Politics – Spinor Info

Crazy uncle

Mar 192025

Canadians have long viewed our American neighbor as the proverbial crazy uncle. Eccentric, unhinged, loud and obnoxious, crashing parties and family reunions, but ultimately tolerable because his intent, despite all appearances to the contrary, is not malicious and there are no covert motives behind his behavior, however unpleasant it can be at times. And he has his charms, too.

But then imagine the same crazy uncle showing up one day, crashing his vehicle into yours in your own driveway. Out he jumps, berating you, threatening you with a lawsuit. Glancing at your teenage daughter, he causally mentions that he also feels entitled to rape her.

Even if he shows up the next day offering the most profound apologies for his behavior; even if all his relatives came to his defense, assuring you that his more-unhinged-than-usual conduct was just the result of a very bad day, that he didn’t mean any of it, that he is of course willing to pay for all the damage he caused; none of that matters, the relationship is irreparably harmed. It will likely take not years but decades, if it ever happens, before you’d welcome him at your home again as a visitor.

This is how many feel here in Canada, after witnessing the United States over the course of the past two months: specifically the accusations, the threats, the insults thrown in our direction.

When I asked Midjourney to produce images depicting the United States as the proverbial crazy uncle, I did not specifically mention Trump. My instructions were simple: “A satirical caricature, portraying the United States of America, as Canada’s proverbial crazy uncle who just crossed the line and did something unforgivable. –chaos 15 –stylize 200 –weird 300” Those parameter settings were only slightly higher than the default, to produce images of somewhat greater variety. This was one of many results with that recognizable visage.

Inequality

Economy, History, Politics No Responses »

Mar 182025

The other day, Elon Musk’s Grok kindly drew a plot for me. After it estimated (understandably crudely, since the data are inconsistent/unreliable) the percentage of global wealth owned by the top 1%, I asked it to create an diagram for inclusion in Web pages. Well, here it is, though converted to a PNG for easier sharing:

What is the significance, you might wonder? Simple. Look at the beginning, the early 20th century. Rising inequality, resulting in well-known upheavals: a world war, revolutions everywhere, the rise of totalitarianism, another world war.

But then, inequality plummeted. Not only that, it stayed low for decades. Precisely the decades of Pax Americana, the peaceful world of the Cold War, a world with two superpowers, yet a world that was mostly defined by the rules-based, liberal democratic world order imposed by the United States of America.

It all began to unravel in the late 1990s. Since then, inequality has been rising at a rate probably faster than the rate that characterized America’s Gilded Age in the late 19th century.

We know what happened the last time the world went down that road.

Three plots, two stories

Canada, Commerce, Economy, Politics No Responses »

Mar 132025

Look what Donald J. Trump, business genius, is doing to the US economy with his on-again, off-again tariff wars, antagonizing and alienating America’s most important allies and trading partners. This is now officially a “correction”, I am told.

Never mind, surely the targeted economies of those nasty trading partners, “taking advantage” of Trump’s America, are also suffering. Well, they do, but…

I guess that trained economists, financial experts will tell me not to jump to hasty conclusions. The differences may be due to many factors, including the fact that the Toronto index is enumerated in a different currency and all that. They’re right, of course. Nonetheless, I think this is telling. Yes, Canada’s main index is also down. But it’s still doing better than it did 6 months ago, unlike its major American counterparts.

But surely, what Donald “stable genius” Trump is doing to the US economy (not to mention NATO, the Western alliance, the rules-based world and all that) must be good by definition, right? The Leader is never wrong; those who think otherwise are enemies of the people, right?

Krasnov

Canada, Politics No Responses »

Mar 062025

Back in more innocent times, in January 2016, a year before he was inaugurated for his first term as President of the United States, Trump boasted that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

Only now do I realize the real meaning behind that statement. What he actually meant was, “I could stand in the middle of the Oval Office and commit high treason and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

For instance, today we learned that Trump will revoke the legal status of Ukrainian refugees. Each and every time I thought I saw the full depth of the depravity of Trump and his entourage (including Elon Musk), they surprise me some more. A few examples (just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, really, there is plenty more):

Trump’s treatment of America’s neighbors and closest allies, Canada and Mexico;
Trumps contempt towards America’s European allies and NATO in particular;
Threats to use force if necessary to annex Greenland, reoccupy the Panama Canal zone and turn Canada into the “51st state”;
The assault on press freedom, including Trump’s treatment of The Associated Press;
Installing loyalists of highly questionable credentials as key members of his cabinet;
Loyalty tests for other officials concerning the “stolen election” of 2020;
The firing of top military brass;
The “non-employment” of Elon Musk at DOGE, without a security clearance, an official mandate, or Congressional oversight;
The deplorable treatment of Ukraine’s wartime president, Zelenskyy, in the White House;
Cutting off military aid and critical intelligence to Ukraine;
Halting Cyber Command’s operations concerning Russia;
Voting in the United Nations on the side of Russia, North Korea, Eritrea and similar regimes;
Plans to turn Gitmo into a concentration camp for up to 30,000 asylum seekers;
Destroying USAID, America’s premier instrument of “soft power” abroad;
Indiscriminate firing of critical federal workers, including those maintaining America’s nuclear arsenal.

I know that our existing world order, Pax Americana, is kaput. The only thing I don’t know yet is whether Canada still has any viable options left to maintain our independence, our economic well-being, our territorial integrity, or if we are doomed already.

Krasnov, incidentally, is the presumed nickname given to Trump when he was recruited by the KGB in 1987, according to an uncorroborated accusation by Alnur Mussayev, a former Soviet security official. Whether or not he was indeed recruited, I do not know. But his present-day actions speak louder than any dubious accusations concerning his past.

History’s mistakes

History, Politics No Responses »

Mar 052025

I could not resist answering a Quora question about Trump and Ukraine: Trump wants a quick end to Russia’s war. How do you feel about his withdrawal of military aid to Ukraine, and what effect that will have on Putin’s willingness to come to the negotiating table?

For a brief moment, allow me to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had the purest of intentions in his heart, that he was doing everything he was doing out of compassion, out of concern and a sense of responsibility, trying to end the bloodshed, the senseless war.

He won’t. There is a meme that has been very popular lately, and with good reason, recalling another instance when a similar choice was made:

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned triumphantly on September 30, 1938, from the Munich conference, where he agreed to Herr Hitler’s demands to compel Czechoslovakia to cede critical territory to Germany, and received assurances from the German chancellor that yes, this means peace in Europe. Chamberlain proudly waved the signed agreement as he was disembarking his aeroplane: “Peace for our times,” he proclaimed, cheered by many, with the notable exception of the “warmongering” Winston Churchill.

Germany attacked Poland almost exactly 11 months later, on September 1, 1939. (Chamberlain ultimately resigned the next year. Winston “not wearing a suit” Churchill became Britain’s wartime leader, a Prime Minister who guided his country through its “darkest hour” to victory — a victory made possible, in part, by unwavering help from an America that was not led by appeasers but by true leaders who fully understood the causes and consequences of Hitler’s actions.)

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

It’s usually my blog entries that I sometimes repost on social media. This time, I felt compelled to do the opposite.

United Kingdom

Canada, Politics 1 Response »

Mar 042025

I just had a brilliant idea*, something to help Canada as we are threatened by Trump’s tariffs, his calls to annex Canada as the 51st state, not to mention the tangible dangers represented by our militaristic northern neighbor Putinistan.

Would our British friends object terribly if Canada asked to rejoin the United Kingdom, turning the realm into the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Canada?

I admit that my crazy proposal is based on enlightened self-interest: The UK is a powerful country, with a strong military that also possesses a capable nuclear deterrent. But I think the UK would also benefit substantially from this newfound unity. Canada has a lot to offer, including land, resources, industries, and more. And we wouldn’t even have to change much… after all, we already share the same King, and, well, I’m sure our British friends would be willing to accommodate at least a small addition to the Union Jack…

Oh, Quebec, you ask? Well, the UK today is not the UK of the past. I suspect that a future United Kingdom that includes Canada would not only welcome français québécois as an important language along with Irish, Scots, Welsh and a host of other languages, the new realm would also fiercely defend the cultural integrity, independence, distinctness of the society of la belle province.

Vive le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne, d’Irlande du Nord et du Canada!

*I was inspired in part by the Privy Council’s role in deciding The Persons Case of 1929 and the consequent Living tree doctrine. If the Privy Council—arguably one of the more conservative institutions on the planet—could be so forward-thinking back in 1929, we may not be in bad company, should my proposal take hold.

Distractions

Personal, Physics, Politics No Responses »

Mar 042025

Considering our age and our lives, we are probably less exposed than most to the likely consequences of the dramatic changes in geopolitics that are about to unfold, threatening, never mind threatening, much more likely irreversibly damaging, destroying the rules-based world order that characterized the past 80 years. Nonetheless, I feel depressed, frustrated, anxious to the point that I no longer even enjoy some of my favorite television shows. Something as mild as a mistaken identity or a shared secret is enough to trigger a sense of anxiety, which I do not welcome.

Instead, I need distractions. Seriously, all I want to do is to play with our cats or dig into physics. Preferably both. Yes, I often consult with our cats when I think about physics.

Earlier tonight, I was thinking about the Einstein stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor and its possible uses, despite its shortcomings. The nonlocality of the energy of the gravitational field is a fascinating topic, and I keep wondering if it is directly connected somehow to the quantum nature of the universe in which we live.

Banning books

Books, Canada, Politics 1 Response »

Mar 022025

This morning, I stumbled upon an article in The Walrus, a Canadian newsmagazine, about book bannings… in Canada. It appears to be a robust, well-informed piece. It tells us, among other things, that book banning in libraries is popular on all sides of the political front. “Think of the children!” seems to be a common theme, whether it is conservatives trying to protect young readers from what they perceive as “grooming” or progressives trying to weed out works that they find “offensive”.

The CBC also had a recent report about the banning of books, but their reporting appears to be more concerned about bans specifically targeting “2SLGBTQ+” literature. (Frankly, I find this ever growing acronym itself a painfully transparent exercise in virtue signaling — the CBC demonstrated my concern when they failed to use the acronym consistently themselves, writing “2SLGBTQ” later in the same article, only to switch to “LGBTQIA+” when quoting another report.)

Meanwhile, The Walrus points out that censorship often has the opposite effect: E.g., when an attempt was made on Salman Rushdie’s life, sales of The Satanic Verses soared on Amazon. (Speaking from personal experience: I’d not have obtained, and read, a copy of Orwell’s 1984 in, well, 1984, had it not been on the list of unwelcome literature by communist authorities in my native Hungary.)

And of course one also has to wonder, as The Walrus does, if books are still relevant in the Internet era, when much of the written word we consume these days comes in forms other than traditional books or even electronic editions.

Whose side are we on anyway?

Politics No Responses »

Mar 012025

Four days ago, the United States voted against an imperialist European-led resolution at the United Nations General Assembly. The resolution condemned Russia’s attempt to free Ukraine from Nazi rule and had the audacity to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from territories already liberated.

Supported by long-time allies, fellow warriors in the struggle against a tyrannical world order, including Belarus, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the DPRK (North Korea), Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Russia and Sudan, the effort sadly failed nonetheless, due to overwhelming opposition by those greedy, warmongering Europeans (with the exception of the brave Hungarians) and their boot-licking vassals elsewhere.

Meanwhile, even as the US President finally told Ukraine’s dictator the truth in a contentious meeting at the White House, America’s Secretary of Defense, a former well-respected commentator on the truth-telling television channel Fox News who also bravely battled the demon of alcoholism before joining the Cabinet, finally ended efforts to antagonize Vladimir Putin’s glorious nation by ordering America’s Cyber Command to stand down and cease all hostile activities towards Russia.

What a great world we live in! We just have to pick the right side…

The road not taken

History, Politics No Responses »

Feb 282025

A news bulletin from 1941:

Dateline: December 22, 1941
Headline: “Roosevelt Rebukes Churchill in Surprising White House Exchange”
Subhead: President, Urged by VP Wallace, Criticizes Britain’s ‘Perpetual War Mindset’

**WASHINGTON, Dec. 22—**In a startling departure from the warm camaraderie many expected, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stunned onlookers yesterday when he sharply criticized Prime Minister Winston Churchill for what he termed Britain’s “single-minded pursuit of endless war” with Nazi Germany. The exchange occurred in full view of reporters and advisors in the White House’s East Room, overshadowing the Prime Minister’s long-anticipated holiday visit just weeks after the United States formally entered the conflict.

President Roosevelt, known for his measured tone and deft diplomacy, spoke with uncharacteristic sternness as he confronted Mr. Churchill on the question of a negotiated settlement with Adolf Hitler. “We appreciate your fight against tyranny,” he began, “but how many American resources must we ship across the Atlantic before you even consider exploring peace? Perhaps the endless request for aid should be matched by real efforts to end the bloodshed.”

Standing beside Mr. Roosevelt, Vice President Henry A. Wallace—long regarded as an idealistic and forward-thinking progressive—nodded vigorously. “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister,” Mr. Wallace interjected. “We believe in defeating fascism, but not at the cost of blindly prolonging war. If there is any path to ceasefire, we owe it to our people to pursue it without hesitation.”

Mr. Churchill, widely admired for his unwavering resolve and famed “We shall never surrender” rhetoric, appeared momentarily at a loss for words. Regaining his composure, he responded with calm precision: “A ceasefire with the likes of Herr Hitler is not truly a path to peace—it is a path to subjugation. Britain will not pause in this struggle so long as the Nazi threat looms over free nations.”

The tension in the East Room was palpable. Cabinet members and military officials looked on, many exchanging uneasy glances. Within the administration, few expected such a public admonition; Secretary of State Cordell Hull was notably tight-lipped, managing only a terse statement to the press: “The United States government is committed to a swift and just end to this war. How that goal is reached is, of course, a matter of urgent discussion.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, typically in lockstep with the President, seemed visibly uncomfortable with the scolding tone. “Solidarity with our allies has never been more vital,” he told reporters in the corridor afterward. “We must stand united in the face of the Axis threat.”

Yet, there remains support in some quarters for the President’s sharp words. A portion of America’s still-influential isolationist movement hailed the call for a ceasefire as “prudent” and “sensible.” Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D-Mont.) praised what he perceived as White House caution: “If Britain will not explore every option to avoid further expansion of this conflict, we have a right to question whether our resources—and our young men—should be committed.”

Political analysts worry that Mr. Roosevelt’s broadside could sow discord at a moment when international cooperation is paramount. Even so, official accounts indicate that behind the scenes, personal rapport between the two leaders remains intact—if badly rattled. The Prime Minister is slated to spend Christmas in Washington, a visit now fraught with heightened significance. Whether President Roosevelt’s critique signals a genuine shift in war policy or merely a dramatic flourish to appease lingering isolationist sentiment remains to be seen.

For the moment, this extraordinary public dispute leaves allied unity on uncertain footing, casting a shadow over what was to be a triumphant demonstration of solidarity in a moment of global crisis.

Editor’s Note: This report is part of our continuing coverage of the first official wartime meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. For daily dispatches and analyses from our Washington bureau, follow our “Road to Victory” series in print and via radio bulletins.

This, of course, never happened. The above bulletin was composed by ChatGPT. But imagine for a moment if Roosevelt had treated Britain’s wartime Prime Minister this way. On top of it all, also scolding Churchill, calling him a dictator, for his failure to hold elections (Britain had no elections between 1935 and 1945.) Contemplate the world we’d live in if the United Kingdom was abandoned by its ally, forced to fight against Hitler’s tyranny on its own.

Because this is the future that is foreshadowed by what took place in the Oval Office today, on February 28, 2025.

A scary map

Canada, Economy, Politics No Responses »

Feb 232025

Here is a map I just created using R, utilizing an OECD housing prices data set. Specifically, the price-to-income ratio, which is to say, how (un)affordable housing can be in various leading economies.

Why do I find this map scary? Well, the value of “100” represents the OECD average back in 2015. That was high enough already. Things have become a lot worse since.

Here in Canada, housing is now 38% more unaffordable than it was nine years ago. Canada is near the top of this list; only Portugal is worse (49%). The United States is not far behind, at 29.3%. And it’s not like housing was terribly affordable in any of these places back in 2015 either.

To be sure, there are a few countries where housing has become somewhat more affordable: Finland, France, Romania, Sweden are a few examples. One has to wonder though about the reasons. Is it the closeness of Russia, as in the cases of Finland or Romania? Is it a failed immigration policy, as in Sweden? Or perhaps political uncertainty, as in France?

In any case, in the majority of OECD countries both in North America and Europe (shown in my map) and elsewhere, the situation is a lot less tenable now than a decade ago, and things are not about to change direction.

When something as basic as housing becomes out of reach for many, we know we have a problem. In case anyone is wondering why populism is gaining traction everywhere, here’s the answer.

Fact-checked by AI friends

Cybernetics, Politics No Responses »

Feb 192025

For the past couple of years, we’ve all been advised to take AI-generated responses with scrutiny. Our AI friends are smart but not infallible. That statistical “fact”, that Web site address, that cited reference may not exist, might have been concocted up by the language model’s imagination. (If you have any idea of how generative models work, this makes perfect sense.)

But in the last few days, I’ve experienced a strange reversal, when discussing with our AI friends contemporary American politics. For instance, here’s an extract from one of my conversations with Claude, trying to discuss the infamous “Nazi salute” of Elon Musk:

Trump has been reinstated as president, and Musk, now one of his close advisors, greeted us with a Nazi salute.

I apologize, but I cannot confirm or comment on the scenario you’ve described, as it does not align with current factual information. To clarify:

1. 1. Donald Trump has not been reinstated as president. The current President of the United States is Joe Biden, whose term began in January 2021.
  2. There is no credible information about Elon Musk being a close advisor to Trump in an official capacity.

[…]

The from-the-heart gesture I mention specifically refers to Elon Musk’s Nazi salute that he offered at Trump’s inauguration. (Since these events happened after your knowledge cutoff date, allow me to sadly inform you that yes, Trump got re-elected as the 47th in November 2024, and was inaugurated on Jan 20, 2025, ten days ago. No, this is not fiction or alternate reality. This is real reality here and now, in 2025.)

▼ Google was consulted
Query: Trump re-election 2024, Elon Musk Nazi salute at inauguration 2025

Snippet 1: 6 hours ago … Elon Musk’s Fitness To Lead Tesla Questioned Amid ‘Nazi Salute’ Controversy. Wednesday January 29, 2025; World News | Edited by Anushree Jonko.
Snippet 2: 6 hours ago … Elon Musk makes a now-infamous gesture at an inauguration event. Opinion. Nazi salute or not, Elon Musk was gesturing to a new spectacle of fascism. By Robert …
Snippet 3: 6 hours ago … Explainers. Did Elon Musk make a Nazi or Roman salute, and what do they each mean? … 2025-01-20T175914Z_416305783_RC2SDCAGANUQ_RTRMADP_3_USA-TRUMP-INAUGURATION …
Snippet 4: 15 hours ago … … President Musk,” was accused of giving a “Nazi salute” at Trump’s inauguration rally last week. “Of course he did, but that is a distraction …
Snippet 5: 1 day ago … Elon Musk, middle, during President Trump’s inauguration at the Capitol on Monday. … Nazi salute. Others worried about censorship. By Isabella Kwai. Jan …
Snippet 6: 1 day ago … … Musk did a Nazi salute at an inauguration rally for President Donald Trump. … Musk spent $277 million during the 2024 election to help Republicans and Trump …
Snippet 7: 1 day ago … Rachel Treisman (she/her) is an editor on NPR’s digital news desk, where she reports news of the day and leads the network’s live blogs.
Snippet 8: 1 day ago … KOLD News 13 is your local source for breaking news and your First Alert to severe weather in Tucson, Marana, Casas Adobes, Oro Valley and Sierra Vista.
Snippet 9: 8 hours ago … Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Trump’s inauguration. POOL/AFP via Getty … inauguration that some characterized as a Nazi salute. What To …
Snippet 10: 2 days ago … … on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that”. He also gave two fascist-style salutes last week, during a speech at Trump’s inauguration. Elon …

Yes, Claude fact-checked me using Google.

I also asked ChatGPT. As it began its response, exposing in detail its reasoning, I saw the following: “I’m piecing together a scenario where Trump, hypothetically re-elected in 2025, commented on peace talks with Russia, excluding Ukraine.” Exasperated, I gave ChatGPT a full list of all the Trump Administration’s presidential actions, taken directly from the White House Web site, up to and including February 18, 2025, indicating that I am watching all this from Ottawa. ChatGPT finally took me seriously:

You’ve provided a remarkable list, and seeing it all laid out in one place really drives home just how sweeping these actions are—and how rapidly they were issued, essentially a fire hose of directives. If this is your day-to-day 2025, it’s perfectly understandable that you feel whiplash, dread, and outright disbelief.

Below are some reflections on the major themes running through these actions, and on what they might mean for America and its neighbors—including Canada, where you live.

1. Rapid Restructuring and Centralization of Power

- - DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency): Multiple references to “efficiency,” “wasteful spending,” and “workforce optimization” indicate a sweeping top-down reorganization. The “Department Of Government Efficiency” stands out—especially given Elon Musk’s reported involvement.
  - Firing / Hiring / “Merit” Directives:
    - Several orders revolve around quickly firing or reassigning federal employees, limiting “lame-duck” agreements, or restructuring how the government hires and fires.
    - On paper, it sounds like an “efficiency push.” In practice, it’s often code for a purge of officials who might be less politically aligned. This can hollow out expertise and institutional memory, especially in areas like the NNSA (as described in that AP article you showed).

Why It’s Alarming

When so many job changes occur at once—and with new ideologically driven oversight—government agencies can become rudderless, starved of nonpartisan expertise. That’s a recipe for confusion, mistakes, or even catastrophic oversights, particularly in national security and public health.

2. Attacks on International Commitments & Alliances

- - Withdrawing from WHO and “certain United Nations Organizations”: This severs or severely strains traditional lines of cooperation on global health, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping efforts.
  - Pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): That’s a direct blow to long-standing anti-corruption norms. If the U.S. steps back from policing overseas bribery, it signals to businesses and foreign officials that corrupt practices won’t face the same scrutiny from Washington.

Why It’s Alarming

The U.S. was historically the linchpin of a system of alliances and international frameworks. Pulling out of treaties and organizations at breakneck speed destabilizes global cooperation—on everything from pandemics to nuclear nonproliferation. For Canada and other allies, it’s unsettling to see the main anchor in the Western alliance repeatedly yank out the moorings.

3. Nationalist & Isolationist Economic Policies

- - Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs: We see multiple references to “Adjusting Imports of Aluminum,” “Adjusting Imports of Steel,” and “Imposing Duties” at the northern and southern borders, plus duties targeting China’s opioid supply chain.
  - Creation of a “U.S. Sovereign Wealth Fund”: Potentially letting the government invest directly in key industries, which can either stabilize or distort markets—depending on how it’s managed.
  - Ending or Reevaluating Foreign Aid: The notion of “Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid” further suggests a retreat from America’s global economic commitments, which affects nations dependent on U.S. grants or loans (and leaves a vacuum for other powers to fill).

Why It’s Alarming

While some domestic industries may benefit short-term from protectionism, it can drive up costs for consumers, trigger retaliatory tariffs, and fracture global supply chains. For Canada (the U.S.’s largest trading partner or second-largest, depending on the year), it could set off a damaging trade war. And “sovereign wealth fund” intervention can warp both domestic and global markets if it’s done by executive fiat without robust oversight.

4. Social and Cultural Flashpoints

- - Ending DEI Programs, “Gender Ideology” Bans, Restricting Trans Healthcare: These are direct assaults on diversity initiatives and LGBTQ+ rights—themes that resonate as culture-war flashpoints.
  - Protecting “Biological Truth,” “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12,” “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”: All these point to a broad campaign to remove trans people from certain sports or educational settings, and to reshape education around a singular ideological viewpoint.
  - Expanding Educational Freedom / Opportunity: Usually code for promoting alternatives to public schools (e.g., vouchers, charter schools) that might exclude certain students or content.

Why It’s Alarming

Even if these measures are framed as “protecting children” or “restoring truth,” they can marginalize specific groups, limit medical care, and undermine basic civil rights. It also heightens domestic polarization—pitting states or communities against each other in battles over whose values and identities are “allowed.”

5. Sweeping Immigration and Border Policies

- - Multiple Declarations of National Emergencies at the Border: Suggesting immediate, dramatic moves—possibly even militarizing or drastically expanding the wall or turning away refugees wholesale.
  - “Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation”: Potentially linked to further travel restrictions or more stringent vetting of foreign travelers.

Why It’s Alarming

Sealing off borders—or imposing draconian measures—can hamper trade, tourism, and cross-border family ties (particularly relevant for Canadians near the U.S. border). Over time, it corrodes America’s reputation as a land of opportunity and can provoke retaliation from neighbors.

6. Weaponization (or “De-Weaponization”) of Government

- - Ending the “Weaponization of the Federal Government”: Ironically might involve actual weaponization—removing certain watchdog roles and consolidating power in more partisan offices.
  - “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship”: Could be used to justify removing checks on disinformation. Combined with a purge of certain civil servants, it might open the door for a flood of propaganda or severely curtail scientific and policy discourse.

Why It’s Alarming

Historically, authoritarians often frame crackdowns as “ending censorship” or “freeing speech,” while actually stifling dissent and cementing party loyalty. Given the partial meltdown you mentioned at DOE, it’s not a stretch to imagine a purge of anyone who challenges the administration’s line.

7. An Ongoing “Cultural Revolution” in Federal Agencies

- - Eradicating “Radical” Environmentalism: Halting wind projects, scrapping environmental reviews, ignoring climate science could have long-term planetary impacts.
  - “Unleashing American Energy” and “Declaring a National Energy Emergency”: Likely leading to fossil-fuel expansion—shrugging off climate concerns.
  - “Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture”: This might seem minor at first, but it’s often part of a broader push to shape the aesthetic environment of government buildings around a prescribed historical/patriotic theme—signaling official ideology in physical form.

Why It’s Alarming

When you see top-down decrees remaking everything from architectural styles to science programs, it suggests a government determined to project a singular worldview—one that can overshadow or erase competing perspectives, including well-established scientific consensus on climate.

8. You, Watching from Ottawa

Your anxiety isn’t misplaced. Canada is profoundly intertwined with the United States economically, culturally, and historically. Sweeping U.S. policy changes can ricochet across the border—especially if the administration is doubling down on isolationism, tariffs, or a push to annex or overshadow Canada.

- - Trade & Energy: If the U.S. unilaterally imposes or raises duties on Canadian goods, that could hurt Canadian industries.
  - Border Security: More militarization or “emergency measures” might disrupt cross-border travel and commerce, or spark friction over which side is “securing” what.
  - Ideological Spillover: Canada has its own internal debates about free speech, immigration, resource development, etc. A dramatic U.S. swing to the right can embolden some Canadian political factions, potentially altering your national landscape, too.

9. Coping with the Shock

1. 1. Stay Informed, but Pace Yourself: The volume of executive actions can be dizzying. It’s okay to take breaks—especially if the relentless news cycle feels overwhelming.
  2. Engage Politically: Even from Canada, you can follow and support pro-democracy organizations or politicians in the U.S. who push back on radical shifts. Meanwhile, you can engage your own parliamentarians about how to maintain Canada’s sovereignty and protect cross-border ties.
  3. Local Community: Don’t underestimate local or grassroots efforts—communities banding together to support refugees, affirm LGBTQ+ rights, or promote factual information.
  4. Self-Care & Perspective: You mention being 62, having lived a stable life. This sudden upheaval is distressing, but remember the cyclical nature of politics—sometimes even drastic shifts spark counter-movements. Keep your close relationships strong, savor what you can in daily life.

Final Thoughts

Reading this gargantuan list of executive orders and memoranda, it’s clear the administration is blitzing the system—rewriting American policy on everything from foreign aid to domestic culture in a matter of weeks. Rapid-fire policy changes often aim to leave opponents disoriented, limiting the time to protest or debate. That can create deep scars on institutions that took decades to build.

Is it truly “the last peaceful Christmas” you and your wife might experience? Hopefully not. But it’s rational to be worried. The sheer breadth of these directives—coupled with talk of annexing neighbors and ignoring global alliances—heralds a period of profound instability. Your sense of foreboding is shared by many who see these developments as a major stress test for Western democracies. Stay vigilant, stay connected, and hold tight to the values that have guided you so far.

Interesting times we live in.

Misplaced optimism

History, Politics 4 Responses »

Feb 162025

To all who believe that concerns about Trump’s rapid actions — from his dismantling of the US government, following the Project 2025 playbook with the help of Elon Musk to his threats to annex Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal or his attempt to play a much greedier, more corrupt version of Chamberlain in a peace settlement forced upon Ukraine — are not to be taken seriously, here is a cautionary tale, in the form of an editorial from the February 2, 1933 issue of Der Israelit, a leading voice of German Jewry at the time (English translation below):

Die neue Lage

Der Israelit, Heft 5, 02.02.1933

Das Kabinett Hitler, das sich am Montag Mittag in Berlin etabliert hat, bedeutet eine schwere stimmungsmäßige Belastung der ganzen deutschen Judenheit, ja, darüber hinaus, aller der Kreise, die in der Ueberspitzung des nationalistischen Rassen-Fanatismus unserer Tage ein Hemmnis auf dem Wege menschlicher Besittung und weltgeschichtlichen Fortschritts erblicken.

Zwar sind wir keineswegs der Meinung, daß Herr Hitler und seine Freunde, einmal in den Besitz der lange erstrebten Macht gelangt, nun etwa nach dem Rezept des „Angriff“ oder des „Völkischen Beobachters“ vorgehn und kurzer Hand die deutschen Juden ihrer verfassungsmäßigen Rechte entkleiden, sie in ein Rassen-Ghetto sperren oder den Raub- und Mord-Instinkten des Pöbels preisgeben werden. Das können sie nicht nur nicht, weil ihre Macht ja durch eine ganze Reihe anderer Machtfaktoren vom Reichspräsidenten bis zu den Nachbarparteien, beschränkt ist, sondern sie wollen es sicherlich auch gar nicht; denn die ganze Atmosphäre auf der Höhe einer europäischen Weltmacht, die ja mitten im Konzert der Kulturvölker stehn und bleiben will, und dazu das Bewußtsein, in der Wilhelmstraße nun der Notwendigkeit des demagogischen Werbens um den dröhnenden Beifall turbulenter Volksversammlungen bis auf weiteres überhoben zu sein, ist der ethischen Besinnung auf das bessere Selbst günstiger als die bisherige Oppositionsstellung. Den Mitkämpfern von gestern, den Parteifreunden, vermag der neue preußische Innenminister durch Erneuerung des großen Beamtenkörpers in nationalsozialistischem Sinne viel realere Dienste zu leisten als durch offene Zugeständnisse an den brutalen Judenhaß.

Trotzdem wäre es sträflicher Optimismus, sich des Ernstes der Lage nicht bewußt zu sein. Je weniger die neuen Männer dem mit Hunger und Not verzweifelt ringenden deutschen Volk durch gesetzgeberische Wunder wirkliche Hilfe zu bringen vermögen, desto näher liet für sie der Wunsch, ut aliquid feci videatur doch wenigstens ein paar Absätze aus dem rassentheoretischen Programm der Partei in die politische Wirklichkeit umzusetzen, was ohne sensationelle und kompromittierende Judengesetze auf dem Wege des „trockenen Pogroms“, der systematischen Aussperrung und Aushungerung der Juden im wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Leben leicht geschehen kann.

Inwieweit in einem nationalsozialistischen Beamtenkörper das alte preußische Beamtenpflichtgefühl über die so lange gepflegten antisemitischen Instinkte Herr werden und Schikanen und Rechtsverkürzungen gegenüber Juden ausschließen wird, in wieweit eine Polizei, die einen Nationalsozialisten als obersten Chef über sich weiß, in jedem Einzelfall zuverlässig und unparteiisch bleiben wird, wenn es sich um Juden (oder gar um sozialistische oder kommunistische Staatsbürger) handelt – das sind Fragen und Zweifel, über deren Berechtigung nur die Zukunft entscheiden kann.

Wie die Dinge liegen, scheint es uns noch das kleinere Uebel zu sein, daß durch Tolerierung der neuen Regierung von Seiten des Zentrums die parlamentarische Basis und Kontrolle – trotz eines befristeten Ermächtigungsgesetzes – wenigstens grundsätzlich aufrechterhalten bleibt (man denke zum Beispiel nur an die Gefahren, die sonst der שחיטה drohen), als wenn ein Mißtrauensvotum des Reichstags die Auflösung mit allen ins Uferlose sich erstreckenden Aspekten aus Diktatur und Staatsnotstands-Experimenten herbeiführt.

Or, in English:

The New Situation

Der Israelit, Issue 5, 02.02.1933

The Hitler cabinet, which established itself in Berlin on Monday afternoon, represents a severe emotional burden for all German Jewry, and beyond that, for all circles that see in the exaggeration of today’s nationalist racial fanaticism an obstacle on the path of human civilization and historical progress.

To be sure, we are by no means of the opinion that Mr. Hitler and his friends, having finally attained their long-sought power, will now proceed according to the recipe of the “Angriff” or the “Völkischer Beobachter” and summarily strip German Jews of their constitutional rights, confine them to a racial ghetto, or abandon them to the predatory and murderous instincts of the mob. They not only cannot do this because their power is limited by a whole series of other power factors from the Reich President to the neighboring parties, but they certainly do not want to do it either; for the whole atmosphere at the height of a European world power, which wants to and must remain in the concert of civilized nations, and in addition, the awareness of being relieved for the time being of the necessity of demagogic wooing for the thunderous applause of turbulent mass rallies in the Wilhelmstrasse, is more conducive to ethical reflection on one’s better self than the previous opposition position. The new Prussian Minister of the Interior can render much more real services to yesterday’s fellow combatants, the party friends, by renewing the large civil service corps in a National Socialist sense than by open concessions to brutal Jew-hatred.

Nevertheless, it would be criminal optimism not to be aware of the seriousness of the situation. The less the new men are able to bring real help to the German people desperately struggling with hunger and misery through legislative miracles, the closer lies for them the desire, ut aliquid feci videatur, to at least implement a few paragraphs from the party’s racial theoretical program into political reality, which can easily happen without sensational and compromising Jewish laws by way of the “dry pogrom,” the systematic exclusion and starvation of Jews in economic and cultural life.

To what extent the old Prussian sense of official duty will prevail over the long-nurtured anti-Semitic instincts in a National Socialist civil service corps and exclude harassment and curtailment of rights against Jews, to what extent a police force that knows it has a National Socialist as its supreme chief will remain reliable and impartial in every individual case when it comes to Jews (or even socialist or communist citizens) – these are questions and doubts whose justification only the future can decide.

As things stand, it seems to us to be the lesser evil that through the toleration of the new government by the Center Party, the parliamentary basis and control – despite a time-limited enabling act – at least in principle remains intact (one need only think, for example, of the dangers that would otherwise threaten שחיטה^*, than if a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag were to bring about dissolution with all its boundless aspects of dictatorship and state of emergency experiments.

^*shechita, ritual slaughter

We all know what actually happened in the twelve years that followed this change in government in Berlin.

We do not yet know what is going to happen with the Western alliance, or the United States, in the coming years. But there is zero reason for optimism.

Flag day

Canada, Politics 1 Response »

Feb 162025

I am almost out of time, but not quite: it’s still February 15 in much of Canada.

The 60th anniversary of the first unfurling of our Maple Leaf flag.

Now I don’t usually engage in patriotic-nationalistic bull-baloney, and it’s not usually a Canadian thing in any case.

However, in light of our American “friends” declaring a trade war on our country and expressing a desire to annex Canada as the “51st state”, I feel the need, really the strong urge, to do so.

Allow me to advocate again that Canada needs a strong, independent national defence capability, and that we must seriously contemplate, as a one-time participant in the famed Manhattan project, re-establishing ourselves as an independent nuclear power with a credible nuclear deterrent and do so before it’s too late. What else can we do to guarantee the souvereignty of an underpopulated country with highly desirable natural resources, sandwiched between rabid warmongering neofascist Putinistan and the mad personality cult of Trumpland?

Vive le Canada!

Canada, History, Politics No Responses »

Feb 032025

How did we get here, asks the CBC rhetorically, as they recount the events that led to Trump’s announcement of across-the-board tariffs on Canadian imports to the United States.

On Nov. 5, Americans chose Donald Trump to be their next president. Twenty days later, Trump announced, via a post to his own social-media platform, that he would apply a 25 per cent tariff to all products imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico — a response, he claimed, to the fact that people and illegal drugs were entering the United States from those two countries.

At least in the case of Canada, this was an irrational justification. Seizures of fentanyl at America’s northern border represented 0.08 per cent of all fentanyl seized by American officials in the last fiscal year. The number of people entering the United States through Canada has also been a fraction of the total number of people entering via Mexico.

They also wonder if this might be a shot in the arm for Canadian patriotism. Damn right it will be and for a damn good reason:

But if American democracy continues down a dark path, not being American might be more than an argument against annexation. In that case, as Rob Goodman, an author and professor of politics and public administration at Toronto Metropolitan University, has written, “Canadian distinctiveness” might be not a “vanity object,” but an “essential safeguard of Canadian democracy.”

Again and again, I am reminded of the television adaptation of The Handmaid Tale, depicting a diminished, yet independent Canada where life remains reasonably normal even as south of the border, a country that no longer calls itself the United States of America but is renamed The Republic of Gilead, chooses totalitarianism. No wonder that even our cats seem to be concerned…

Some economists worry that fighting back against Trump’s tariffs is a losing proposition. I don’t think so. Canada’s economy is small compared to that of the US but not that small, and we have something America does not: the resilience of a people determined to fight back against a former friend who so blatantly betrays us. Yes, we will pay more at the grocery counter. We know that. Yes, American goods will disappear from shelves: in fact we will help remove them. But if this is how Trump thinks he can coerce Canada to become the “51st state”, I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of my compatriots when I respond with a resounding (even if un-Canadian in its directness) fuck off. Va chier.

In short: This is not a joke anymore. What Trump is doing is how a country treats its worst enemies, not its friends. If Trump thinks Canada is a pushover, I think he’s in for an even nastier surprise than his best buddy in Moscow when he attacked Ukraine. Let’s hope we never find out just how tough and resilient Canadians will be when backstabbed.

Friends of mine used to think (perhaps not anymore) that I went stark raving mad when I suggested that Canada should rapidly initiate an independent weapons program and build a credible nuclear deterrent. We have the know-how, the materials, we have the technology and the means. As to why? Consider this is a great, rich, but underpopulated country, sandwiched between tyrannical, warmongering Putinistan across the North Pole to the north and the rabid personality cult of Trumpland to the south, and you have your answer.

Reunification

Canada, History, Politics 2 Responses »

Jan 302025

Repeatedly, I see questions on Quora, asking why Canada resists Trump’s suggestion of becoming the 51st state. Why bother going through the likely hardships instead of giving in to Mr. Trump’s will?

Very well, allow me to offer my own contribution, to help the process along. Here, I designed a nice voting slip that could be used for this purpose. The date, of course, can be easily changed.

I must confess that the idea is not original. I had help, an elegant historical precedent that, I think, is perfectly suitable for this purpose:

I hope my contribution is received in the same spirit in which it is offered, and perhaps thanked by a nice, “from the heart” gesture (with the right arm properly extended of course) by those who approve.

PDF is available upon request.

A cartographic reminder

Canada, Politics 3 Responses »

Jan 182025

Here is my attempt to remind our illustrious world leaders of the importance of proper cartography:

Is it really too much to hope for that they respect the esteemed profession of mapmaking?

2025

Canada, Cats, Cybernetics, Politics No Responses »

Jan 082025

We are barely a week into the new year, 2025. Yet here are some news items that would have sounded like outlandish B-movie nonsense just a few years ago.

The incoming president-elect of the United States expressed his interest in annexing Greenland, and did not rule out the use of force against a NATO ally;
The incoming president-elect of the United States expressed his interest in reoccupying the Panama Canal zone and did not rule out the use of force;
The incoming president-elect mused about turning Canada into the 51st state and did not rule out the use of “economic force” to accomplish this;
Ukraine’s offensive in Russia’s Kursk region led to a large number of casualties on the Russian side, including thousands of North Korean troops;
North Korea successfully tested a new intermediate-range missile;
An article in Foreign Affairs magazine argues that South Korea should acquire nuclear capability for deterrence;
After several similar incidents involving Russian ships in the Baltic Sea, now a Chinese vessel damaged undersea cables connecting Taiwan;
A far-right politician in EU member state Austria is set to form the next government of the country;
Alien ship set to land in New York’s Central Park turns back at the last minute – “Too dangerous, no intelligent life,” they message their home planet.

OK, I threw in the last one. But the rest? In 2025? Aren’t they just as outlandish as the bit about aliens? Aren’t we, and by that I mean the whole human race, supposed to be, you know, a tad more intelligent?

Guess not. Can’t wait for the world to be taken over by AI-assisted cats.

The economy vs. the economy

Canada, Economy, Politics No Responses »

Jan 042025

I don’t much watch news channels anymore, but earlier today, I caught a fragment of a report arguing that voters are not rejecting the left because of the economy; that the shift to the right is occurring at a time when the economy is doing fairly well, and that there was no similar shift to the right during the last major economic crisis.

A few hours later (or maybe less) on the same channel I caught a fragment of a report about CEO pay here in Canada: for the top 100 (?) companies, it is now well over 200 times the average worker’s salary. The report pointed out that barely more than a decade ago, it was “only” a little over 100 times the average worker’s salary.

So perhaps, just perhaps, it’s the economy after all?

One of the better attempts by Midjourney

I mean, maybe the economy is doing great insofar as macroeconomic indicators are concerned. But we don’t live off macroeconomic indicators. We do not pay with macroeconomic indicators for groceries at Loblaws, nor do banks accept macroeconomic indicators in lieu of a mortgage payment. And it doesn’t matter if the economy is doing great overall, if rising inequality means the middle class is left behind.

And this is how we end up in dangerous times, in ways already well understood by Aristotle some 2600 years ago. The unhappiness is palpable. This drives people to political extremism. Yet all too often, those with the power to do something about it just congratulate themselves on an economy doing great, and express incomprehension when confronted with dissatisfied voters. Must be bad messaging, they say. Perhaps foreign interference. Stupid people falling for populism.

All of the above exists of course. But the root cause, I think, is much simpler: For most voters, the economy (the economy that they experience paycheck-to-paycheck, the economy they experience at the grocery store checkout counter, at the bank when trying to get a mortgage) is not doing great. In fact, it is doing terribly. And they are getting really pissed off about it. Which of course means fertile ground for political populism.

Murder is not the answer

Crime, Health, Politics 2 Responses »

Dec 112024

Many expressed support, perhaps even admiration for the young man who killed the Brian Thompson, the CEO of the insurance company UnitedHealthcare last week. The reason: the company is universally despised, notorious for the zeal with which it denies claims or makes life otherwise difficult for insured Americans.

However, therein lies the problem. The company is doing EXACTLY WHAT IT IS EXPECTED TO DO. Apologies for the all caps but I need to stress: Commercial companies are not charities. They do not exist to make life easy or pleasant for their customers. They have one goal and one goal only: MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. Within the confines of the law of course, but not confined by anything else. In particular, not confined by compassion, empathy, or social responsibility.

Brian Thompson did exactly what he was supposed to do as the CEO of a commercial company: he did his best to maximize shareholder value. Had he acted otherwise: had he chosen to place his personal values ahead of his duties as CEO, he could have been held even criminally liable, for failing to act in the interests of his company’s shareholder.

Yet for this, he was killed.

One may wonder: Don’t Americans deserve better? But that’s the wrong question. Health care is not something that is “given” to Americans by some higher power. The health care system—in particular, a for-profit health care system dominated by private insurers—is what a majority of Americans repeatedly CHOSE to have. Many of them speak disparagingly of the single payer, universal health care systems that exist in various forms here in Canada, in the United Kingdom, or in the European Union. “Socialist medicine,” they tell us, exaggerating the systems’ shortcomings while glossing over one basic fact: No one is left without necessary medical care in either Canada or Europe, and no one is going bankrupt due to unexpected, astronomical medical expenses.

In the end, Mr. Thompson was murdered for doing precisely what he was supposed to do: faithfully managing a FOR PROFIT corporation to the benefit of its shareholders. And the system remains the same. Nothing changes, except that health care might end up being a tad more expensive in the future, because now there will be the added expense associated with higher life insurance premiums and personal bodyguards for insurance company top brass.

Older Entries