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 »
Nov 21

Canadian Prime Ministers Continue To Create Large and Strange Cabinet Configurations

by bcurry

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just created a new cabinet for his minority government. His new cabinet will have a substantial number of members with its 36 ministers.  Since the turn of this century, PMs have significantly increased cabinet sizes, as evidenced by former Prime Minister Harper who had 38 ministers in 2011.  This number was far from the 20-odd ministers of previous federal governments in the past.  Once again,  Trudeau has created a whole new contingent of weird cabinet positions such as ministers for Middle Class Prosperity; Families, Children and Social Development; Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development; and Digital Government. Fortunately, PMs are no longer creating Ministry of States as was done by previous governments which often caused more confusion and bureaucracy.

The creation of new portfolios not only satisfies the need to accommodate new and aspiring Members of Parliament, but also appears to reinforce the policy direction of a ruling party’s election campaigns and political slogans. Let’s take the new position of Minister for Middle Class Prosperity.  The difficulty is how one defines the so-called ‘middle class’ and what one means by prosperity.  Based on most studies and current statistics, all researchers can conclude is that the middle class is declining in numbers, especially with many higher paying blue-collar jobs disappearing and the introduction of new technologies.

There already exists a Minister of National Revenue who can consider changes to income taxes to help out targeted groupings of tax payers. The Minister of Finance can look at economic policies aimed at benefiting everyone, including the middle class.  The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion can develop employment programs to help out those who require retraining or mobility assistance.  Departments already exist to help implement the policies developed by these ministers.  So what does a Minister for Middle Class Prosperity do exactly?

Years ago, the Canadian government undertook to consolidate several departments to reduce the size of the bureaucracy. The attempt was somewhat successful at the time, but governments have since reverted back to more political manoeuvrings.  You now need a game program to know who’s who in the federal cabinet and what their titles are.  One thing that I admire about the American federal cabinet is that it tends to remain fairly constant in its make-up with 15 cabinet members, although those appointed to cabinet are not elected as is the case in Canada. Never-the-less, one knows what the responsibility of each cabinet member is and the department or agency for which he or she is responsible.  Unlike with the more unwieldy Canadian federal cabinet where one is often guessing as to what matters certain members are responsible for.

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
Nov 9

Do Current Democratic Presidential Candidates Have Billionaires On The Run?

by bcurry

Well, now we have one Michael Bloomberg interested in perhaps running in the Democratic primaries. For those unaware, Mr. Bloomberg is a 77-year-old former New York City mayor and billionaire businessman who has been outspoken in his criticism of President Trump, even prior to the last election. Bloomberg’s entering the race would make him the richest person to ever run for president, beating out billionaire Ross Perot who ran as a third party candidate in the 1990s.  Bloomberg is considered to be a centrist policy-wise.  One of the main reasons he is considering running is his stated belief that he doesn’t think that former Vice-President Joe Biden or Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders could beat Donald Trump.

I have another theory. Bloomberg may not like the left-leaning Democratic candidates Senators Warren and Sanders, who are among the top performers in early primary polling. One of Warren’s signature policy proposals is a wealth tax that would require the rich to pay 2 cents for every dollar over $50 million in their personal fortunes. Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, has also proposed a version of a wealth tax and is famous for railing against “millionaires and billionaires” in his campaign speeches.  Now this has made a number of multi-millionaires nervous, including Bill Gates, Tom Steyer and John Delaney to name a few.

Although it may be that the Democratic Party believes it is the party of working people and people of colour, there is always the danger of its policies being taken over by the super rich. Allowing an ultra-wealthy centrist to dominate its platform would be an unhealthy turn of events.  Indeed, one could argue that the 2020 Democratic primary is a referendum on billionaire control of the Democratic Party.  I strongly believe that working-class Americans would prefer to see a clear delineation between the corporate stooges in the Republican Party led by Donald Trump and the more progressive policies supported by the likes of Biden, Sanders or Warren.

Make no doubt, the Democratic Party has its supporters among the .1 percenters. No political party in the U.S., as in Canada, can ignore the influence of the super wealthy. However, it is a perilous move to allow a billionaire or multi-billionaire take control of its platform.  After all, it was many of these same people who got us into the worst recession since the great depression, from which many ordinary Americans and Canadians are still recovering.  In any democracy, one needs some clear choices.  With Mr. Bloomberg’s candidacy, we would only be muddying the political waters.

Presidential Election 2020 US

Leave a comment »
Nov 1

November Is Here, Leaves Are Falling And So Is The President

by bcurry

There’s a cold wind blowing here, but not as cold as the one in Washington, D.C.  Congress has voted to proceed with the impeachment hearings over the President’s dealings with the Ukraine and consequential national security concerns. Just to remind us, the Ukraine has been fighting against attacks in eastern Ukraine by Russian-backed forces after Russia took over Crimea. As a result, NATO allies, including Canada and the U.S., agreed to supply the Ukraine with military aid and training. Apparently, President Trump delayed the transfer of American aid to the Ukraine on the condition that the Ukrainian administration investigated business dealings by Joe Biden and his son. Such activities would have occurred during Biden’s stint as vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. This request was made despite the fact that the current Ukrainian administration had earlier investigated matters related to state corruption and found no evidence of any direct link to the Biden’s.

Although the President has denied that there was no “quid pro quo” arrangement with the Ukraine concerning the matter, closed-door testimony by white house officials before the congressional committee appears to contradict the President. Hopefully, the upcoming public hearings will help clear the air as to what actually took place.  The American public needs to know the truth one way or another.

Yet, here’s the clincher. With Trump, his intervention in Ukraine appears to have been an abuse of his powers, but, conceivably, not a crime. The debate about the criminality of the President’s behaviour with regard to Ukraine, on some level, will always remain a theoretical matter.  Trump’s lawyers will argue that such dealings between heads of states are just a normal part of foreign policy initiatives. Nevertheless, Trump proceeded to use his position as President to have a foreign government look into what is obviously a matter of politics in light of the upcoming presidential election.  Does such a move represent an abuse of presidential power and a real threat to American national security?  That will be up to Congress to shortly decide and American voters to eventually judge at the polls.

Whatever comes out of the impeachment hearings, there is little doubt that Trump and his administration and the Republican Party are on the defensive. Congress has a right to defend the constitution and no president is above the law.  The rest of the world is closely watching and is deeply concerned about the subsequent consequences and greater instabilities.  Things most likely will get nastier and partisan divisions will grow even wider in American governance.  God help the United States of America!

Impeachment Proceedings US US Politics

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 8

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is A Complete And Utter Flop

by bcurry

Just hours after President Trump declared that American troops were being withdrawn from the Syrian border, he warned Turkey that he would “totally destroy and obliterate” the economy of Turkey if he’s unhappy with how the country carries out its planned assault on Kurdish fighters. Indeed, what Trump has done is a betrayal and abandonment of the Kurds who, with U.S. backing, have been fearlessly fighting the Islamist radicals of ISIS in northern Syria. Both Democrats and Republicans have condemned the move as irresponsible and dangerous, leaving the Kurds to worry about a war with the more powerful Turkey and an inability to deal with the thousands of ISIS members interned in Syria. Some have even suggested that ISIS may re-emerge under the circumstances.

This is just another example of Trump’s lack of good judgement and his inability to appreciate the consequences of his foreign policies to date. Take North Korea for example, we now have a situation where nothing has happened since the talks between President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un broke down. Indeed, the meetings only helped to legitimatize Kim’s regime on the world stage, while allowing him to continue testing missiles capable of reaching most Asian countries.  There are also suspected hidden nuclear fuel production sites around the country.

With respect to the European Union (EU), Brexit and the Ukraine, Trump has interfered on a number of occasions, upsetting his NATO and European allies. He has instead aligned himself with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and dropped out of nuclear missile treaty with Russia, which is what Russia wanted all along. Trump is far too close to Putin, particularly in light of the Russian invasion of Crimea and confirmed Russian hacking in the 2016 election.

In terms of the current disastrous Brexit negotiations between Britain and the EU, Trump is much too close to Prime Minister Boris Johnson who in an undemocratic manner tried to circumvent the British Parliament to get his way. Then there are the recent revelations about Trump’s unprecedented dealings with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which have led to the launch of an impeachment enquiry in the House of Representatives.  Here we have the President trying to persuade the Ukrainian President to get involved in a political-inspired investigation of an American presidential candidate.  Trump’s request has been tied to the withholding of military aid to Ukraine, something everyone agrees is not normal and most likely illegal. He has even suggested that China should undertake a similar investigation. Go figure!

On top of all this, one has the U.S. State Department in total turmoil. Its officials have little input into the Trump Administration’s foreign policy decisions and are daily loosing credibility abroad and in the U.S.  Once a highly respected and influential arm of government, one now has a Secretary of State who has become nothing more than a puppet for the President.  Mike Pompeo simply defends his boss’s mistakes, regardless of the international consequences.  One can only imagine what goes on in the National Security Council on a daily basis?

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iraq and ISIS North Korea US

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