FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Sep 18

Free Speech is on the Decline in America

by bcurry

Political satire has long been considered one of the gems reflecting the strength of free speech in America.  However, recently, freedom of expression has taken a hit in the entertainment industry, as exemplified by the cancellation by networks of two popular late-night talk shows.  I am of course referring to The Late Show With Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel Live.  Both shows have been signalled out by the Donald Trump and his administration.

Let’s first begin by pointing out that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a political appointee.  Trump nominated Brendan Carr for FCC chairman in November 2025, obviously someone trusted by the president.  The FCC is supposed to be an independent body overseeing licensed media sources in the U.S., primarily regulating the industry and ensuring certain prescribed activities are followed under its purview.  The FCC also oversees the rules governing how much of a sector a private company can obtain in order to prevent any one company from monopolizing the output of a media source — be it television or radio for example.  For this reason, the FCC wields power over the broadcast licenses that are granted to local TV stations by the federal government and the merger of companies running specific media sources.

Paramount Global’s pending sale to Skydance Media needed the Trump administration’s approval (i.e. FCC).  It just so happened that Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, settled a recent lawsuit with Trump over a 60 Minutes interview involving Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.  In Stephen Colbert’s subsequent monologue, he said he was “offended” by the $16-million U.S. settlement.  In addition, Colbert has targeted Trump for years.  From 2005 to 2014, The Colbert Report aired a satirical riff on right-wing news talk shows, especially Trump’s favourite Fox News.  Paramount and CBS executives claimed in a statement that the cancellation was purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night television, noting that it was not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.  Something difficult to believe given that Colbert’s award winning show was ranked in the most recent ratings from Nielsen as the best late-night show and the only one to gain viewers so far this year.

Shortly after Carr’s criticism on Fox News of Kimmel’s remarks in a podcast about MAGA and the assassination of Conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Nexstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, pre-empted Mr. Kimmel’s program for the foreseeable future.  Of note, Nexstar recently announced that it planned to acquire a rival company in a $6.2 billion deal, which has to be scrutinized by the F.C.C.  According to the New York Times, Chuck Schumer, opposition Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, denounced on CNN the pressure on ABC from the Trump administration as “despicable, disgusting, and against democratic values.”  He compared it to the playbook of autocratic Chinese and Russian leaders, noting that Trump and his allies seem to want to shut down speech that they don’t like to hear.  It certainly would appear, given Carr’s public outbursts, that the FCC is being used to do just that.

Now, the life of television and radio shows normally rely on the free enterprise market as it relates to corporate sponsors and their marketing through ads on popular shows.  This is fine given that there is a good deal of healthy competition within varying media.  People’s interest in and following of media outlets is what rightfully determines a show’s success.  However, as in the print news media, we see today increasing interference by leaders in trying to influence the programming and content of shows, especially those involving political satire and editorial opinion.  The power of the FCC to regulate the industry is obviously being abused by the current administration.  Once again, this is clearly another attack on the right to free speech as provided for under the U.S. constitution. 

Civil Liberties Donald Trump Free Speech Republican Party Social Media US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Aug 24

How the Trump Administration Has Undermined the Justice System

by bcurry

There isn’t a day that goes by without some new revelation about the Trump administration’s interference in or misuse of the justice system.  The most recent abuse to surface was revealed when a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, a Trump appointee, had been serving as New Jersey’s U.S. attorney without legal authority for more than a month.  The judge ruled that she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of that office in an acting capacity and she has no experience in criminal law.  At the time of her acting appointment, other potential reputable veteran prosecutors were already under consideration in the office of the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.  The thing is that such moves used by the administration to keep Habba in charge of the New Jersey office after her interim tenure ran out have apparently been replicated by the Justice Department in several other U.S. attorney’s offices.  It has also be pointed out that since the legality of the appointment was being challenged, the questions had left the state’s district court system at a standstill for several weeks, delaying hearings, plea agreements, grand jury proceedings and at least one trial.

In the past few months, members of Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them.  In the past, Justice Department lawyers long enjoyed a professional benefit when they appear in court. As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth.  Now, because of the current inappropriate behaviour of Justice Department lawyers, legal experts say that the actions have resulted in serious doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it.  This doubt could ultimately have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.  In addition, this confusion and negative reaction has been further exacerbated by the fact the Trump administration has fired numerous veteran prosecutors at the department, apparently without cause and in some cases simply because they had been involved in past cases involving Trump.  As for the remaining prosecutors, their credibility and integrity is now being more frequently questioned by the courts.  A good recent example is where federal grand juries in Los Angeles have been refusing to indict many defendants whom prosecutors have sought to charge in connection with immigration protests.

Trump hypocritically had accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department, when he in fact has gone even further do exactly the same thing, but in much more evident and worst ways in real terms.  The most recent example is where Edward R. Martin Jr., appointed by Trump last January as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was tapped by the Justice Department to investigate the New York attorney general, Letitia James.  James of course was the person who successfully prosecuted Trump in the civil fraud case against him and his business, resulting in a finding that he altered his net worth for tax and insurance benefits — a blow to his real estate mogul image.  To date, James has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing.  In May, Trump withdrew Martin’s nomination to take the U.S. Attorney job permanently when it appeared that he would not be confirmed by the Senate.  Subsequently, Martin was quickly reassigned to Justice Department headquarters, where he holds four titles, including United States pardon attorney and director of the so-called Weaponization Working Group — a task force established to seek retribution against Trump’s past perceived political enemies.  Often, referred to as the Weaponization Czar, he is expected to sidestep Justice Dept. norms to expedite investigations.  It has been reported that over the past two months, Martin has been in charge of several investigations all at once and has quietly worked with federal prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and Maryland.  Again the persons were involved in cases making them Trump’s so-called political enemies.  It is also noted that Martin has virtually no experience overseeing investigations, or in compiling a case that successfully persuades a grand jury to bring an indictment.

All in all, these are just a few recent examples of how the Trump administration has attempted to weaponize the Justice Department, and in turn the justice system as we know it.  These scurrilous attempts will consequently represent a growing decline in the public’s credibility and trust when it comes to the courts and this particular federal institution.

Donald Trump Federal Government Joe Biden Justice Department US US Politics

Leave a comment »
May 12

Would Canadian Universities Be Susceptible To Trump-Like Attacks?

by bcurry

Back in April, the New York Times reported that two groups representing Harvard professors sued the Trump administration claiming that its threat to cut billions in federal funding for the university violates free speech and other First Amendment rights.  The group’s lawsuit by the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter follows the Trump administration’s announcement that it was reviewing about $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives.  Earlier in March, the administration admitted that investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), typically focusing on human traffickers and drug smugglers, had begun scouring the internet for social media posts and videos that the administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas.  Subsequently, several students were illegally arrested and detained by ICE.  Numerous American universities are now under the gun.  The result has also been hundreds of protests, including those by students, professors and members of the community at large, against the Trump administration’s threat to further cut funding for universities.

In Canada, the situation is very different.  There have also been protests over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including temporary encampments on campuses.  However, the majority were settled peacefully and without most students being expelled or detained.  Yes, there is no doubt that some anti-semitism and anti-Islamic activities have occurred on campuses.  Moreover, such activities are normally dealt with by the university administrations without needless inference by the authorities.  Canadian universities have long professed the need for academic freedom and freedom of speech as fundamental principles for places of higher learning.  Most have clear guidelines dealing with on-campus hate messaging, harassment or any form of violence.  Should such outcomes occur, it is only then that the authorities would be brought in to determine if any crimes had been committed.  So far, this approach appears to have worked well.

Imagine a government sending a school a list of demands that it must meet if it wants to keep receiving funding support!  As in the case of the Trump administration, such a list would require the university to examine how teaching staff are hired, the background of potential recruits related particularly to certain types of political activity or views, any suspected possible plagiarism regarding previous papers or dissertations, etc., etc.  This would also include current academic staff and administrators.  Such interference by governments in Canada would never be tolerated.  One would certainly have to deal with many cases of unjust dismissals and discriminatory practices.  I very much doubt that any Canadian university would bend to such government pressures, declaring such interference as an attack on academic freedom and their very independence. 

The attacks on American universities and blockage of government funding support for scientific and medical research may actually benefit Canadian universities in the long run.  This has already happened in a reported case whereby three Yale professors have decided to accept positions at the University of Toronto.  One can only speculate that as more R&D projects are halted due to the loss of funding, researchers, including Masters and PHD students, may seek to potentially check out opportunities in Canada and elsewhere.  The current leadership of the U.S. in scientific research is now being greatly threatened by such policies. 

All in all, no matter the results of the above noted litigation, extensive damage has already been done.  The reputations of numerous American universities and their academic freedom have suffered.  Fortunately, to date there is no evidence that Canadian governments would want to go down the same road.  Canada is very fortunate to have a strong and vital education system, most of which is largely publicly funded and readily accessible to both domestic and international students.  Would Canadian universities be susceptible to Trump-like attacks?  I believe that the answer is a clear and emphatic “No”.  

Canada Civil Liberties Donald Trump Education Education in U.S. Extremism Free Speech Scientific Research US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Apr 30

What The Results of The Canadian Election Mean For Canada

by bcurry

By now, anyone who keeps informed about Canadian news events, including a few Americans, have come to realize how the final federal election results are more than just significant for Canada and its federal parties.  Federally, there are six federal parties: the Liberals, the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party (NDP), the Bloc Quebecois, the Green Party and the Peoples’ Party of Canada (PPC).  Moreover, the election became a two party race to win by either the Liberals, under Mark Carney or the Conservatives, under Pierre Poilievre.  The primary issue of the campaigns became that of Canada’s relationship with the U.S., more precisely with President Trump.  The Green Party has only one seat and the PPC has none.

In the end, the election results proved to be extraordinary with the Liberals winning enough seats in Parliament to form a minority government — its fourth consecutive term!  What is remarkable is the fact that the Liberals a few months before the election were more than 20 points behind the Conservatives in the polls.  Then suddenly, all that changed when Donald Trump got elected, Justin Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister, and Mark Carney took over leadership of the Liberal Party.  The Liberals increased their position in recent polls to take the lead over Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives.  Then came the election itself, with the Liberals taking 169 seats to form a minority government.  Close behind is the Conservatives with 144 seats.  However, what is even more astonishing is that the Liberals gained most of their new seats at the expense of the NDP, a socialist party, with only 7 seats (a loss of 17 seats from 2021) and the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party, with 22 seats in Quebec (a loss of 13 seats from 2021).  Even more surprising, is the fact that Pierre Poilievre and the NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, both lost their riding seats.  Once an opposition party, the NDP no longer has official party status in parliament, which handicaps its ability to perform or contribute. 

While the popular vote was close, 43.7% for the Liberals and 41.3% for the Conservatives, Canadians favoured Mark Carney as the leader who could confront Trump over his tariffs on Canadian industries.  As a former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England and a former CEO, Carney is seen as someone with fairly qualified experience in finance, business, economics and international trade.  Canadians switched their support to the Liberals to support a strong opposition to the tariffs and political attacks by Trump who has frequently referred to Canada becoming a 51st state.

Now, Carney will have to start negotiations with the Trump administration with respect to an updated or new trade agreement, such as is governed by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) previously signed by all three countries in 2018.  By introducing initial tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel, oil and gas, softwood lumber and automotive sectors, Trump has already broken that trade agreement.  The danger for Canada is that if additional tariffs are introduced by the U.S., the economic impact on Canada would most likely lead to a major recession similar to that in 2008-09.  Canada would have to retaliate with tariffs on American goods, leading to higher prices for Canadians.  Americans would also see similar inflationary pressures due to Trump’s tariffs.

The election also resulted in a clear split between the eastern provinces which largely supported the Liberals and the western provinces, especially Alberta and Saskatchewan, which largely supported the Conservatives.  The western provinces have long argued that the federal government under the Liberals has harmed the growth of their oil and gas industry, particularly because of environmental policies.  Some westerners have already claimed that they might potentially be better off by withdrawing from the Canadian federation in some manner.  The Prime Minister will have to attempt some form of compromise to assuage the western grievances and maintain a sense of unity among all ten provinces.  Canada needs to provide a common, strong and unified front in its planned negotiations with the Trump administration.  After all, we are talking about Canada ’s state of sovereignty as a nation.

Canada Donald Trump Economy Federal Election Federal Government Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

Today, Something Unprecedented Is Happening Among Canadians

by bcurry

In reaction to Donald Trump’s statements about Canada as a 51st state and the imposition of tariffs on Canadian products exported to the U.S., a number of things are happening in the country.  Canadian nationalism is rising to heights not seen since the Second World War, stressing the need for a concerted and unified national reaction to the Trump administration.  There is an evident “Buy Canadian” movement that has grown quickly among Canadian consumers.  In the midst of a federal election, all the parties are in one way or another vowing to stand up to American economic aggression and push for expanding Canadian trade to other countries.  Canadians are also cancelling vacations to the U.S. and looking to vacation either in Canada or other countries.  Cross-border travel to the U.S. by Canadians has tumbled by more than half.  Canadian politicians are carrying their message about the harm to American consumers through visits to the U.S. and via digital billboards, broadcasts, media sources and social media targeting Americans themselves.  In recent basketball and hockey games in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal, fans booed the American national anthem, something unheard of before.  So-called “polite” Canadians are openly expressing their national pride in increasingly angry ways and through outbursts of disappointment.

It is remarkable that the current interim Canadian Prime Minister, Marc Carney, has flatly stated that the trust between the two countries has been broken, and that the relationship will never be the same.  As a result, his parliamentary website states that he leads a government that will take action to unite Canadians, defend Canada’s sovereignty, and build the strongest economy in the G7.  Do not be fooled, the candidates for P.M. all recognize that the damage of tariffs to the Canadian economy will be significant, possibly causing a recession and high rates of inflation and unemployment in the not-so-near future.  Trump’s economic policy and political statements have created an environment of uncertainty and distrust.  Canada will and has already reacted with the imposition of its own tariffs on selective American goods while waiting to see what Trump’s next moves will be.

Whoever becomes the next P.M. on April 28th knows that he will have to present a strong defence of Canada’s economic and political concerns vis-à-vis the U.S. The election has turned into primarily a one issue campaign, that being about how Canada will deal with Trump.  This situation is unprecedented in itself, and is a major reason why many Canadians believe that Marc Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, head of the Bank of England and businessman, would be a good match to confront Trump.  Since becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in March of this year, he has turned around support for his party following a previous major lead of the Conservative Party of Canada in polls.  His main opponent, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, is a full-time politician with little international or business experience.  As P.M., Carney has said he’ll keep Canada’s counter-tariffs in place until “the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”  Being P.M. at this time also gives Carney a clear advantage as he can make prime-ministerial like statements which naturally are covered daily by the mainstream media.  This contributes directly in his positive polling results.

No matter who wins the election, average Canadians will look to a strong leadership when it comes to defending Canadian interests against Trump’s attacks.  Canadians do not blame Americans for the current situation, instead focusing on the economic and political attacks by the Trump administration.  However, there is little doubt that a future Canadian administration will have to focus on reducing Canada’s dependence on U.S. trade relations and defence policies.  Having lived together for decades within an integrated North American market and coordinated defence and security regime, this will not be an easy transition for both countries.  Let’s hope that the damage that’s been done can be mitigated down the road.  Like Americans, Canadians are a proud people and have a shared history of cooperation and trust, thus hopefully leaving the door open to re-establishing our mutual relationships.

Canada Federal Government Foreign Policy Foreign Policy National Security Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Feb 25

Trump Administration Halts Research Spending in the Health Field

by bcurry

As a recent article in the New York Times1 points out, by some measures, the U.S. produces more influential health-sciences research than the next 10 leading countries combined.  At risk are not only the tens of thousands of grants the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H) awards each year, but also American dominance of biomedical research.  The world’s leading medical labs can be found in the United States, and they rely heavily on grants from the N.I.H.  Billions of dollars are spent on research for diseases and health conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, brain injuries, child health, diabetes, H.I.V. infections and numerous other ailments.  The N.I.H notes that every dollar the agency spends on research generates more than two dollars in economic activity.  Why?  The results of medical research in the past have often led to the pharmaceutical industry developing drugs and vaccines for the treatment and prevention of diseases and health conditions, thereby fueling pharmaceutical advancements.  The result is also the fact that American companies will export many of the resulting drugs and vaccines to other countries, helping to grow the U.S. economy and positively lead to an American trade surplus.

Canadians and Americans have benefited from the medical research leading to pharmaceutical advancements.  Often, Canadian researchers will contribute to health-sciences research as was the case in the discovery of insulin years ago.  Today, there is on-going biomedical research at a number of Canada’s top universities.  Hopefully, researchers in both countries will continue to share in their findings.  The current U.S. administration’s handcuffing of its own scientists and holding back their important research will no doubt lead to serious consequences for advancements in the health field. 

The above mentioned New York Times article goes on to stipulate: “In response to all the uncertainty, universities are retrenching. The University of Pittsburgh froze Ph.D. admissions. Columbia University’s medical school paused hiring and spending. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology froze the hiring of non-faculty employees.”  In addition, some lab leaders indicated that they were making contingency plans to fire scientists, and that graduate students are being forced to search for new sources of funding.  I personally know of one young Canadian graduating from the University of Ottawa’s science faculty who a few years ago ended up in New York to participate in cancer research as part of a post-graduate program.

Much of biomedical research deals with not only areas related to treatments, but also areas related to the prevention of diseases, including those which particularly affect our aging population in both countries.  To hamper the work of such an important American institution as the National Institutes of Health is a major disservice to Americans and Canadians alike, and will have longer-term consequences.

1 “Paying for Science”: Benjamin Mueller, New York Times, February 25, 2025

Budget Canada Donald Trump Scientific Research US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Blog at WordPress.com.