IamCraig.com Rotating Header Image

china

trump apparently doesn’t understand the free market

Feb 4th, 2025
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

The initial title of this blog post was going to be, “trump is a moron”, but the problem with that is that I can write a post every day for the rest of my life (or trump’s life) with that title. But the new title became immediately apparent when I realised the fundamental issue.

I also considered, “If this is how trump treats his friends …”, but we all know that he’s in love with putin (both spelled with an initial lower-case letter, as you will note), leader of America’s traditional enemy, so it’s impossible to know who his friends and enemies really are.

And what about, “The Dumbest Trade War in History“? Oops, already taken.

The issue here is that trump is clearly ignorant. He does not understand economics, and I don’t believe he has ever attended a history class or read a history book in his life!

I’m not an economist either, but I’d like to make a few points:

  • If an American imports a Canadian (or Mexican or Chinese) product that the Canadian sells for $1 (we’ll ignore currencies and exchange rates), the American is going to have to pay $1.25 with a 25% tariff. That directly penalises the American, not the Canadian, and will result in inflation increasing in the United States. Of course, the whole world knows that Biden personally wanted inflation to increase (it had nothing to do with the fact that inflation grew worldwide after COVID), and trump campaigned on ending the Biden tyranny, so trump’s going to look incompetent when he directly increases inflation with his tariffs.
  • The knock-on effect is that the American might (and probably will) decide to buy a different product; that will then penalise the Canadian, but I’ll get to that in a moment when I take apart trump’s moronic post on the stupidly named “Truth Social”.
  • Clearly, as trump states in his incorrectly named “truth” — seriously, the fact that it’s a lie is why “Truth Social” is a misnomer — his goal is that Canadian and Mexican and Chinese manufacturers (and every manufacturer in the world!) will up sticks and move their businesses to America, all while he cracks down on immigration! (Seriously! His left hand doesn’t know what his right hand is doing!) I can’t tell you the number of times I have wished that everyone in the world would see the light and host their websites and email with my company (it would make dealing with spam much easier), but I live in the real world where I realise that competition is a reality and I can’t do everything; the world is too varied to want exactly what my company offers. And in the same vein, as “great” as America is (or is alleged to be), it can’t be all things to all people. God help us if we were all to become Americans! (I’ll get to that in a moment as well.)
  • But, most importantly, trump doesn’t seem to understand that, likewise, America can’t do everything. I grew up in a country (Rhodesia) that was sanctioned by almost the whole world, and we tried bloody hard to “reduce, reuse and recycle” decades before that became a “thing”. We did a damned good job too, but we still imported goods from abroad from people and companies that were willing to trade despite sanctions. He doesn’t understand that in the “free market” Americans are choosing every day to buy foreign-sourced goods from counties like Canada, Mexico and China, and now he is limiting the freedom of Americans to freely trade how they wish. It’s typical right-wing bullshit: we support freedom, only as long as it fits within our narrow definition of the word.

Can Americans make widgets as well as Canadians can? Of course! But the fact of the matter is that they apparently don’t! That’s why some enterprising Canadian started making widgets the way they thought they should be made, and now Americans are buying (and importing) Canadian widgets because they’re better!

Taking apart trump’s bullshit

The idiot trump has made a couple of posts (“truths”!) on his moronic “Truth Social” account which conveniently consolidate a number of points that I will now debunk:

The “Tariff Lobby,” headed by the Globalist, and always wrong, Wall Street Journal, is working hard to justify Countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and too many others to name, continue the decades long RIPOFF OF AMERICA, both with regard to TRADE, CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!

The “tariff lobby”? Who the fuck are the “tariff lobby”? (And while we’re at it, who are/is “the Globalist”?) The “always wrong” “Wall Street Journal”?! Look, buddy, “The Wall Street Journal” isn’t on my reading list, but (as you well know) they didn’t become the pre-eminent publisher of business and financial news because they were “always wrong”. However, this is your way of communicating, in black-and-white absolutisms. I get it. You’ve been so rich for so long that people are afraid to say, “Come on, Donald, they aren’t ‘always wrong’. Remember that time they reported X, Y and Z?” Nope, your lackey’s just nod their heads and scurry off to do your bidding. Now, due to all of the people in your country who apparently have no “common sense”, you’re their president, and so the whole world can see what a fool you are.

And, “RIPOFF OF AMERICA”? Are you saying/admitting that Americans (including yourself, who negotiated the last version of the North-American free-trade deal that you’re now violating) are easy pushovers? I would disagree with that in general. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that anybody is being “ripped off”. That’s like George H.W. Bush claiming that his parents forcing him to eat broccoli meant he was being “ripped off”. But like most humans, Bush took it in stride as just one of the many things there are in life that we don’t like. You, on the other hand, just whine and complain like a baby that this, that and everything else you complain about are “not fair”, like any tempestuous seven-year-old does when they’re upset at the unfairness of their world. You might as well punctuate your “not fairs” with a stomp of your foot.

You’ve stated that you want “fair trade”. Again, I’d like to point out that it was you who negotiated the current United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, often known as NAFTA 2.0 because of the other ridiculous acronyms by which it is known. Maybe you should go back in time and fire yourself since you apparently negotiated such a bad deal for America. But hey, don’t fret; NAFTA 2.0 is supposed to be renewed (and possibly renegotiated) in 2026, so can’t you wait a few weeks or months? It’s not as if negotiations will start on the day the agreement expires. But of course you can’t wait, because everything has to be done yesterday.

And as I keep telling people, if “CRIME, AND POISONOUS DRUGS that are allowed to so freely flow into AMERICA” by the American Border Patrol and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) are problems, then you Americans need to get off your arses and beef up your own agencies! We in Canada are likewise suffering from the same epidemics (as well as the epidemic of American guns coming into Canada that are being used by criminals here) so we are not the source of the problem! Justin Trudeau himself (love him or hate him) is not the Vito Corleone of an operation that he personally oversees where he is feeding the insatiable American appetite for drugs! The moron that is currently President of the United States of America is blaming the wrong people! And let’s not forget that a grand total of about twenty kilogrammes (44 pounds for you Americans) of fentanyl have crossed the Canadian border into the United States in the year to October 2024, versus about five hundred times that amount from Mexico! (Illegal Immigration and Fentanyl at the U.S. Northern and Southwest Borders.) Where’s your fucking sense of proportion?!

As Forbes magazine says, the “Tariff On Canada Not Justified By U.S. Immigration And Drug Claims“, but you never let facts get in the way of your emotional tirades.

THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!

Yeah right.

The USA has major deficits with Canada, Mexico, and China (and almost all countries!), owes 36 Trillion Dollars, and we’re not going to be the “Stupid Country” any longer.

Who called you “stupid”? Sure, it’s an overused word, and certain people and certain actions (like your tariffs) certainly are stupid but, again, you’re coming to a an unsupportable conclusion that you and your fellow Americans are all, well, stupid pushovers. How do you or can you come to that ridiculous (stupid?) conclusion? You can’t. Your office is supposed to be better than petty remarks like this that are only worthy of repeating in front of your similarly drunk mates at the bar.

As for “deficits”, yes, you’re technically correct, but it’s not a deficit that you (America) has to pay, and despite your claiming that, “They [Canada and Mexico] owe us a lot of money, I’m sure they’re gonna pay,” we don’t owe you any money either! (Mexico still owes you for the wall you built that you said they’d pay for!) Let’s just say that Bob and Jane own two different businesses; it just so happens that Bob produces some products that Jane’s business needs, and Jane similarly makes products that Bob’s business needs. Remarkably, Bob spends more on Jane’s products than Jane spends on Bob’s. Does that mean that Jane somehow then owes Bob some money? Of course not! I’m not going to get into comparing Bob and Jane’s products and prices, but the economy generated over many generations between Canada and the United States has seen the free market decide that apparently (according to you) your free citizens need more Canadian products than our free citizens need from you! Does anybody — including your free citizens — need to be punished over this supposed imbalance? No! If you want to “solve” this imbalance then do it naturally, but that doesn’t sound as sexy to you or your “base” or happen as quickly as they’d like than spitting out the best word in the world, “tariff”.

MAKE YOUR PRODUCT IN THE USA AND THERE ARE NO TARIFFS!

As I said above, most of us do not live in that fantasy world.

Why should the United States lose TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SUBSIDIZING OTHER COUNTRIES, and why should these other countries pay a small fraction of the cost of what USA citizens pay for Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, as an example?

Who is losing anything here? Jim in the USA is paying a dollar to a Canadian (or Mexican) and in return he gets a dollar’s worth of goods. Nobody is losing! And how is Jim subsidising anyone, the Canadian or the Mexican? You’re obviously an idiot who hasn’t thought this through. And why are your citizens paying so much for drugs and pharmaceuticals? What the hell does that have to do with trade imbalances? Nothing, that’s what. It has everything to do with how you Americans run your fucked up society, bankrupting your citizens because they broke their leg.

THIS WILL BE THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA!

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN? YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!). BUT WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, AND IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.

Oh, so someone actually managed to whisper something in your ear in the last five minutes suggesting that tariffs are maybe not the best thing since sliced bread? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and this is as close as you will come to admitting it. I’m also thinking that you won’t pay much of a price, given your penchant for obtaining financing from the banks you bullshit, but Joe Schmoe way down the line will be expected to “subsidise” the American economy in a way that will cause him pain.

WE ARE A COUNTRY THAT IS NOW BEING RUN WITH COMMON SENSE — AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SPECTACULAR!!!

Typical marketing (i.e., lying) bullshit. I also love how you re-define “common sense” to be whatever bullshit comes out of your mouth. Please look up the definition.

We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason.

You do? There’s another word you should look up: subsidise (or however you Americans choose to spell it), Here, let me help you:

subsidize (also subsidise)
v. support (an organization or activity) financially. pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce its price.
DERIVATIVES subsidization n. subsidizer n.

What, exactly, are you subsidising? And who is “we”? It’s certainly not the government of the United States of America; it’s certainly not you personally; and it’s certainly not any of the American citizens who engage freely in the free-trade market between our two countries! You are delusional and don’t understand what a subsidy is.

Since you’ve never attended a history class or read a history book, you might not realise that Canada and the United States (as modern countries) both started out as colonies of the United Kingdom, France and Spain in about the fifteenth century. (That’s the 1400s, in case you didn’t know. And I’m not mentioning Russia’s peripheral role that is not really visible outside of Alaska.) Through periods of war and other upheaval, the two countries developed into two separate nations. Canada (as it later became) and its settlers remained loyal to the Crown of Great Britain, whereas you guys (the Americans) fought a war of independence against Great Britain. Since then you and the UK have kissed and made up, and now you have what is generally known as a/the “Special Relationship” (although I suspect that, under you, that relationship is becoming less special every day), and you and we have also developed the kind of close relationship one would expect two neighbours to develop. (This is pretty typical around the world. Viz. Ireland and the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Rhodesia and South Africa, etc.)

So, as close as we now are (or were until a few days ago), we are two different and independent countries, nations and cultures. Like you guys, we have an economy, one good enough to be included in the G7 Group of Seven advanced economies. Contrary to your barroom braggadocio bullshit, we would not “cease to exist as a viable Country [sic]”. Would we be changed if the United States “built a wall” and shut itself off from us? Yes, of course, as would you, but we would not sink into the sea; that’s just moronic to assume. But to sum up this extremely brief history lesson, America as one independent, sovereign nation is not subsidising Canada, a separate, independent and sovereign nation.

End of lesson. You are wrong.

We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber than we can ever use.

Ha ha. You should probably consult a few of your citizens on that matter, the ones who are buying and importing our goods and services. Whether it’s need or want, Americans import billions of dollars worth of our goods, just as we import billions of dollars worth of yours. That’s how the free market works. No American president, under your current democracy (which I realise is in jeopardy at the moment), has any absolute power or sway over all of your people to change that. And anyone who uses the word “unlimited” is obviously someone who has spent too much time in sales and marketing, believing his own bullshit. And as for the cars, again, check with the CEOs of Ford, General Motors and Stellantis; they are not Canadian cars, they are North American cars made by the same “big three” on both sides of the border. Again, this is when reading a little bit of history would come in handy for you.

Without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true!

Harsh and completely UNtrue! Please see above.

Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!

Ah, you’ve saved the best for last! This bullshit “51st state” crap, although, as a Canadian, I’m not feeling especially “cherished” by America right now. As clearly shown in my mini history lesson above, Canadians are not Americans, Americans in waiting, America’s “little brother” (although, since you are size obsessed, I hate to point out to you the we are bigger) or anything else along those lines. We don’t even want you guys as our 11th province, or even out 4th territory! That would be far more hassle than we’d be willing to tolerate. As a Canadian I wonder to myself, “What would the advantage to us be?”, and I can come up with nothing. I think that Americans should be proud to be American, and we Canadians are similarly proud to be Canadian; why should either of us confuse our identities? (And why would you want to become communists, as we clearly are?) No thanks. I kinda like our higher taxes and that they fund a government able to take care of its citizens in the way that governments are supposed to. And in fact, one of the ways our government protects its citizens is by not being so belligerent, ignorant and self-centred on the world stage, so as long as we don’t become the 51st state of the belligerent country of the United States of America, we don’t need your supposedly “far better military protection”, thanks very much. Hey, I’m not saying we’re perfect and have everything figured out, but neither are you and neither do you.

That’s why together as friends and allies and with our highly integrated economies that are not subsidising or taking advantage of one another — and in the other innumerable ways that other editorialists have enumerated in recent days, from world wars to your Iran hostage crisis to Iraq to Afghanistan to 9/11 — we are stronger.

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, "Tariff lobby."

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, “Tariff lobby.”

 

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, "Subsidize Canada."

donald trump, Bullshit Social post, 2025-02-02, “Subsidize Canada.”

Updated, 2025-02-08: Added screenshots of trump’s post on a site I have renamed “Bullshit Social” because that’s more accurate than “Truth Social”.

America and communism

Nov 15th, 2024
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post
United Socialist States of America flag.

United Socialist States of America flag (Samdir3 CC BY-SA 3.0).

The way that Americans seem to have a penchant for labelling anyone they disagree with — particularly Republicans labelling Democrats — as “communist” has always troubled me. The problem is ignorance. A good friend of mine — a former resident of the United States — who is well educated in this area says that he won’t talk to anyone about communism unless they have read all of a reading list by authors such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, etc. I don’t remember the full list, but I myself have not met the prerequisite. Among them I vaguely recall “Das Kapital” by Karl Marx. At best I have read a number of excerpts of a few of the texts in my friend’s list from text books from a college political science course.

But today, in 2024, I am stunned by the extent to which right-leaning American politicians are siding with former communists, particularly one vladimir putin. You may have heard of him: he started the first war in Europe since the end of World War II in 1945 by sending Russian troops to invade Ukraine, troops that were immediately defeated in their push for Kyiv. The current American president-elect — donald trump — and his nominee for the cabinet position of Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, both (by all accounts) support putin, and trump claims that he plans to end the war within 24 hours of taking office, if not before! It is widely expected that he will do this by denying any further military assistance to Ukraine and twisting the arm of Volodymyr Zelenskyy (president of Ukraine) into ceding Ukrainian territory to putin.

To someone whose country’s west-leaning government was abandoned by the United States of America to the communist terrorists — supported by the Soviet Union and China — against which we fought in the 1970s, this actually shouldn’t be surprising. So welcome to the club, Mr. Zelenskyy, the club of people that have been fighting on the side of America and to bring the freedom of the West to your country, but in whose faces America has spat.

But is this really surprising behaviour by a president-elect who has nominated an anti-vaxxer as the Secretary of Health, and a suspected criminal as the Attorney General?!

China releases two Canadian hostages

Sep 26th, 2021
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post
Protest sign calling for the release of Kovrig and Spavor.

Protest sign calling for the release of Kovrig and Spavor

After 1020 days — 2.8 years, 34 1/2 months — the Chinese have finally released the two Canadian hostages (the “two Michaels”, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor) they took after the lawful arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada at the behest of the Americans.

This, mind you, was after almost consistent but vehement denials by China of any connection between the two cases! The two Michaels just happened to have been caught “spying” mere days after Meng was arrested!

The prisoner swap was almost completely in line with my suggested method, except that it was over in a matter of hours via aircraft rather than days via ship. But it was completely in line, as noted in other media, with any prisoner swap done during the Cold War! The Chinese didn’t even make any kind of an effort to make it look like there was due process in the trumped-up spying cases of the two Michaels whereby, months or years after the release of Meng, they discovered new “evidence” that their charges were incorrect and the Michaels were exonerated by the courts. Nope, just, “Get in the van, we’re taking you to the airport.”

Unbelievable!

Updated, later 2021-09-26: I get caught up in the blatant injustice of it all — three years each stolen from the lives of two innocent humans, while the reason for it all enjoyed damn nearly 100% freedom in one of her Vancouver mansions and availing herself of the near paradise that is Vancouver and Canada, all while showing off her ankle bracelet as a fashion accessory and waving at supporters like she’s a celebrity — and lash out against the Chinese government, but the fact of the matter is that I was personally elated to hear the news on Friday our time. I am immeasurably happy for the Spavor and Kovrig families, and of course the two Michaels themselves. Welcome home guys!

Collage: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor (the Two Michaels).

Collage: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor (the Two Michaels)

Canada-China prisoner swap

Jul 10th, 2020
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post
Protest sign calling for the release of Kovrig and Spavor.

Protest sign calling for the release of Kovrig and Spavor

It seems bizarre to me to be writing about this kind of medieval or (I suppose) Cold War-type prisoner swap in the 21st century, but it seems that some countries (namely China) are still in that kind of backwards mindset. (This is particularly ironic, given the assertion by the deputy director of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information Department [Zhao Lijian] that other countries [namely the US] suffer from a “Cold-War mentality“! Proof that politicians everywhere talk out of both sides of their mouths.)

I’d like to make clear a few of my assumptions and biases first:

  • I am not under the influence of China or any Chinese pressure groups, and presumably the authors of both of the letters to which I refer below are not either,
  • I travel internationally as much as I can, and although I have travelled to China, I have not (so far) knowingly travelled to any countries where my life or liberty might be in danger,
  • I am a dual citizen.

I have read the letter from the “distinguished Canadians” to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (cached copy), and I think it forms a basis on which Canada could move forward. It disgusts me that a reasonably civilised country like Canada should be in this position, but it is; it’s similarly repugnant that a country like China, who would like to present themselves to the world as being civilised (all the while acting the global bully wherever it thinks it can get away with it), would do such a thing. But they have, and here we are. And why have they taken hostages? Well, Meng Wanzhou isn’t some low-life drug trafficker or any other alleged common criminal; she seems to be about as close as you can get to royalty in China in the modern age, just without (obviously) the diplomatic immunity. Quite frankly, their taking hostages is the international equivalent of an unhappy child throwing their toys out of their cot!

Among the objections to this course of action are those of Trudeau himself (and presumably therefore the Government of Canada) and 53 signatories of an opposing letter from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The objections seem to boil down to three primary issues, with a fourth unstated openly by the Canadian government:

  • Principles: A prisoner swap would weaken Canada’s principles. It matters not that two innocent Canadians have been deprived of their liberty for a year and a half (so far), as long as some unarticulated principle is upheld. I’ll address that shortly.
  • Giving in to hostage takers: I see the value in not giving in to the demands of hostage takers, but in my mind there is a significant difference between a hostage taker that also happens to be a state, and a hostage taker that is an individual or a group (e.g., a terrorist organisation), i.e., not a state. Quite frankly, a state that violates the norms of international practice (if not law) and takes hostages, is a pariah state, and one that should be isolated by all states. Of course, I’m no naïf, and I know that a superpower like China can’t and won’t be isolated by all states, but there are measures that Canada, and others, can take. Also more on that shortly.
  • Endangering travelling Canadians: As if Canadians are somehow magically protected when they’re travelling internationally now, the assertion is made that negotiating the release of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig will result in Canadians abroad being taken hostage with more frequency. I feel that theory holds when we’re talking about hostages taken by the aforementioned individuals or groups, but not when we’re talking about hostages taken by states. If the principles of due process, comity and international law are not strong enough to prevent states from exercising their unlimited power within their own borders to arbitrarily detain random foreigners, does anyone really think that an unspoken “disapproval” of hostage taking is going to achieve the same goal?!
  • Canada’s commitment to lawful extraditions, and in particular to the United States: While there is no doubt that following some sort of process to “free” Chinese citizen Meng Wanzhou from Canada’s legal system will royally piss of the Americans, let’s not lose sight of the fact that her arrest under an extradition request is nothing short of the United States using an extradition treaty to prosecute their global foreign policy (particularly against Iran and China in this case) through a third party (Canada), not enforcing criminal law alleged to have been broken on its own soil by one of its own citizens. Now, I don’t claim any expert knowledge of extrajurisdictionality (especially as the principle applies to international sanctions), but it seems to me that this must be considered differently to cases involving the citizens of one’s own country fleeing to other jurisdictions to avoid prosecution in the home jurisdiction. In my opinion the United States and China — their empires colliding — need to use other means to carry out their mutual attempts to exert international control, in ways that don’t compromise their so-called allies … or in the latter’s case, the country that many of their citizens now call home, and will likely be calling home to a greater extent following Beijing’s crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong.

On the part of those advocating something more expedient (so to speak) there are the principles of fairness and humanity. It’s not news to most people that communist systems tend to “[override] individual self-interest and [subjugate] the welfare of the general population to achieve [their] goals“, and it’s quite clear to any observer that the “individual self-interest” of the Two Michaels (or their families) is of no interest to the Chinese Government. Then there’s the degree to which Canada’s foreign policy (especially with respect to China) has been hobbled by their inability to speak more bluntly where China continues to abuse its own citizens ([Hong Kong] (whose refugees will shortly be flooding Canada, the UK and other countries), [Tiananmen Square], etc.), its neighbours ([India], [Taiwan], etc.), and others around the world — as they are doing to Canada right now. If a country’s policy in one area or another is hobbled by an identifiable cause, then it certainly is a matter of national interest and perhaps security to take whatever action is necessary to address the problem!

So what’s my suggestion? Glad you asked. I think Canada should negotiate and implement these points:

  • The last thing Canada should do is simply “free” Meng Wanzhou and then “hope” that China reciprocates. That’s just insanity! Even if they do reciprocate, it could still be years before the Two Michaels are released under one mechanism (also trumped up) or another, simply to show who has the power in the relationship, and to give China the ability to claim (falsely of course) that the release of the Michaels was not connected. No, if China has actually gone as far as to tacitly acknowledge that they have apprehended the Michaels on trumped-up espionage charges, then Canada should publicly state to China that we are ready to negotiate a prisoner swap, and move to begin the negotiations. (To quote China: “Zhao Lijian: … we have also seen reports of an interview with Kovrig’s wife on June 23, during which she said that the Canadian justice minister had the authority to stop Meng Wanzhou’s extradition process at any point; such options are within the rule of law and could open up space for resolution to the situation of the two Canadians.“)
  • The prisoner swap must be very public, and televised on live television in both countries. Since Canada and China don’t share a land border, I suggest that a Royal Canadian Navy ship meet with a PLA Navy ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean to do the exchange, preferably over a gangplank between the ships. Alternatively, and slightly more practically I suppose, the prisoner exchange could take place on one of China’s land borders, or perhaps in the Korean DMZ.
  • Canada's Hong Kong travel advisory, 2 July 2020.

    Canada’s Hong Kong travel advisory, 2 July 2020

    One of the less obvious unilateral actions that Canada (and actually, all countries) should take in the current international climate is to start negotiating bilateral “non-hostage” treaties with other countries, possibly connected to extradition treaties. How would these work? Well, you simply make a pact with another country that neither of you will take each other’s citizens hostage. Of course, arrests in the course of normal law enforcement would be acceptable, but not arbitrary detentions with no evidence. If Canada doesn’t have such a non-hostage treaty with a country, then the travel advisory for that country would state, in very prominent and unambiguous wording, that a such a treaty does not exist and therefore Canada very strongly warns against travel to that country. (There is currently, as of 10 July 2020, a similar warning on the Government of Canada Hong Kong travel advisory [see screenshot] on the “laws and culture” tab, but it is neither prominent nor strong enough, and there is nothing on the China travel advisory advising against travel there except for COVID-19 reasons.) Without a non-hostage treaty, if a Canadian citizen (for the sake of this example) is arbitrarily detained (taken hostage) then Canada will make attempts to provide consular assistance, but will not try that hard. This is more likely to have a greater effect on dual citizens (of which I am one, I should make clear), especially for those for whom Canadian citizenship is a citizenship of convenience.

I have no doubt that the Government of Canada is indeed “doing” something in the background (as happened in Egypt recently), even if it’s just talking amongst themselves, but to the rest of us beer-swilling plebs in the deserted (at the moment) pubs and stalking the blogosphere, it sure looks like the safety and security of Canadians abroad is not a concern to Canada, contrary to their professions otherwise.

Canada is small potatoes to China, in probably every way you can think of except land mass, coastline and morals, but everyone learns when they are still a child that bullies can be stood up to. This is what Canada and most of the rest of the world must to do to stop, or at least ameliorate, China’s bullying tactics. I don’t in any way suggest that China needs to be stomped down as the “enemy”, but just as happens with individual humans they have become too big for their breeches, and for that there are or need to be consequences. Part of the “problem” with China is not even the fault of the Chinese; it’s the West’s constant obsession with “unlimited growth”. However, that’s a debate for another day.

Collage: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor (the Two Michaels).

Collage: Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor (the Two Michaels)

Politicians behaving badly … as usual

Jun 19th, 2020
by Craig.
Comments are off for this post

Scheer and Trudeau and the UN Security Council vote

I think that Andrew Sheer confuses being the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition with being the leader of a bunch of unruly children in a playground, bringing American-style ad hominem attacks to bear on the government Justin Trudeau. (Well, he is half American, so I suppose that’s no surprise.) OK, so Trudeau brought it upon himself by spending so much time and effort (and taxpayers’ money) on his pet project of getting Canada elected to the United Nations Security Council, but really, what the hell kind of measured, mature reaction is this?!:


Now, in all the fairness I can muster, I think Trudeau and/or the Liberals had the same personal dig at Stephen Harper when he failed in his same bid in 2010, so fair’s fair right? Meh, whatever. Politicians are almost all a bunch of self-serving opportunistic bastards; the only downside is that they have to inflict this crap on us, the suckers who pay their salaries for spending their lives acting like spoilt children.

At least the NDP’s foreign affairs critic, Jack Harris, had a distinctly more statesmanlike response. He was neither complimentary nor insulting, but had some constructive criticism of Canada’s (and Trudeau’s) attempt at election, and forward-looking suggestions.

One thing that does amuse me about Trudeau’s virtue signalling is when he talks about championing maternal issues in developing countries. As far as I know, that was (ironically) Stephen Harper’s pet project back in the day!

Champagne quarantine?!

In related news, I see that François-Philippe Champagne, our gallant Minister of Foreign Affairs, suddenly crossed the border and showed up in New York to cast Canada’s ballot in this election. What the hell?! I thought the border was closed to all but essential traffic?! If our UN ambassador was in New York, what exactly was essential about Champagne’s presence? And did he quarantine himself for fourteen days before mixing with all and sundry at the UN General Assembly?! Enquiring minds want to know.

Kudos for Scheer

On the positive side of Scheer’s ledger is this farcical two-minute exchange with Trudeau in the House of Commons that is a textbook example of doublespeak and not answering the question on the part of Trudeau:

Scheer questions Trudeau’s campaign for U.N. Security Council seat

My god! Even taking into account international diplomatic niceties, Trudeau makes absolutely no attempt to address the issues that the leader of the Opposition raises. In fact, the donkey show he puts on is as passively aggressive as is possible before the aggression crosses the line into a middle finger or active, physical aggression! It’s the legislative, “grown-up” (note the quotation marks!) equivalent of the playground, “I know you are but what am I?” that would get you a bloody nose in any other setting! It’s a wonder these politicians get anything done, and it’s no wonder they are mostly so reviled by the public. None of the rest of us would get away with anything like this in real life. Maybe I’m just an ingénue that doesn’t spend enough time watching videos of politicians being assholes.

Jagmeet Singh’s ejection from Parliament

I’m of two minds about what happened to Jagmeet Singh on Wednesday. On the one hand he moved a motion that, especially in the atmosphere in which the US and much of the world finds itself these days, was completely reasonable, and I can understand his surprise (and dismay) at even one vote of opposition. On the other hand, I can see the point of the Bloc Québécois who claimed that his motion prejudged an anticipated report of the public safety committee that would have addressed the points in the motion moved by Singh.

I don’t know the nature of the motion, and particularly whether or not it was binding or just some feel-good parliamentary fluffery designed to (as mentioned previously) be self-serving opportunism. Which it was has significant bearing on the matter, but I have not seen comment on this by anyone in the media. However, I can certainly understand Singh’s discomfit, especially at Alain Therrien’s alleged dismissive wave in the direction of Singh. Probably another example where, had I been involved, there would have been nasal blood (Therrien’s) spilled on the Commons floor!

The “new NAFTA”

I am amused that, despite its unwieldy new name — that some (mostly Americans) have tried to make into a single “word” — people are calling the “United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” the “new NAFTA”.

So I read that there is already bluster in the US that they’re itching to take legal action against Canada and Mexico as soon as the new agreement comes into force on 1 July. So what else is new? These are our “friends”! However, what sticks out for me in that article — besides the video of Deputy Prime Minster (and Intergovernmental Affairs minister) Chrystia Freeland’s rather smarmy (if unspoken) “fuck you” between gritted, smiling teeth aimed in the direction of the US threat — is the claim that US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer makes that other countries’ plans to tax American-based digital services is a plan to “screw America”. Ironically, the very next day, I received notice from one of my digital providers that they would henceforth be charging my company and their other customers taxes levied by six US states, including the one in which my business is domiciled. I doubt the two actions are linked, but the Americans are busy screwing themselves with new taxes!

Canadian hostages in China

China has finally, after holding them without charge for eighteen months, charged two Canadian hostages with “spying”. Everyone and their dog knows this is tit-for-tat, gangland hostage taking (“hostage diplomacy”) by the Chinese government, except the tit (or the tat) that happened in Canada was a lawful arrest under international treaties. I think it is despicable the situation in which the US has put Canada to further their political agenda, but it doesn’t excuse thuggery on the part of China who have stolen the lives of two (and arguably four) Canadians purely for spite. And on top of that the prisoner in Canada lives in her own multi-million dollar house in a larney area of Vancouver, while the two Canadians rot in cells in China! The two — known in Canada as “the two Michaels” — are Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Even if they were released by China tomorrow, they’ll never get back the time stolen from them by the Chinese government. It is unconscionable!

Hopefully the world will one day, together, stand up to the bullying of China (not just against Canada, but other countries including Taiwan and [recently, with deadly results] India), but it’s questionable whether or not that will happen in time for them to be stopped from steamrolling all over the rest of the world. I think China already delivered yet another “message” to Canada earlier this week; it is alleged that China strong-armed African nations — whom they have quietly re-colonised over the last decade or two — into voting against Canada in the aforementioned United Nations Security Council elections.

Hero pay

In other news, Canadian grocery store operations are clawing back the raises given to their employees when they were (temporarily, apparently) “heroes” on the “front lines” of the COVID-19 pandemic — and all the other quasi-military terms used for them and similar low-paying occupations like cleaners, drivers, etc. Never mind that these companies made and continue to make a killing on elevated sales numbers (including as a result of hoarding). The hypocrisy is galling! If there was one thing I thought people would learn from the experience of the pandemic it’s that far too many people are terribly, terribly underpaid, and then they suddenly became “heroes” overnight! And for that they got a measly two bucks an hour extra! That’s all they’re worth! And now, they’re not heroes any more, they’re just schleps schlepping their way through a work day again.

I know that I don’t have any economic solutions for the massive inequities in society (in this country or any other), but you can’t, in good conscience, pay someone a meagre wage one day and the next day claim they’re heroes, pay them a pittance more, and then take away their hero status (and extra pay) on some arbitrary (and collusive) date in the future. Are they heroes or not? Look, nobody claims they’re heroes in the same sense as a person who defends or saves the life of another, but really, the hypocrisy really is galling. And the hypocrisy is galling not just on the part of the grocery chains — Sobeys, Metro, Save-On-Foods, Loblaws, etc. — but on the part of us, their customers. I’ve said for a long time that so many people want to strike for good union wages, then they want to shop at disgraceful places like Walmart. It’s understandable that we all want to optimise our revenue-to-expense ratios, but this is a big deal that needs to be addressed somehow.

While looking for an appropriate article to which I could link on one of the main news websites (that isn’t behind a paywall, like The Globe and Mail is), I came across this one: The End of ‘Hero Pay’ for Grocery Workers in Canada an Operational Necessity: Expert. It’s written by an academic (which is not always a knock) for a retail industry publication, and as a result is skewed towards being supportive of the pay cut. However, it does cover some interesting points that are critical of the retailers that I think are worth reading.

Jas Johal

Someone else who I think doesn’t quite get his position as a member of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is BC Liberal MLA Jas Johal. He was a half-decent television reporter, but man, the only time he pokes his head above the parapet these days is when he wants to be on TV again and has nothing constructive to say … about anything, ever! I mean, I get that his job is that he’s an Opposition “critic” of the current NDP government, but there’s a difference between the title “critic” and the adjective “critical”, and you can’t claim that the government — any government — of the day doesn’t ever get anything right.

His latest crap is to criticise and condemn the BC government for daring to consult the public on ways in which they might steer activities related to recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s not exactly direct democracy in action, but we haven’t seen a pandemic in about a century, certainly longer than Johal’s lifetime, so what the hell downside could there be to initiating a consultation process that could very well have a positive effect?!

Give it a rest Johal! I think if you looked like a reasonable person once in a while instead of whining and complaining all the time you’d actually look like the Liberal leadership material for which you’re obviously trying to posture yourself.

Updated, 23 June 2020: Corrected my grammatical error. Of course you can’t make an ad hominem attack on a government!