on campuses and with governments requiring proof of vaccination for citizens to enter certain establishments such as bars and restaurants.  Now, an additional issue has increasingly emerged as the result of employers and governments requiring COVID vaccination for employees in selected sectors, especially in Canada.

For example, on October 6th, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unveiled Canada’s new mandatory vaccine policy.  It requires the core public service, air travel and rail employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by the end of this October.  The federal vaccine mandate mirrors provincial policies, such as in Nova Scotia where all school and health-care workers are required to have two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of November.  In the health care sector, several hospitals across the country have implemented mandated vaccination requirements for all employees.  Such policies often have deadlines after which unvaccinated employees will face suspensions without pay and possibly termination down the road.  In Ontario, the government has now mandated that all workers in long-term care residences must be fully vaccinated in order to continue working in such facilities.

Needless-to-say, Canada is facing a potential wave of terminations tied to mandatory workplace vaccine policies as a growing number of employers require workers to be fully inoculated against COVID-19 — or risk losing their jobs.  Most legal experts believe that the rights of individual workers will be overridden by the employer’s obligation to make sure the workplace is safe and meet their health and safety obligations toward staff, clients and the public.  It is recognized that there is a delicate balance between the individual rights of workers, such as by offering reasonable accommodations and maintaining a safe work environment.  Recent reviews of Canadian cases involving the balance between individual rights and public health have sided with the latter.  It is noted that while tribunals recognize that rights of individuals are important, in the time of a pandemic reasonable limits are going to be given broad scope.

This situation has led to two additional issues: one being the terminated individual’s right to some form of compensation (e.g. severance pay), and the other being related to workers simply quitting their jobs and thus creating a shortage of skilled labour for employers.  Fortunately, given the current rate of COVID vaccination in Canada for adults 12 and over (slightly more than 80 per cent of all Canadians), the impact on most sectors will be lessened.  Except for a few workplaces, the majority of health care workers, education workers, federal and provincial public servants have received a least one dose of a COVID vaccine.  Even public and private sector unions have generally supported vaccination policies for their workers, while ensuring that reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated workers is part of those policies, particularly where exemptions are granted for medical reasons.  Where mandated vaccination by an employer is seen as imposing a new rule and one that was not part of the original employment agreement, some legal experts believe that the policy’s implementation may be determined to be a termination without cause.  This becomes a case under contract law whereby severance pay would most likely have to be paid to the worker.

Overall, mandating vaccination for workers in certain sectors and by employers with particular valid health and safety considerations should not be taken too lightly.  Such policies represent one of many implemented to control the spread of the delta variant, and can be justified as another temporary public health measure.  In most cases, employers will have to continuously consult with existing employee representatives and unions to ensure that individual rights are being respected where reasonable.  Otherwise, numerous cases involving unvaccinated employees may end up before labour tribunals or the courts.

Canada Coronavirus COVID-19 US

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