Quotulatiousness

February 19, 2025

A brief nod to the shade of Missouri Representative James Beauchamp “Champ” Clark

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, History, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

I was aware that the greatest Liberal Prime Minister in Canadian history, Sir Wilfred Laurier, had lost an election on the basis of a negotiated free trade deal with the United States, but I was not aware of exactly how that happened. Colby Cosh provides the gory details that got Laurier out of office for good:

Funny thing I noticed: Friday marked the anniversary of the 20th century’s most remarkable explosion in Canadian-American relations, which took place on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1911. On that day, Feb. 14, Missouri Democratic congressman James Beauchamp “Champ” Clark gave a short speech in defence of a free-trade agreement that had been hammered out between the (Republican) Taft administration and Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government.

Clark, a progressive and witty westerner who had already been chosen to become Speaker of the House in April, was widely expected to be the Democratic nominee for president in 1912. He was, in other words, a man who counted. And on the floor of the House, he advocated passage of the free-trade deal on grounds that eventually doomed it: namely, that it was a conscious step toward total American absorption of the Dominion of Canada.

When Clark’s remarks hit the newspapers up north — and no news story hit harder between 1900 and the dawn of the Great War — there was a spasm of anti-American and pro-Empire feeling throughout the country. As any schoolbook will tell you, this helped lead to the defeat of Laurier and the ruin of the trade deal in September 1911’s general election. This gaffe is indeed now what Clark is best remembered for, along with his eventual fumbling away of the 1912 presidential nomination to an unassuming professor named Woodrow Wilson.

When I was an undergraduate, we all had to have it explicitly explained to us that back in Edwardian days, the Liberals were the party of free trade, and the Conservatives the great defenders of tariff protection (although Sir John A. had sometimes sought without success to kick-stark “reciprocity” negotiations with the U.S.). Perhaps the most confusing feature of the 1911 controversy to students of today will be Champ Clark’s idea that the U.S. government would want to lower trade barriers to facilitate eventual annexation of Canada, rather than raising them to mutually punitive levels as a matter of crude antagonism.

Between Confederation and Champ’s time, Americans often just assumed as a matter of course that Canada would fall into their laps without any need for aggression or invasion. We northerners would eventually see that the benefits of American citizenship were more valuable than our romantic imperial attachments, and we would come beat down the door. This was certainly Clark’s own idea, and it created no controversy among Americans themselves when he expressed it.

Of course, in Laurier’s day “liberal” meant something closer to the modern sense of “libertarian” than it does to the current incarnation (or shambling corpse) of that party.

February 17, 2025

A maple-flavoured DOGE? Maxime Bernier proposed this in 2020

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Government, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

It’s both amusing and alarming seeing the kind of things the US government has been pouring money into, as the young auditors of Elon Musk’s DOGE dig into the accounts. Some folks on social media have been asking for a Canadian version of DOGE, but they’re nearly five years behind PPC leader Maxime Bernier:

Did you know that the Canadian government is spending $143,000 to help the African country of Senegal implement a “sectorial gender strategy” in its armed forces?

Or $46,793 to improve healthcare for intersex people in the Chinese province of Shandong?

What about $4.6 million to develop programs promoting a “positive masculinity” in Cuba?

There are hundreds of such crazy programs costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars every year to fund the Liberals’ woke ideology in other countries.

Many people on social media just found out that these programs exist last week, after they started looking for them on the website of the Government of Canada.

They were inspired by similar crazy programs that Elon Musk has unearthed with his DOGE team in Washington.

The DOGE – or Department of Government Efficiency – was created by President Trump and has already cut tens of billions of dollars in frivolous spending after only a few weeks.

I’m being asked if I support having the equivalent of a DOGE in Canada.

Not only do I support it, but I didn’t wait for Trump and Musk to do it to propose one. I did years ago!

In 2020, I stated that a PPC government would have a Minister of Government Downsizing to examine every federal program and cut or abolish everything that is inefficient, wasteful or not essential.

And speaking of DOGE, Coyote Blog shares some thoughts about some of the reasons Democrats are critical of the organization’s efforts:

… having thought about this longer, I think this is about more than just money. It is also about class. Just listen to how the cool kids in the media talk about Musk’s group of young weirdly-nicknamed geeks. This is fairly typical:

    He was speaking specifically about a Trump executive order that decrees that the Department for Government Efficiency can force federal agencies into firing four people for every new hire. “Who the hell voted for Mr. Musk?” Begala raged. “Who the hell voted for — excuse the phrase — a guy who calls himself Big Balls? A 19-year-old kid going in there and trying to fire cancer researchers and scientists and teachers and agricultural specialists. It’s, it’s appalling.”

This is moderately hilarious from a) a party who still has not told us which unelected people really were making decisions behind the curtain for a senile Joe Biden; and b) an individual (Begala) who wielded immense power and influence across all departments of the Clinton Administration. The department staffs in DC are 99.99% people who are both unelected and unconfirmed by Congress. The issue is not that they are unelected, the issue is that they are “the wrong sort”. I am reminded of the British aristocracy in the 19th century that would tolerate almost any sort of governmental incompetence or malfeasance as long as the people were “the right sort” — meaning of their class.

The mention of Victorian England reminds me of another way that class is likely involved here. In the English aristocracy the oldest son inherited the title and often all the land and income (which was entailed to the title). This left little for any additional sons, so an income had to be found somewhere for them in a profession that did not require them to sully themselves with “trade” (daughters were handled a different way, through the marriage market). Reading for the law was an acceptable profession for a son with brains, and the army or navy were outlets for many. But most families needed a way for their sons without too much brains or ability and not militarily inclined to make a living. A position in the Church was often the solution.

Modern American blue-blood parents are no different — they need a way to secure a living for their kids who won’t or can’t land a job in the modern elite career choices (law, consulting, investment banking, or a sexy startup). Unlike in Victorian times, the military or the Church are no longer preferred elite options. So what to do with your 22-year-old gender studies major? The parents need her to get an income and they need her to do it in a context that they can proudly report to their friends — Paul Begala does not want to tell his friends that his son’s job is maintaining distributor pricing lists (anyone who does not believe the latter criteria should have been at my Princeton or Harvard Business School 25th reunions).

The solution? Get them a job at a non-profit, the modern American version of going to the Church. As Arnold Kling noted once, non-profits tend to have much higher status than do for-profits. And without competition they don’t have to carry the same performance standards as for-profits. And they are incredibly susceptible to trading a position for your kid in exchange for a nice donation.

The employment rosters of non-profits and NGO’s are stuffed with the children of privilege. So much so that there are many non-profits that seem to do nothing EXCEPT employ and pay the travel expenses of 20-something kids from rich and/or influential families. I have been writing about the non-profit scam for years. As I wrote then:

    From my direct experience, I would go further. There is a tranche (I don’t know how large) of non-profits that are close to outright scams, providing most of their benefits to their managers and employees rather to anyone outside the organization. These benefits include 1) a salary with few performance expectations; 2) expense-paid parties and travel; 3) myriad virtue-signalling opportunities; 4) opportunities to build personal networks. This isn’t just criticizing theoretical institutions — people I know are in such jobs in these organizations.

The spending that DOGE is going after at USAID and other departments likely threatens the income of a number of under-qualified elite kids. So I will update my meme:

The growing problem of “America’s hat”

Filed under: Cancon, China, Government, History, India, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

John Carter’s latest post is excellent — but that’s his usual standard — but it’s of particular interest to inhabitants of what used to be the proud Dominion but who now live in a “post-national state” with “no core identity” as our outgoing prime minister so helpfully explained it:

Canada and the US have been frenemies for most of the last two hundred years. With the exception of some spats in the 19th century, they’ve fought on the same side in all major wars, and haven’t taken up arms against one another. At the same time, Canada has from the very beginning fiercely guarded its independence. Through the 1950s, this came from Canada’s self-conception as an outpost of sober, orderly British traditionalism, in stark contrast to the chaotic liberal revolutionaries across the border. Following the Liberal Party’s cultural revolution in the 1960s, Canada increasingly came to see itself as different from the US primarily in that it was more liberal, in the modern sense, than it’s Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck cousins – which is to say more socialist, leftist, multicultural, gay-friendly, internationalist, feminist, and so forth. In fairness to Canada, the British government, having long-since fallen under the sway of the Labour party, had followed the same ideological trajectory, so Canada was really just taking its cue from Mother England as it always had. In further fairness to Canada, all of this has been aggressively pushed by Blue America, which has been running American culture (and therefore everyone else’s) until about five minutes ago.

Despite these differences, the US could always rely on Canada being a stable, competently run, prosperous, and happy neighbour – perhaps a bit on the prickly side, given the inferiority complex, but much less of a headache than the entropic narcostate to the south that keeps sending its masses of illiterate campesinos flooding over the banks of the Rio Grande. Canada might be annoying sometimes, but it didn’t cause problems. To the contrary, Canada and the US have maintained one the world’s most productive trading relationships for years: America gets Canadian oil, minerals, lumber, and Canada gets US dollars, technology, and culture.

Now, however, Canada has become a problem for America. Not yet, perhaps, the biggest problem – America has a very large number of extremely pressing problems – but a significant one nonetheless, with the potential to become quite acute in the near future.

The problem is that Canada has become a security threat.

[…]

The next security problem is the border, an issue which Trump has repeatedly stressed as a justification for tariffs. The 49th Parallel is famously the longest undefended border on the planet. It is much longer than the Southern border; there are no barbed wire border fences; most of the terrain is easily traversed – forest, lake, or prairie – in contrast to the punishing desert running across the US-Mexico border. Militarizing the US-Mexico border is already a huge, costly undertaking. Doing the same on the Canadian border would be vastly more challenging.

Canada’s extraordinarily lax immigration policy has, in recent years, led to a much higher encounter rate at border crossings with suspects on the terrorism watch list. These people come into Canada legally, part of the millions of immigrants Ottawa has been importing, every year, for the last few years. When you’re bringing in over one percent of your country’s population every single year, it is simply not possible to properly vet them, and it seems that Ottawa barely even bothers to try. Given that not every such person of interest will get stopped at the border, and that not every terrorist is on a watch list, one wonders how many enemies have already slipped across into the US by way of Canadian airports.

RCMP officers with their haul from a fentanyl superlab. Only one person was arrested.

The second border problem is fentanyl. Like the US, Canada has a raging opiod epidemic. We’ve got tent cities, zombies in the streets, needles in the parks, and this is not limited to the big cities – it spills out into the small towns, as well. Like Mexico, Canada has fentanyl laboratories. Precursor chemicals are imported from China by triads, turned into chemical weapons in Canadian labs, and then distributed within Canadian and American markets by predominantly Indian truckers. The occasional busts have turned up vast quantities of the stuff, but have resulted in very few arrests. The proceeds are then laundered through casinos or fake colleges, with the laundered cash then parked in Canadian real estate. There are estimates that the volume of fentanyl money flowing through Canada’s housing markets is significant enough to be a major factor (immigration is certainly the main factor) distorting real estate prices – keeping the housing bubble inflated, propping up Canada’s sagging economy, and pricing young Canadians out of any hope of owning a home or, for that matter, even renting an apartment without a roommate or three.

It’s generally understood, though essentially never acknowledged at official levels, that poisoning North America with opiods is deliberate Chinese policy, both as revenge for the Opium Wars of the 19th century, and as one element in their strategy of unrestricted warfare i.e. the covert but systematic weaponization of every point of contact – economic, industrial, cultural, etc. – between Chinese and Western societies. By allowing the fentanyl trade to continue, the Canadian government is complicit in an act of covert war being waged by a foreign power, one whose casualties include the Canadian government’s own population.

February 16, 2025

Canada – parliamentary democracy or elected dictatorship?

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Law, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

During the entire dramatic confrontation with Donald Trump, Canada’s parliament has been prorogued … effectively meaning that the opposition can’t hold the government to task for how it is handling Trump’s aggression. In any other western country, parliament would have been in session all the way through this, but because Justin Trudeau was aware that his government might be defeated in the house, he chose to ask the Governor General to prorogue until late March.

Not everyone has been meekly accepting Trudeau’s position, and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is challenging the prorogation in Federal Court. Dan Knight updates us on the progress of the hearing:

Arms of the Federal Court of Canada

We are now in Day 2 of the Federal Court hearing, where Justin Trudeau’s government is trying to convince a judge that shutting down Parliament to avoid Well, folks, here we are. Day two of the Federal Court showdown, where the Trudeau government is desperately trying to convince Canadians that shutting down Parliament to protect their own hide was a completely reasonable thing to do. They want you to believe that this is all perfectly normal, that it’s routine, that it’s just a quirk of the system. Nothing to see here, folks!

But the problem with lying is that eventually, you get caught. And on Day 2 of this hearing, Justin Trudeau’s legal team got caught. Over and over again.

If you watched what unfolded in court, you saw the Trudeau government’s lawyers flailing like fish on dry land, fumbling through weak excuses as Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton shredded their arguments one by one. At one point, they actually misrepresented a legal precedent in court, only for the Chief Justice to read the case aloud and reveal that it actually contradicted their argument. Humiliating.

And that was just the start.

This case isn’t just about whether Trudeau technically had the ability to prorogue Parliament. It’s about why he did it — and more importantly, whether Canada is now a country where the Prime Minister can shut down democracy whenever it gets inconvenient for him. Because if the courts let this stand, what’s stopping the next Prime Minister from proroguing indefinitely? What’s stopping the government from suspending Parliament every time there’s a corruption scandal, every time they fear a non-confidence vote, every time they need to cover up a mess of their own making?

And that’s exactly what Trudeau did. His government was facing multiple crises all at once — a massive financial scandal, a looming non-confidence vote, and an economic firestorm caused by Trump’s tariff threats. So rather than actually dealing with it, he shut Parliament down. The question is: Did he have the right to do that?

[…]

The Chief Justice has promised to issue a ruling before Parliament resumes on March 24. That means this case will be decided before Trudeau can walk away and pretend none of this ever happened.

If the court rules against the government, it will mean that future Prime Ministers cannot abuse prorogation to avoid scrutiny. It will send a clear message that shutting down Parliament to protect yourself is unconstitutional and illegal.

But if the government wins, it will mean that the Prime Minister can shut down democracy anytime he wants. It will mean that Canada is no longer a functioning parliamentary system but a country where the executive can do whatever it pleases.

And if that happens, ask yourself this: What’s stopping the next Prime Minister from just shutting down Parliament indefinitely?

Trudeau might be stepping down soon, but his legacy of corruption, incompetence, and political cowardice will haunt this country for years. The question now is whether the courts will allow him to rewrite the rules of democracy on his way out the door.

We’ll find out soon.

Update: Fixed broken link.

Free-market economist grapples with a new kind of tariff

Filed under: Business, Economics, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

With US President Donald Trump seemingly utterly entranced by the possibilities of killing off as much world trade as he can using tariffs, I did not expect to read that renowned libertarian economist David Friedman is not sure about the latest kind of tariffs being proposed:

I have finally encountered a kind of tariff that I am not sure I am against. The idea is to impose the same tariff on another country’s exports that they impose on your exports. A tariff makes the country that imposes it worse off, a fact that neither Trump or most of the media appear to understand — Vance may — but it makes the country it is imposed against worse off as well. Imposing a tariff can be in the interest of the politicians who impose it for public choice reasons, as a way of buying support from a concentrated and well organized interest group such as the auto industry at the expense of a dispersed interest group such as their customers. That is one of the two reasons tariffs exist, the other being that the false theory of trade economics is simpler and easier to understand than the true theory.1

But another country’s tariff barriers against your exports make both your country and its politicians worse off. So if imposing tariffs on their imports results in tariffs being imposed on their exports, it might be in the interest of the politicians as well as the country they rule to lower, even abolish, their tariffs — and free trade, zero tariffs, is my first best tariff policy.

Reciprocal reduction of tariffs is, of course, a routine objective of trade negotiations. What Trump appears to be proposing is to automate the process. That might have some advantages. It would reduce the amount of time and effort spent on trade negotiations. More important, it would make it harder for a government that wanted to keep its tariffs to pretend to its citizens that negotiations for mutual reductions had broken down over details.

It is not obvious what “reciprocal tariffs” means in practice, because tariffs, typically, are on particular goods. China imports oil and exports textiles. If they impose a tariff on American oil there would be no point to the US retaliating by imposing a tariff on Chinese oil — we don’t import Chinese oil.

    Under the Plan, my Administration will work strenuously to counter non-reciprocal trading arrangements with trading partners by determining the equivalent of a reciprocal tariff with respect to each foreign trading partner. (Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs Memo)

It isn’t clear what “the equivalent” means. One possible approach would be to figure how much revenue a country collects from tariffs on American exports and set a uniform tariff on that country’s exports set to bring in the same amount of revenue. That would be simple and would reduce the political support for tariffs, since they could not be targeted to protect specific industries.

For which reason I don’t expect it to happen. The closest version that seems politically plausible is a nonuniform tariff schedule that brings in the equivalent revenue. Unfortunately that would let the administration protect favored industries with tariffs high enough to reduce imports, and revenue, to near zero.

Of course, the target country could, in a true system of reciprocal tariffs, solve the problem by reducing their tariffs to zero.

February 15, 2025

Nannies on the right are just as bad as nannies on the left

Filed under: Business, Government, Health, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Jim Treacher briefly gets slightly serious about RFK Jr.’s new role as America’s chief health nanny:

Fake image generated by Grok

First things first: I’m fine with a United States president picking his own cabinet. Donald Trump won, so he gets to choose the people he wants. It’s not fascism, it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not going to destroy the country. This is the system we have, and so far the Trump administration has been operating within precedent. (Yes, even with Elon Musk and DOGE.) Fair enough.

And, also, in addition to that: I don’t like RFK Jr., and I won’t pretend I do just so you don’t yell at me.

RFK is still the same guy he was before he suddenly started being nice to Trump. He’s the guy who thinks COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” to attack Caucasians and blacks, while sparing the Jews and Chinese. He’s the guy who bragged about having a worm in his brain. He’s the guy who, just seven months ago, said “Trump was a terrible president“.

Now I’m supposed to pretend none of that happened, just because Trump likes him for the moment? Nah.

And, of course, RFK is the guy who thinks the role of government is to slap your hand at the dinner table. So I’m supposed to pretend nanny-statism is good now.

Yay, let’s embrace lib policies to own the libs!

If you didn’t want Michelle Obama telling you what to eat, why do you want RFK telling you what to eat? If you didn’t want the government telling you which vaccines to put in your body, why do you want the government telling you which food to put in your body?

“But seed oils and high-fructose corn syrup and Red Dye Number Whatever are bad for you!” Okay. So don’t eat that stuff. You can read labels, can’t you? Why do you need the feds to hold your hand?

It’s amazing: At the very same time MAGA is cheering on Trump for reducing the size of government — and buddy, I’m right there with them — they’re begging the government to “clean up the food supply”.

Which is it, friends?

Get mad at me all you want, but at least I’m consistent. I don’t want the government telling me what to do, no matter who’s in charge for the time being.

February 14, 2025

“Over half of all Germans now find themselves on ‘the right’ and urgently require democratic reeducation”

Filed under: Germany, Government, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Ah, poor German democracy … you guessed it, once again it’s hanging by a thread as protests against the extremely extreme extreme right (the AfD) have now grown to include protests against the merely extreme extreme right (the CDU and CSU):

“We are the cordon sanitaire – no cooperation with the AfD”: the banner leading the Berlin protest against AfD and CDU on 2 February, which was financed in part by the German taxpayer and arranged by semi-affiliated apron organisations of the governing Green and Social Democrat parties of Germany.

All the activists are out in force.

Every day there are new protests “against the right”, and by “the right” they do not merely mean Alternative für Deutschland and the one-in-five Germans who vote for them, as was the case last year at this time. Since Friedrich Merz stepped over the cordon sanitaire at the beginning of this month, “the right” now also includes the centre-right CDU and CSU parties. Over half of all Germans now find themselves on “the right” and urgently require democratic reeducation. What is worse, it is not just crazy pink-haired activists and septum-pierced Antifa who want to do the reeducating, oh no. It is the government itself; the activists are merely their agents.

According to taz, 500,000 right-thinking Germans took to the streets this past weekend to combat the out-of-bounds radical views held by 52% of everybody. Perhaps 200,000 or 250,000 or 320,000 turned out for the massive “Democracy Needs You” protest in Munich on Saturday. A further 35,000 people “warned against a shift to the right” in Bremen, the absurd “Grannies against the Right” brought 24,000 people to the streets of Hannover, and another 14,000 denounced “right-wing extremism” in Marburg. There were also protests throughout Nordrhein-Westfalen, in Wuppertal, Aachen, Duisburg, Gütersloh, Gummersbach and Euskirchen. Yesterday 15,000 showed up to protest an AfD event in Freiburg; they were less than peaceful. And that is just what I found by scanning a few headlines. I could easily expand this paragraph into an entire post because they are protesting everywhere and all the time “against the right” these days.

I must emphasise again the extremely expansive notion of “the right” that is in play at these protests. Basically everyone who is not on the left – and particularly everyone who does not vote for the Greens or the Social Democrats (SPD) – presently attracts the activists’ ire. That is very interesting, because we are in the final stages of an election campaign and the Greens and the SPD are the only parties in government. Could it be that the Greens and the SPD are using the substantial resources of the German state to call forth massive street protests against all the Germans who are not planning to vote for them?

Yes, in fact that is exactly how it could be:

    When 160,000 demonstrators turned out to protest on behalf of the cordon sanitaire on the first weekend in February, and organisers projected the words “All Berlin hates the CDU” onto the Victory Column, the red-green federal government provided financial support. The rally was co-sponsored from the coffers of the federal budget … indirectly and in two ways. As in many German cities, the organiser was the association Campact. Campact itself does not receive government funds. Yet they are the primary stakeholder of the nonprofit HateAid, which receives funds from the Ministry for Family Affairs. Since 2020, HateAid has received a total of almost 2.5 million Euros from the “Live Democracy” project, and their funding has just been extended. According to the Ministry for Family Affairs, HateAid can expect 424,823 Euros this year for its work against online hate speech.

    Thousands also took to the streets in Dresden and Leipzig to protest CDU plans for migration policy. In both cities, the SPD and the Greens indirectly sponsored the rallies with taxpayer money, this time through the Workers’ Welfare Association (AWO). This association enjoys the favour of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Family Affairs. The AWO received tens of thousands of Euros … in 2024. In Saxony-Anhalt, the AWO state association received 90,043 Euros from the Ministry of Family Affairs in 2025, among other things from the ‘Live Democracy’ project …

    Paus’s ministry also provides financial support to many of the organisers of demonstrations in Schleswig-Holstein. This year, a total of 1.525 million Euros will flow … The municipalities divide the money equally among themselves, with each receiving 140,000 Euros to form local “partnerships for democracy”. Many of the sponsored organisations have sponsored demonstrations on behalf of the cordon sanitaire. In Kiel, the Green-financed “Central Education and Advice Centre for Migrants” … called for a protest in front of the CDU headquarters, in Lübeck the “Lübeck Refugee Forum” did the same …

All of this is to varying degrees illegal. Non-profit organisations, which receive tax-deductible contributions from supporters, are bound to political neutrality. Nor can the government finance (directly or otherwise) campaign events against the political opposition. Since 2021, however, in the name of defending democracy, the traffic light coalition have called into being an absolute jungle of NGOs to intimidate voters, censor the internet and riot on the streets against parliamentary votes. Their semi-affiliated activist cadres police German politics and redefine as right-wing and forbidden whatever it is our rulers happen to disagree with at the moment.

Trump may start paying attention to Canadian cultural protectionist polices next

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Michael Geist points out just how many Canadian federal policies and programs will likely come under scrutiny by the Trump administration for their blatant protectionism against US cultural products:

My Globe and Mail op-ed argues the need for change is particularly true for Canadian digital and cultural policy. Parliamentary prorogation ended efforts at privacy, cybersecurity and AI reforms and U.S. pressure has thrown the future of a series of mandated payments – digital service taxes, streaming payments and news media contributions – into doubt. But the Trump tariff escalation, which now extends to steel and aluminum as well as the prospect of reviving the original tariff plan in a matter of weeks, signals something far bigger that may ultimately render current Canadian digital and cultural policy unrecognizable.

Our cultural frameworks are largely based on decades-old policies premised on marketplace protections and mandated support payments. This included foreign ownership restrictions in the cultural sector and requirements that broadcasters contribute a portion of their revenues to support Canadian content production.

As we moved from an analog to digital world, the government simply extended those policies to the digital realm. But with Mr. Trump appearing to call out what he views to be Canadian protectionist policies in sensitive sectors such as banking ownership, the cultural and digital sectors may be next.

If so, there are no shortage of long-standing policies that tilt the playing field in favour of Canadians that could spark some uncomfortable conversations.

Why do U.S. companies face ownership restrictions in the telecom and broadcast sectors? Why are Canadian broadcasters permitted to block U.S. television signals in order to capture increased advertising revenue? Why do Canadian content rules exclude U.S. companies from owning productions featuring predominantly Canadian talent?

The Canadian response that this is how it has always been is unlikely to persuade Mr. Trump.

Canadian policies premised on “making web giants pay” may also be non-starters under Mr. Trump. For the past five years, the Canadian government seemingly welcomed the opportunity to sabre rattle with U.S. internet companies. This led to mandated payments for streaming services to support Canadian film, television and music production; link taxes that targeted Meta and Google to help Canadian news outlets; and the multibillion-dollar retroactive digital services tax that is primarily aimed at U.S. tech giants.

Not only have those policies raised consumer affordability and marketplace competition concerns, they have also emerged as increasingly contentious trade issues. If the trade battles with the U.S. continue, the pressure to scale back the policies will mount.

Beyond rethinking established cultural and digital policies both new and old, the bigger changes may come from re-evaluating the competitive impact of policies that rely heavily on regulation just as the U.S. prioritizes economic growth through deregulation. Proposed Canadian privacy, online harms and AI rules have all relied heavily on increased regulation, looking to Europe as the model.

For example, consider the Canadian approach to AI regulation in the now-defunct Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. It specifically referenced the European Union’s regulatory system, which establishes extensive regulatory requirements for high-risk AI systems and bans some AI systems altogether.

However, the European approach is not the only game in town. Mr. Trump moved swiftly to cancel the former Biden administration’s executive order on AI regulation, signalling that the U.S. will prioritize deregulation in pursuit of global AI leadership. Further, the arrival of DeepSeek, the Chinese answer to ChatGPT, took the world by storm and served notice that U.S. AI dominance is by no means guaranteed.

The competing approaches – U.S.-style lightweight regulation that favours economic growth against a more robust European regulatory model that emphasizes AI guardrails and public protections – will force difficult policy choices that Canada has thus far avoided.

February 13, 2025

The downfall of the “theatre kid occupied government”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Theophilus Chilton says that one of the biggest weaknesses of the Biden administration was their addiction to the idea that appearances mattered far more than reality:

For the previous four years, one of the constant refrains from the Left that we kept hearing over and over was “the adults are back in charge”. Trump is “childish” while Biden was “the adult in the room,” or so the media-driven narrative kept telling us. Trump just hung out on social media and made fun of people during his first term while Democrats did the serious business of guiding the ship of state through the rocky shoals of the modern world when Biden was in office, and all that. The whole point was to mask the serious deficiencies in the previous administration and its underlying ideational premises, deficiencies that existed at both the structural and personnel levels because of the fundamental ideological puerility of the Left.

It’s become common for observers to (only partially jokingly) note that until very recently we had a “theatre kid occupied government”. What’s that mean? Well, everything we saw from the past four years (and really, a lot longer than that) was performative — it was about giving appearances rather than getting anything useful done. All the way back to the terminally midwit show The West Wing, the belief among up-and-coming leftie PMCers was that government could essentially be conducted by stagecraft. All you have to do is write the script, teach the actors their lines, and create whatever you want out of the production. More generally, the theatre kids in government thought that they could rule the world merely by wishcasting things into reality, which explains a lot of the “questionable” spending to and through USAID and various NGO organisations. They have the very juvenile tendency to think that wanting something to be a certain way can make it so, regardless of intervening realities.

Fundamentally, that is the whole character of modern Western and American progressivism. Modern leftists display a whole suite of childlike behavioural patterns that, as it turns out, are not conducive to good government. Really, progressivism is essentially based on wishful thinking and daddy issues. Once you understand this, you understand about 90% of where the Left’s thought process comes from.

One good example of this is the whole transgender push. While there is obviously an element of grooming/recruiting involved with it all, the main point to it is that it’s a means of social conditioning and control. They pretend — and demand that others pretend — that boys can become girls and that girls can become boys. Until recently, they were able to punish normal people who didn’t at least pay lip service to this. Even without this power, there is still a good deal of attempting to emotionally manipulate people about the matter (you don’t want to commit TRANS GENOCIDE do you???), which is itself a means of trying to exercise power, though in a juvenile manner.

Of course, the fact that the whole trans agenda rests of wishful thinking, on the attempt to stage manage reality into accepting something blatantly at odds with it, should go without saying. There has been a concerted effort to build a Baudrillardian hyperreality around this issue, to create a “consensus reality” that muddies the distinction between fact and fiction. Baudrillard himself defined hyperreality as “… the generation by models of a real without origin or reality”. The entire process is essentially semiotic, which explains the obsession of the modern Left (not just now, they tried this in Weimar Germany in the 1920s as well) with transgenderism — it’s a spearhead which, once successfully pierced through the veil of classical reality in this one area, can justify the same exact process being carried out in any other so that any symbolic-yet-unreal consensus can be built, even if by fraud or force.

There are real world consequences to this sort of theatre kid performativism. It leads to them impeding traffic on busy highways to protest whatever their idiotic cause du jour happens to be (physics isn’t real bro!). It’s also why (ostensibly adult) Democratic elected officials think they can impede federal immigration enforcement efforts. For so long, progressives in our TKOG were able to force everyone else to go along with their delusions or face punishment. Even though they’re now not able to do this (at least here in the USA, other places in the West aren’t so lucky), they still think they can obstruct and counteract the implementation of policy simply because they don’t want these things to happen. Like little kids who can’t accept that they lost at a game, these folks believe they can roll back the results of the latest election by throwing tantrums and trying to get in the way. Hopefully, a few arrests will clear up this misconception.

February 11, 2025

“As it turns out, you can just cut things”

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

John Carter outlines the left’s long march through the institutions and explains why a conservative counter-operation of the same kind would utterly fail. Instead, Donald Trump (of all people) launched a political blitzkrieg that used none of the strategies of the long march — because the establishment knew intimately how those worked, as they’d used them for generations to become the establishment:

Alexander Cutting the Gordian Knot
Fedele Fischetti, 18th century.

But a counter-revolutionary long march through the institutions was always a doomed project.

The left understands the method quite well, having perfected it themselves, and its defences against counter-infiltration were well advanced. It was never enough merely to say the right things, and not say the wrong things – the left knows how easily such signals are faked, as these are mere words, and words have no meaning to an egregore which sees in discourse nothing but the currents and tokens of power. Much of the seeming insanity of the Cancelled Years is best understood as the imposition of elaborate, difficult to fake displays of loyalty: offering your child’s genitals to the hungry gender gorgon, opening your veins for the gene therapy injection. Then of course there is DEI, whose explicit intent was to simply deny opportunity to those most likely, on a demographic basis, to oppose the left. There is very little point, as a young white man, in keeping your mouth shut if you will be locked out simply because you are white, no matter what you say.

The psychological demands of stealthy infiltration are spiritually toxic. Anyone attempting this path finds himself embedded in a social context in which all of his friends and colleagues adhere to values which he privately despises, and moreover, he knows that the instant they discover his true beliefs he will be not only fired, but ostracized and isolated. Worse, he’s constantly placed in the position of betraying his own convictions, of going along with and even actively supporting things he knows are wrong, because failing to do so would be immediately suspicious. Since the left is a hive mind, he must “pretend” to give up his agency … and insofar as you are what you do, there is very little difference between pretending to give up your agency, and actually doing giving it up. Living like this is miserable. It requires iron discipline, and there is very little reward. Some of you doubtless have direct experience of this.

The most important reason that a long march was never viable, however, was that there was not enough time.

The West is in crisis. Public debt has broken up through the exosphere, its rise ever more vertical as the deficits fuelling it continue to expand, and we can all see in its meteoric rise that its inevitable descent will hit the land like rods from God. Third world invaders pour into our countries by their millions at the open invitation of seditious governments whose open aim is to reduce native white populations to second-class minorities in their own homelands within the space of a generation. These two crises of the Great Inflation and the Great Replacement could never be solved by the tactics the left used to bring them about. Even if such a long march could have succeeded in the face of the barriers the left so astutely erected, by the time it came to fruition the victors would preside over wreckage.

The left’s tactics were those of a chronic disease, gradually wasting the patient, leaching the strength from his limbs. You cannot cure a patient by becoming an opportunistic infection in your own right.

So what to do? Many, despairing, looked to civil war. A coup d’état, likely followed by blue states separating from the Union. Battle lines would be drawn, brother would be set against brother, cities would be ruined, vast pits would be excavated and filled with the stinking dead. Such a war would never have been limited to continental United States. It would have dissolved the Pax Americana, with brushfire wars springing up across the globe as great powers sought to expand their territories by grabbing resources or strategic trade corridors. Those powers would have gotten involved in the Civil War themselves, backing one side or another, prolonging the conflict in order to ensure the Union remained shattered forever.

On J6, the American government teetered on a precipice. Had Trump applied so much as the gentlest pressure with his baby finger, it would have toppled over. The other side would then have screamed that he was a tyrant who had seized power by force; his own supporters would have rallied to the cause that the election had been stolen; America, and the world, would have been bathed in blood. So Trump pulled back, allowed the heroes of J6 to be imprisoned, and permitted the sclerocracy to impose four years of malevolent mismanagement on the American people.

Many were furious with Trump. He’d lost his nerve; he was a coward.

As it turned out, they were all wrong. It was a strategic withdrawal.

And now, instead of a Long March, we are getting a blitzkrieg.

I’ve been silent for the last month partly for personal reasons that deprived me of the time and energy to write, which I won’t elaborate upon here save to note that it’s nothing anyone has to worry about. But I’ve also been silent because I haven’t been sure what to say. The last weeks have been one of those ‘weeks when decades happen’ periods, and that pace of change doesn’t appear to be letting up. Executive Orders flying off of the big man’s desk, birthright citizenship being struck down, entire government departments getting defunded, the J6 heroes being pardoned, trade wars starting and then stopping before they start, the military heading to the border, DOGE siccing broccoli-headed zoomers armed with large language models to rip through the sprawling financial records of acronym agencies like a cyclone of destruction.

As it turns out, you can just cut things.

These are all great, wonderful things. We are winning, and the pace of winning is dizzying. It’s like we’ve spent the last several years slamming again and again against a seemingly immovable wall, bashing our brains out upon it like an enraged tiger, only for that wall to suddenly turn to sand upon our final desperate push, leaving us sprawled and disoriented on the ground.

That is at least what it has felt like to me. The people on the inside of the Trump administration are not disoriented. Far from it. They are executing a detailed, thorough plan. They’ve identified the enemy nerve centres and are neutralizing them precisely, rapidly, and ruthlessly. Handpicked squads of very competent young men have been turned loose inside the Beltway. It is clear that they are not being micromanaged, but are being left to develop their own action plans on the fly as the tactical situation evolves. This is manoeuvre warfare, with small, nimble, lethal teams dropped into the heart of enemy territory and being given maximum latitude to pursue the campaign’s strategic objectives.

February 10, 2025

Trump’s EO against central bank digital currencies

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

The Trudeau government’s illegal move to freeze the bank accounts of Canadians who supported the Freedom Convoy should have clearly illustrated the dangers of allowing a government to exercise that level of control over individuals’ financial affairs. (It’s hard to express just how inhumane that move was to deprive thousands of Canadians their ability to conduct any financial business at all … in the middle of the winter just because they’d chipped in small donations to a cause Trudeau didn’t like.) I don’t know if Donald Trump took note, but another of his long list of executive orders directly addresses crypto and CBDCs:

“Bitcoin – from WSJ” by MarkGregory007 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

While the order has upsides and downsides concerning current crypto policies, the parts of the order I’m most excited about are the portions on Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs. A CBDC is essentially a government-created centrally controlled version of cryptocurrency. As FEE has discussed in the past, CBDCs are a very dangerous idea, and it was troubling that they were being pursued by the Biden administration.

So what does the Trump executive order say about them? Take a look:

    [The Trump administration is] taking measures to protect Americans from the risks of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States, including by prohibiting the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Section 5 of the order covers how this will be done. By the order, it’s now illegal for bureaucrats within government agencies to pursue any plans to establish a CBDC unless it is required by law. In other words, barring the possibility that some bureaucrats could break the law, CBDC initiatives must immediately end unless the legislature passes bills requiring them.

This is a big step because the establishment of a CBDC would require significant political, bureaucratic, and technological infrastructure to be implemented. Trump’s order puts a pause on the building of that infrastructure which began under Biden.

On net, Trump’s order seems to have been taken well by crypto markets, with Bitcoin seeing a small price surge after the announcement of the order. So while the future of government crypto regulation remains unclear, the new administration’s commitment to stopping CBDCs and protecting the rights of those engaging in crypto mining and transactions seems to be a good sign.

February 9, 2025

A “certain niche Canadian’s” prophetic look at Western demography

Filed under: Books, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Mark Steyn reminds us that it’s twenty years since he published America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, which has become more and more accurate every year:

~As some readers may be aware, next year marks the twentieth anniversary of a certain “niche Canadian”‘s boffo international bestseller on demography. So the other day I was musing on whether it was too soon to mark the occasion — only to find I’d been beaten to the punch by the Nigerian media bigfoot Azu Ishiekwene:

    It’s nearly 20 years since Mark Steyn wrote a non-fiction book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

    Steyn, a Canadian newspaper columnist, could not have known that the kicker of this book title, which extolled America as the last bastion of civilisation as we know it, would become the metaphor for a wrecking ball.

    Steyn thought demographic shifts, cultural decline, and Islam would ruin Western civilisation. The only redeeming grace was American exceptionalism. Nineteen years after his book, America Alone is remembered not for the threats Steyn feared or the grace of American exceptionalism but for an erratic president almost alone in his insanity.

    The joke is on Steyn.

Oh, well. It was good while it lasted — which wasn’t as long as it should have, thanks to the dirty stinkin’ rotten corrupt American “justice” system (see below).

~But I thank Mr Ishiekwene for reminding me of the twin theses of my book: on the one hand, “demographic shifts, cultural decline, and Islam” and, on the other, “American exceptionalism”. The first half is undeniable: At one point last year, there were no Anglo-Celtic heads of government anywhere in the British Isles except for Northern Ireland. Nobody even talks about “demographic shifts”, with even “conservative” politicians preferring to focus on “British values” or “French values” or “[Your Country Here] values”, even as those “values”, not least freedom of speech, are remorselessly surrendered. The UK’s “Deputy Prime Minister”, Angela Rayner, is proposing as the state’s reaction to the Southport stabbings, about which the most intemperate Tweeters were less inaccurate than the state propaganda, to restrict free expression even further. Islam? In Britain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, we would rather our children be stabbed and gang-raped than do anything about it, especially if it risks being damned as “Islamophobic”. The delightful Ms Rayner, who once boasted about flashing her soi-disant “ginger growler” across the Commons to Boris Johnson at Question Time, will be keeping it under wraps in the years ahead.

~As for the second part of my book’s arguments — “American exceptionalism” — well, it’s been a rough twenty years. But, to cast Azu Mr Ishiekwene’s contempt for an “an erratic president almost alone in his insanity” in a more generous light, the last three weeks have been a useful reminder that America is still different — or, at any rate, retains the capacity to be different. In his first days in office Trump 47 yanked the US from the World “Health” Organisation and the Paris “climate” accord and the UN “Human Rights” Council. If I have been insufficient in my praise for this energy, it is only because I held out hopes that a man “alone in his insanity” might have simply nuked the WHO. But, such disappointments aside, in Britain (and in the EU it has yet to leave in any meaningful sense), no such decisive acts in the here-and-now can even be contemplated.

And just because I’ve been including a fair bit of USAID-related stuff this week, he comments on Elon Musk’s epic sidequests investigations into US government waste and corruption:

~That’s the good news — and it’s very heartening. The bad news is that almost everything the national government (it is no longer really “federal”) of the United States touches is a racket.

The United States Agency for International Development is so-called in order that gullible rubes who listen to NPR think that it’s something to do with helping starving children in Africa. The cynical rubes who follow Conservative Inc think it’s something to do with helping African dictators’ Swiss bank accounts and endlessly regurgitate the old line about “international aid” taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries. But this is the cynicism of the terminally naïve and does a great injustice to the average blood-drenched Somali warlord. As Elon Musk has pointed out, ninety per cent of USAid funds are disbursed in the Washington, DC area. Opponents of that line say, ah, yes, but that’s misleading because some of it then gets passed on outside the Beltway eventually to reach some emaciated Congolese laddie.

Well, I would doubt it. There is no legitimate reason for Bill Kristol and Mona Charen to be receiving any funds from an agency for “international development” — and they surely know it. The least we should expect from them is that they come by their Never Trumpery honestly.

But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that that 90-10 ratio is pretty standard. The US armed forces account for forty per cent of the planet’s total military spending. Does ninety per cent of that also get disbursed in the District of Columbia? On Thoroughly Modern Milley’s ribbon budget? It’s as good an explanation as any for the failure to win anything since VJ Day. The rube right’s antipathy to foreigners shouldn’t blind us to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the corruption is domestic — and it’s a very bipartisan sewer.

So I wish Trump, Musk et al the best of luck. But, notwithstanding that every rinky-dink District Court judge seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that he’s head of the executive branch of government, Trump has spent the last three weeks doing things. There is no sign that that is even possible in the rest of the west, where the Dutch model seems to prevail: Geert Wilders wins the election, but then gets neutered.

So, in a sense, Azu Ishiekwene is right. There is a yawning chasm between Trump and the poseur attitude-flaunting rest of the west. And yet Mr Ishiekwene is wrong on this: an erratic president is not almost alone in his insanity. In case you haven’t noticed, Panama won’t be renewing its Chinese deal on the Belt & Road Initiative, and El Salvador is happy to gaol anybody Trump sends them. It turns out that the quickest way to solve any international dispute is to threaten the recalcitrant with twenty-five per cent tariffs starting at midnight. If the forty-seventh president doesn’t seem interested in “winning hearts and minds”, it’s because he’s found something more effective.

February 8, 2025

Interprovincial trade barriers in Canada

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In the National Post, Jamie Sarkonak pours some icy cold water on the fever dream that we can fix what ails us economically with this one neat trick:

Understand what an interprovincial trade barrier is: it isn’t a simple matter of repealing tariffs, because internal tariffs don’t exist — provinces aren’t allowed to impose them. Instead, barriers take the form of red tape that differs in shade by province; if there are 10 provinces that each regulate, say, what shape of toilet seat is required to be used on a construction site, expect 10 different rules on the matter (Ontario requires a gap at the front of the seat; Alberta doesn’t care).

For Canada’s toilet seat manufacturers, that’s another level of complexity that can complicate production and make it costly to expand to new jurisdictions.

Now repeat the mental exercise for every other provincially regulated product: food, alcohol, pesticides, lumber and so on. And again, with all the other provincially regulated things you can buy but not hold: massage therapy, legal services, hair and aesthetic services, provincially regulated securities.

It adds up to a lot, and that’s by design: in 1867, the Constitution explicitly handed authority over most sectors to provincial governments. Provincial regulations, and by extension, interprovincial trade barriers, are central to provincial autonomy.

Theoretically, rule consolidation is a good deal. It would be far easier to do business in Canada if it worked more like one country with one set of rules, rather than a heterogenous group of 10 micro-states packed into one.

On the taxpayer side, there are savings to be had, too: regulatory bodies use public funds and there are (theoretically) savings to be had by centralizing the offices of 10 different sheriffs into one. Estimates vary, but lifting barriers is thought to add a boost of $80 billion (International Monetary Fund) to $200 billion (Canadian Federation of Independent Business) to the economy.

But standing in the way of free-trade utopia are the practical considerations, the big one being protectionism. Making its case in the Journal de Montreal, William Rousseau put it well: “The abolition of these barriers can even be economically harmful, because for each barrier that blocks a company from the rest of the country, there is a Quebec company that benefits from it and whose business model takes this barrier into account.” The exact same can be said for any province.

This is why I thought well of Pierre Poilievre’s recent trial balloon about ways to coax the provinces into reducing interprovincial trade barriers by … let’s be honest … providing a financial bribe from the federal government. By allowing the individual provinces to “capture” some of that “lost” revenue, it may provide enough incentive to start dismantling at least some of the structural barriers to free trade within Confederation.

QotD: American gun rights

Filed under: Government, Liberty, Media, Politics, Quotations, USA, Weapons — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

I was asked last night why, when I talk about politics, I focus on gun rights so much. Surely, said querent, there are lots of other important things for a libertarian like you to weigh in on. Censorship. DEI. AGW hysteria. The list goes on …

Fair question. It’s because many years ago L. Neil Smith, a libertarian SF writer sadly no longer with us, persuaded me of something important.

A politician’s attitude about firearms rights is a very reliable index for his actual attitude about individual freedom and agency.

Never mind what they say about other issues. A politician standing up for the right of ordinary citizens to be armed is sending a very reliable signal that he values their ability to assert their freedom, and trusts them to generally make correct choices about the use of violence even it might be directed against himself.

Conversely, a politician who is against gun rights is telling on himself. He fears the wrath of the people and wants them disempowered. He does not trust them to employ violence only when necessary.

And that’s actually the best case. In far too many cases, anti-gun politicians clearly dream of being the jackboot that stomps on human faces forever, and view the disarmament of the general population as a step towards that end.

If I must have politicians meddling in my affairs, I demand at the very least that they respect my freedom and my agency. That’s why I demand that they respect my right to keep and bear arms.

Gun rights may look like a narrow single issue. It isn’t. It’s an even better index of a politician’s attitude about liberty than questions about free speech and censorship, because it pushes the stakes higher. Because words can’t kill you, but arms wielded by enraged citizens can.

No matter what soothing words drop from his lips, no matter what promises he makes, the politician who tries to disarm you is always, always, always your enemy. Never forget that.

ESR, Twitter, 2024-11-06.

February 7, 2025

USAID still very much in the news

Filed under: Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Pretty much any libertarian can quote chapter and verse of how governments waste taxpayer money, but even the most doctrinaire libertarian must be boggled at the extent of waste and corruption enabled by the use of the cover organization USAID. And it’s only one federal agency! We may never be able to get a proper accounting, but it seems that a vast share of US tax revenue has been going to things never dreamed of by the framers of the Constitution or even by the legislators that set up all these various agencies.

On MeWe, Marc Adkins shared a post from a friend, discussing the USAID mess:

One of the dangers President Trump, Elon and DOGE face is that there is just so much crazy, bad, virtually unbelievable news coming out of USAID, the sheer volume [de-]sensitizes people to it.

I must admit, I’m beginning to be overwhelmed by the bad news. One begins to feel a sense of futility, especially when you have been paying taxes your entire life — for me, I have paid taxes since I was sixteen (on my part time jobs and gig jobs through high school and college) — that’s 50 years, and while what I have paid is extremely small compared to the USAID budget, it is simple math to calculate that everything I have ever paid, as well as everything many of us have ever paid has been flushed down the toilet. That is a tough thing to take.

And this has been going on since USAID was created by JFK’s executive order in 1961.

One of the hardest things to swallow in recent years is discovering that your tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist friends may have been closer to the truth all this time. I mean, yeah, we all knew that the government wasted money as if that was their main job, but all the whacko theories about the CIA destabilizing hostile (and friendly) foreign governments (Ngô Đình Diệm waves hello), humanitarian projects being covers for espionage, all kinds of secret squirrel nonsense all over the globe … may have been far closer to the truth than what CBS, The New York Times, or PBS had to say about them. So instead of being the calm, rational people we thought ourselves to be, we’ve been the chumps for all these years. That will leave a mark.

I don’t think it is a leap too far to say that in some way, each one of us has paid for the enrichment of a vast array of US Senators, Representatives, cabinet members, agency heads and even vice presidents and presidents, as well as funding terrorists and brutal dictators worldwide. Hell, it appears we are paying lower level government employees double because the same people are drawing two paychecks!

Then there are the billions that are being automatically paid, flowing like a river to unknown entities, criminals, fraudsters, and into the accounts of programs, the authorization of which expired years and decades ago.

It is almost too much to take in, especially when, in the face of such obvious money laundering, payola, mismanagement and waste, Democrats hit the streets to protest the people uncovering all of it rather than screaming about the criminal waste and let’s not kid ourselves, this scandal is a left wing Democrat thing, they absolutely own it because this money is flowing to left wing NGOs, media and other organizations — I daresay there is a significant slice of the pie that winds up in Democrat coffers at the end of the process.

The memes are almost always on point:

The simple fact is they do not give two shits about the taxpayer working his ass off just have his entire life’s sum of his taxes from his career of working ten hours a day in the blistering sun and freezing cold just to pay his share of a USAID program for transing handicapped children in Botswana.

It is shameless, of course, but something we have come to expect from Democrats and every single Democrat who protests this should be run out of office and never allowed near government again — ever.

The problem isn’t really Democrats or even RINOs … it’s the seductive nature of political office, and the US government is the biggest, richest, most pervasive government that has ever existed. No matter how pure and noble your aims may be, prolonged contact with the vast resources of the US government and the ability to direct the efforts of that government toward your goals will overpower the scruples of the most honest of men. [Insert Elrond and Isildur “cast it into the fire” meme here.] This is, I think, why DOGE is so disruptive: it has the potential to utterly destroy vast swathes of existing government blight and perhaps even keep it from regenerating. A bit. Maybe. Even a dynamo like Elon will probably find that there’s just too much to tackle in one presidential term.

The butt hurt Democrats are beginning to parse things trying to minimize them. You heard how it works when Martha Raddatz told J.D. Vance after he mentioned that TdA gangs had taken over apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. She said, “The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes …” as if the people in those complexes should grin and bear it because it just isn’t that bad.

Democrats have tried this when illegal aliens commit murders. They will trot out numbers that “prove’ American citizens are far more violent and it’s just a few murders anyway — as if the murders of innocents like Laken Riley are a statistic rather than a completely avoidable tragedy.

There are ludicrous people claiming that millions being sent abroad to support DEI, transgender plays, or to teach the Taliban how to be sensitive to women’s rights is just such a small number, it is OK – when, as in the Colorado gang situation, none of it should be happening.

The millions upon million that were sent to the left-wing media outlets that complied with the Democrats’ wishes to have hit pieces written about GOP candidates is harder to defend, but I’m sure some moron on MSNBC or CNN will find a way.

Here in Canada, of course, we’re much more familiar with the government of the day getting the kindest of treatment from the media … because the media get big subsidies from that very government, but at least it’s somewhat out in the open. US media may have been similarly subsidized, but until now it had been completely obscured.

Some people legitimately need help, and I am sure there are programs that do have a benefit to America, but this is the Democrats’ fault because the only way I see to fix it is to burn it all down and start over with an ironclad approval and review process. Every one of these alleged aid agencies should be required to produce an annual report for public view the same way legitimate private charities do.

And the quicker we strike the match, the faster this gets fixed.”

On Substack, Francis Turner points out that we’re only into the third week of the Trumptastrophe, and it’s glorious:

We’re in the third week of the political tsunami that is Trump 2.0. The DOGE boys are getting access to systems and turning off the money flows and the DC swamp creatures are panicking. I think they may be mistaking what happens now for about as bad as it can get, while actually what we have now is that moment when the sea retreats abruptly from the beach and poor widdle crabs and fishies are left flapping in pools that are too small for them. Although the FBI agents and DoJ persecutors prosecutors who were involved in the Jan 6 investigations and the Jack Smith fishing investigations are probably feeling the wave coming down on them. In particular I would very much not want to be the agent who pawed through Melania’s underwear.

Right now the lacka money, lacka graft and lacka future employment seems bad, and that may be all some of the bottom feeders experience, but in the weeks ahead we’re going to see just what the federal government was spending all that money on and just who was benefiting and what they were doing. People with nice modern automobiles, large houses and so on may be required to explain where the money for those possessions came from. That’s going to lead to prosecutions and, well, as Trump and the Jan 6 guys know the process is part of the punishment. Moreover, since the graft flow will have stopped, paying for defense lawyers etc. is going to be interesting. In particular it’s going to be really interesting because the big firms that might normally step up and offer pro bono support are likely to find the requests for support overwhelming and, simultaneously, their regular income from paying clients drastically reduced.

Well shucks

Mind you we have a while before that wave comes crashing down so it’s worth noting what we have learned so far.

The first is that Trump 2.0 is uninterested in slowing down. As I said in my previous post, DOGE are working 24×7 while the swamp is used to 9-5, Monday to Friday. With generous time for lunch etc. That means Trump/DOGE can (and have) got inside the OODA loop of the enemy. We can see this by how protests about DOGE actions are a couple of days after the action has happened. Moreover we see Trump people saying things like “yes we need to look at the Department of Education” which causes talking heads to rush to its defense. This is quite possibly a ruse and deliberate distraction.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress