In which the Canadian Voting Public Set a Record Straight

 

So how do you blow a twenty-point lead and lose your own seat? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Seriously, just a couple of months ago, everyone took it for granted that in the next Canadian election, Pierre Poilievre would win by a landslide, and the Liberal Party would be all but wiped out.

Obviously, he did not, and they were not. In fact, he lost, and they took his riding.

Clearly, Trudeau Derangement Syndrome is not the selling point he thought it was. Least of all when Trudeau was no longer on the scene. But still, he kept whipping that dead horse, kept singing that song and playing that game, even after the music and the game had changed.

Yeah, yeah, Canada’s worse off now than the Killing Fields of Cambodia, we’re all digging up white grubs for dinner, and Mark Carney is just Goebbels to Trudeau’s Hitler. Bitch bitch, whine, moan. You know, if you’re running for office, feel free to say something nice about the country you hope to lead.

Now maybe it’s all true, and maybe it’s not, but enough folks weren’t buying it that the Conservatives couldn’t crack it. (I for one got sick of being lectured about the price of housing by people living in 905 McMansions).  Thing is, after November, Trump got into power, and nobody gave a shit about Trudeau anymore. 

Trump came to power and threatened the existence of this country itself – and Poilievre wanted us to be afraid of the Liberals?
 

Doug Ford put on his Captain Canada cape, went on American TV and declared “Canada’s Not For Sale!”, a rallying cry you could fit on a hat. (I suppose “Axe the Tax” was a great slogan to – so great, that Carney went and did it himself.) Ford knew what was really on people’s minds, and left them no doubt where he stood on the matter. He did not exhort us to tremble at the ghost of Kathleen Wynne.  
 

He won his election.
 

It was a super easy strategy which Poilievre bizarrely refused to emulate (and Ford himself wondered at). Nope, Trudeau was his whipping boy, and he was sticking with it. On the Wednesday before the election I got a text from Conservative HQ, asking if I’d help them “stop the Liberals” (how flattering to be found that potentially useful). Even at that late date, the Liberals were the boogey man they were chasing. As if the mere mention of the word would scare folks into their arms. Not a word about Trump. He just wasn’t something the Conservatives came across as worried about.  If even a smidgeon of their anti-Liberal venom had been tossed at the Tangerine Tyrant, they’d have had a government now.

So why not? I have my suspicions, and so did voters. In the minds of many it amounted to praising with faint damnation. Rightly or wrongly, Poilievre was seen as Trump’s guy in Ottawa (the terribly Trumpian promise to bypass the Charter of the Rights and Freedoms didn’t help).

Not even offering to overturn the single-use plastics ban could overcome that.

Not Another Useful Idiots Group!

 As I put the finishing touches on this post, Zelensky is leaving the White House early, as talks between him and Trump appear to break down completely. The implications of this make me want to vomit. The things that inspired this post feel petty indeed. But the post is written, so here it is. 

At this late juncture, when Trump himself is basically offering to split Ukraine down the middle, Molotov-Ribbentrop style, I find it easy to forget that groups like “Films For Action” still have anything to say about it. 

I shouldn’t, because groups like this have something to say (usually the same thing) on everything. But my dumb, naïve, faith in humanity clearly knows no bounds, and I continuously underestimate people’s stubborn attachment to worthless bromides. 

Films for Action (said “Action” presumably referring to social media postings) is the latest group I’ve encountered that presumes to offer an opinion (I won’t dignify as “proposal”) on issues it knows less than nothing about. The pattern is the same: high- school level buzzwords and slogans offered up in place of any actual knowledge of history or geopolitics, from a safe, enclosed space in the west, free of input from any Ukrainian, East European, or indeed anyone in a position to know anything about it. The aggressor is praised with faint damnation, the proposed solutions utterly unworkable, the assumed causes utterly nonsensical. 

At this late junction, these groups seem incredibly inconsequential – there’s less than a candle’s chance in the Mariannes Trench that any of this stuff will be taken into account by any of the parties involved – but I know well meaning people who take these cliches seriously (and I want to test my new keyboard), so I will address some of their points:  

(Here's the link again) 

1) NATO encroachment? Encroachment on what? Countries that want to protect themselves from Russia. Eastern Europe is not Russia's property, nor its "sphere of influence". It is not entitled to any say in which treaties those countries choose to enter. It is certainly not entitled to invading countries at whim, which it has a history of doing, and which only NATO membership has been able to prevent. 

2) Reject the militarization of Ukraine - Only Ukraine's decision to make. It's not ours to reject.

Even if we accept the implied fantasy that Ukraine was once some demilitarized pacifist utopia, what possibly could have militarized it? Could it have anything at all to do with Russia's military invasion of it? 

Rest assured, Russia will not similarly demilitarize, even if Ukraine chooses to. 

3) End U.S. and NATO weapons shipments. Presumably that would include the ant-aircraft systems which Ukraine has been using to prevent Russian missile attacks on its cities. This would leave Ukraine entirely defenseless. Russia would love this. 

4) Propose a demilitarized zone along Ukraine’s eastern border. Which side of the border? Which border? The real one or the current one? 

5) Ending sanctions that harm civilians - a Kremlin sob story. The sanctions are currently hindering Russia's ability to maintain this war - rebuilding its lost materiel, and paying its soldiers, and producing its missiles, which harm far more civilians. 

6) Guarantee security for Ukraine through diplomatic agreements - Russia has never honoured a diplomatic agreement in its existence (except perhaps the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact). Minsk I and II, and the Budapest memorandum, were previous diplomatic agreements that supposedly guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty. All were violated with impunity. Such agreements are just pieces of paper without the strength or willingness to enforce them.

Also note that the entire project staff of this organization (with the exception of one Brit) are based in Kansas. No one from Ukraine, or any former Warsaw Pact country. No one with any experience of living next to Russia. 

Anytime anyone blames Russian behavior on “NATO encroachment”, it follows as night follows day, that said person has never met nor spoken to anyone who lived under the former Warsaw Pact. (There definitely weren’t any consulted for the production of this document).  

There’s a glorious lack of self-awareness these groups enjoy, when they cough up ideas not remarkably different from Trump’s own: freeze the lines of conflict, stop the flow of aid, and end the sanctions. Not a word about returning Ukrainian territory or kidnapped children. For all practical purposes, there’s no difference. It amounts to a mutilated, disarmed Ukraine in the face of a resurgent, unrepentant Russia. 

Wherefore all these treaties and agreements suggested by Films for Action? How, pray tell, might they be imposed or enforced? They don’t know, and probably don’t care. Such manifestos aren’t meant to be implemented, but to signify ideological commitment.  

Not long ago, many leftists embraced the "punch a nazi" craze. There was no talk of negotiated settlements then. There was some recognition there that some evils can only be dealt with one way. If only there was a similar recognition that not all evils shave their heads. 

Of Men, Martians, and Medias

 One of my favourite stories from the 20th Century has to be the reaction to Orson Welles’ radio adaptation of War of the Worlds in 1938. Basically, folks thought it was the news, and lost their shit. 

Do listen to the radio play if you ever get the chance. It does sound like a radio broadcast. It starts with an announcer from an authentic sounding station introducing an orchestra, some music, briefly interrupted by a report on some meteorites, followed by more music, then more newsflashes, until, well, the Martians are marching on New York and it's the end of civilization as we know it. It's great entertainment, and it sounds authentic.   

It was a convincing pastiche of radio news programs at the time. 

Listeners could be forgiven if they thought it was the real thing (especially in those tense, pre-WWII days). If they seemed incredulous, well, loads of people today in the internet age believe far stupider things. 

George Orwell addressed the phenomenon in 1940. More specifically, he addressed a

survey, conducted by Princeton University, of the -victims? Participants? I’d love to quote the whole thing for you in full, but suffice it to say, his words, as usual, are still crushingly relevant. 

The first interesting bit he addressed was the extent to which people on both sides of the Atlantic tended to trust what would now be called the “Mainstream” or “Legacy” media. People thought they were hearing the news, and assumed what they heard on the news had to be true. He suggests that had the story appeared on the front page of one of London’s papers, the British public would have believed it as well:

"It is known that newspapers are habitually untruthful, but it is also known that they cannot tell lies of more than a certain magnitude,”

God knows Orwell was no fan of the papers. But he kept things in perspective, and he knew there were rules to the game. For all its flaws, I’ll still take the legacy press over the post-apocalyptic swamp of meme-land, which has fostered wide-spread climate-change denial, vaccine skepticism, Russian pseudo-history, and even bloody flat-earth theory. The papers weren’t that bad. 

Even so, the listeners are not entirely let off the hook for their credulity: 

“So few of the viewers attempted any kind of check. . .It appears over two thirds of them attempted no kind of verification: as soon as they heard the end of the world was coming, they accepted it uncritically.”

It seems our lot. People don’t check. They don’t verify. They don’t investigate. They don’t stop and think “hey, wait a minute. . .” They click “like” and repost. And base their world view on that, and vote based on that. And so here we are. 

Maybe no one’s believing in Martian invasions, but they are panicking about immigrant invasions, woke hive minds, and big pharma. They’re terrified that George Soros will implant microchips in their heads, but think it cool when Elon Musk actually does it. They rage at phantasmagorical Q Anon Pizzagate child-sex rings which don’t exist, while ignoring the child victims of school shootings, who do. They will even torment the parents of Sandy Hook victims. These self proclaimed guardians of exploited children care not a whit that their messiah was buddies with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The President of the United States can make stuff up off the top of his head, and every word is taken as Gospel.    

 Our civilization has no business lecturing anyone about gullibility. 

As interesting, and no less relevant to us today, were the apparent backgrounds of the believers. “The evident connection between personal unhappiness and the readiness to believe the incredible is [the survey’s] most interesting discovery.” I will quote the last bit in full:

People who have been out of work, or on the verge of bankruptcy for ten years may actually be relieved to hear of the approaching end of civilization. It is a similar frame of mind that has induced whole nations to fling themselves in the arms of a Saviour.

 Craziness in Korea. . .

President Yoon Suk Yeol tried to declare marshal law, ostensibly to take on "anti-state forces" at work in the country - which sounds a lot like a euphemism for "the opposition".

There followed surreal scenes of the military attempting to storm the National Assembly. . .and lawmakers blocking the door to keep them out. Fire extinguishers were used.

People took to the streets. Parliament tables a motion to lift martial law, passed 190-0. The Army wavered for a bit, then withdrew, probably disappointed. Mass calls for Yoon to resign. 

Blink and you miss it. 

It would appear that the Koreans rose to the occasion and successfully defended their democracy. It took immediate, decisive action, and more than a little courage. Had there been any lolly-gagging, the National Assmebly would have been cleared out, the motion not passed, and Korean democracy would presumably have been effectively over. 

I mean, I don't know how it works in Korean politics, but the fact this was a unilateral move by President Yoon, without any sort of process, and that it would have entailed the cessation of political activity and independent media, and that South Korea has a long and quite recent history of authoritarian take-over, AND that Yoon has a history of authoritarian tendencies, make it look like the end of Korean democracy was the end goal. 

And they were stopped. 

It was a narrow escape, and I can't help wondering how some certain other societies would compare in a similar situation. Alas, I have no faith in our own citizenry to act so decisively or bravely. 

In fact, I am quite certain a large number of the electorate would side with the army. 

Good for Korea. Shame on the rest of us. 
 

 So. . .Lame Duck President Biden has finally decided to allow the Ukrainians to strike back at their Russian and North Korean invaders with US supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS)  - in the Kursk region. Other regions of Russia remain sacrosanct, so it can continue to launch glide bombs at Ukrainian day-care centres with complete impunity. 

This has outraged the usual suspects. The Kremlin is Krying foul, as it always does when its victims fight back.  Elon Muskovite, Marjorie Traitor Green, and the rest of Putin's puppets in America are all wetting their beds, as they always do when their masters are inconvenienced. And the lily-livered left are bitching about the military industrial complex, as they always do when their prayer beads fail to stop dictators. All claim this (as opposed to Russia's invasion in the first place) will lead to World War Three. All are being disingenuous: Russia, because disingenuousness in bred into it's DNA, the Right because they want Russia to win, and the Left because they always hate to see Western weapons used, even when they intercept glide bombs headed for maternity wards. Even ostensibly sympathetic commentators, such as Owen Jones and Cenk Uygur, don't want to see Ukraine defend itself too vigorously. 

Thing is, Russia's been threatening WWIII from the very beginning. It has threatened to unleash the nukes every time so much as a bottle of foreign made athlete's foot powder has landed in Ukraine, and has opted not to do so Every Single time, possibly because it actually doesn't want to be turned into soup.

Nor is it in any position to send in its tanks or jets, as all of them are needed in Ukraine at the moment. Fact is, Russian conventional forces wouldn't last a minute against NATO, and Moscow knows it. Yet, NATO continuously falls for its bluffs, even after unwittingly calling them.  And considering the Ukrainians are already in it up the neck, the threat of "escalation" or "retaliation" seems laughable indeed.  

I say "hurrah!" ATACM strikes might hurt the invaders a bit more. They might enable Ukraine to keep some thimble-full of Russian land to bargain with when Trump forces them to surrender. They might intercept a handful of glide-bombs. Will they change the course of the war? This utterly amateur arm-chair observer thinks not.   

At this stage in the game, it all strikes me as a bit like lending someone a fire-extinguisher after their house has burnt down. The time when such weapons could have made a major impact is long past. Some months ago for instance, Ukraine came this close to winning a major victory south of the Seym river, but just couldn't pull it off. The Russians reinforced and resupplied too quickly. ATACMS, disrupting Russian logistics, might have made a difference. They might not have, but we'll never know now: the moment has passed. 

A great many moments have passed. The West has a gift for providing too little too late. ATACMS didn't even arrive in Ukraine until long after Russia had consolidated its positions. HIMARS, Abrams tanks, and F-16 jets all arrived only after much hand-wringing and delay, during which time, more and more of Ukraine was chewed off by the bear. 

Analogies abound. 

Give 'em the helmet after the head injury.

Give 'em the coat after the hypothermia. 

Plug up the boat after it sinks. 

Lock the door after the thief gets in. 

There comes a point when late becomes so late, it may as well be never.  We're fast approaching that point now. The longer it takes for Western weapons to arrive, the fewer Ukrainians will there will be to use them, and the less there will be of Ukraine to protect. 

It didn't have to be this way.  

Remember the Fallen.

 Not being in the mood this year to stand in the rain with about marching cadets, and be lectured by some blowhard about how indispensable the Battle of Vimmy Ridge was to my current freedom to scarf down two hundred flavours of potato chip, I stayed in a did my own Remembrance Day reflections this year. 

It occurred to me that there are Canadians fighting for freedom right NOW, as we speak, or binge on Amazon Prime as it may be, battling the Russians in Ukraine. At least 12 have died.  

They are: 

Jean Francois Ratelle

Alain Derasp

Malick Joseph

Cole Zelenco

Kyle Porter

Joseph Hildebrand

Emile Antoine Sirois

Grigorii Tsekhmistrenko

Anthony "Tonko" Ihnat

Joshua Mark Mayers

Austin Lathlin-Bercier

Brad Stratford

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/these-canadians-made-the-ultimate-sacrifice-in-ukraine-in-relative-anonymity

They weren't forced to go over by any government draft. They were under no pressure from their society. They went entirely as a matter of principle, feeling deep down this was a cause worth fighting. They went willingly, knowing the risks. Knowing they'd be without the backing of their state, without all the air support and technological superiority that entails. Or even the acknowledgement they've done it. 

There days, there aren't many willing to put their lives on the line for matters of principle. Nowadays, it seems most folk wouldn't even pay ten cents extra on their gas-bill to help Ukraine, let alone fight for it. Those who do, and did - who are actually doing what we claim to be honouring - deserve to be remembered. 

On this of all days. 

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;

They fell with their faces to the foe.

In Which the Author Succumbs to Majority Rule

 So... 

The man of the spray on tangerine tan has won. Unambiguously. By a large margin. I think he even broke his own record. Sure they'll say it was close, but not close enough to leave any doubt, not close enough that a recount would make a difference, not close enough to blame on voter suppression or hoax-bomb threats. The people have spoken, and the MAGA king is back. 

I have had a funny feeling he would be. I've had funny feelings about the last five Presidential elections in a row, and have been right each time. Difficult to say when I first felt it: possibly when I was in NYC over the summer, and noticed how much Trump shirts outnumbered Harris shirts in the tourist kiosks. 

Is that an infallible indicator? No, but those proprietors aren't dumb: they don't display what don't sell. The hysterical optimism of the Kamellan Twittersphere notwithstanding, someone was buying those shirts. 

I'm not interested in forensic analysis of the Harris campaign - I don't care what she did wrong. Whether she should have leaned more left or leaned more right, spoken up about this or shut up about that. Whether so-and-so's endorsement was worth anything, or whether they shoulda just stuck with Joe. None of it matters. It's too easy to look back in hindsight at what one should have done - coulda-woulda-shoulda. I often wish there were parallel universes to peak into and see where different may have lead, but as for the army of "told you so!" types who insist things would have gone differently if they were in charge, or their advice had been followed. . .I'm not in the mood.   

Nor do I really care to psycho-analyze Trump voters, and peruse whatever deep-down bum-hurt big Daddy Trump will supposedly soothe. "He speaks to what concerns Americans!" goes the call. Maybe he does. That's not reassuring. 

All I know is that millions of people took a look at this guy - convicted criminal, sex pest, Kremlin call boy, Epstein's Pal, fraudulent, inarticulate, unprincipled, opportunistic, cynical, serial liar - and said: 

"I want that!" 

Millions of people made common cause with Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Bibi Netanyahu, Victor Orban, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, countless neo nazis, religious extremists,  and sex-predators. The majority of the voting public were undisturbed by his threats to political opponents and attacks on democratic institutions. Jan 6 wasn't an issue. Climate change not mentioned. Gaza not an issue. And the sooner Ukraine is abandoned, the better. 

What can I say? It's what the people want. 

I wonder if we'll have to renegotiate NAFTA again? 

Meanwhile, Volodymr Zelensky, a real statesman, swallowed his pride and offered his congratulations. 

I am reminded of what Churchill might have tried to say to Wendel Wilkie if he had won his election. Who knows? Perhaps Trump can be convinced of the necessity of helping Ukraine - he is susceptible to flattery, if nothing else. I wouldn't count on it: not with all that cabal of cowardly Russophiles he's surrounded himself with. But we'll see. . . 

I think I'll take a break from all this. I will certainly stay off Twitter. My next post will be about something harmless. Maybe a tirade against Halloween Spirit stores. . .