Midterms: A Critical Flaw

Nov.1,2026 by N.Russell

     In my recent post on the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, I forgot to touch on an important and disturbing facet of this, and all, U.S. elections; the insane time span between the elections and swearing in the victors. The span between election day and the time these people are sworn in can be as much as two and a half months, which can be a serious problem. Let’s take Presidential elections, for example. Suppose the incumbent has lost the election; he (I say “he” because, sadly, there has still never been a woman elected president) then has two months during which, depending how venal he is, he can make life a nightmare for the incoming administration by signing specious bills into law. Not having to worry about public opinion, he can indulge in his power to issue questionable pardons, something that has become all to common in the last ten years. The same problem exists with congress; uncoupled with the need to keep the voters happy, a lame duck congress can indulge the president and enact legislation that makes it more difficult for the incoming Congress to advance their agenda.

     The long delay between elections and swearing in the victors made sense 170 years ago, when the journey from someones district in, say, Oklahoma, to Washington could be an arduous trek taking many weeks. There is simply no justification for it today, where even the farthest flung districts (American Samoa and Guam) are no more than a day or two away from Washington. It is one of those anachronisms that has been in place so long that people accept it without thinking about it, a constitutional reality. In reality, there is no reason it couldn’t be changed, and if done early enough in a term you might even get bipartisan support for the change (if such a thing is even possible anymore). I sincerely hope that the next two and a half months don’t emphatically prove the point, but the depths that this feckless group might sink can no longer surprise me. It would be bitterly ironic if, after doing virtually nothing to justify their existence for the last two years, this Congress finally starts legislating when they have already lost the House. Perhaps that will finally convince people to change this ridiculous situation.

Midterm Pipe Dreams

Oct.28,2026 by N.Russell

     It seems that, with their odd political system, there is always an election occurring in the U.S., and, for the most part, few of us outside that country pay much attention to them. This midterm election is different: I can't remember a previous U.S. midterm election that has so grabbed international attention, not least here in Canada. In talking to people about the elections I have been surprised at 1) How many are convinced there will be a "blue tsunami" (Democrats capturing both the House of Representatives and the Senate), and 2) How that Democrat triumph will bring Trump to heel and restore some semblance of sanity, especially in international relations i.e. the tariffs will be withdrawn, the war in Iran will end, Ukraine will regain the support it needs, and Israel's territorial expansion will be halted. Now, I freely admit that I tend to take a more pessimistic view of things (Democrats win Congress, the Senate is tied with Vance holding the tie-breaking vote), but let's,  for arguments sake, assume that the "cup half full" crowd is correct, and there is a Democrat sweep of both Houses. I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but it just...won't...matter.

     There is a mistaken impression that the only reason Trump has been able to exercise his worst impulses has been because the Republicans in the House, and the Senate, have simply surrendered their independence and refused to say no as he has slid towards autocracy. Yes, Congress has not stood up to Trump and yes, the Democrats will. The problem is that Trump, face with resistance, will then simply ignore them and rule by fiat (which, one could argue, he has more or less been doing for the last two years). Congress will try to exert their will, but Trump will counter their efforts with a tidal wave of presidential vetoes (I think the next two years will see a record set for the most vetoes ever issued by a U.S. President). He will resort to more of the tactics he has been using; digging up antiquated precedents to justify his actions, or fall back on the good old "national security" justification. Once he makes it clear that he has no intention of curbing his adventurism, what will Congress do? They can, of course, threaten to withhold funding (holding the nation's purse-strings is the one power that the House does have, though you wouldn't know it if you went by the last two years), but Trump has ways around that as well. The House threatens to halt funding for his and Bibi's assault on Iran? Not to worry; the U.S. military budget is absurdly large, and Trump has enough skilled accountants on the government payroll to play a little shell game and magically produce more funds. The house can refuse to further fund ICE, but ICE is just a part of a larger National Security budget, so, again, Trump will just move some money around. The House will desperately want to hold Trump accountable for his many, many crimes (they can start with blatant corruption, with the Executive Branch being used as a fund-raising vehicle to enrich the Trump family and selected oligarchs), and Trump's actions have been so blatant that those investigations will no doubt find that Trump has broken the law and acted against the constitution. The next step, if this was a normal Congressional investigation, would be to send your findings to the Justice Department for action. That would be the Justice Department that is currently run by Trump's personal lawyer; hmm, I wonder how that will go? Well, if worse comes to worse you can refer Trump's malfeasance to the Supreme Court; that would be the one currently populated by the saddest group of quislings ever to don robes, who have already given Trump a permanent free pass (I'm referring to their 2024 decision that the President cannot be prosecuted for any crime committed whilst exercising his "official" duties). All that will really be left to Congress is impeachment, for which they will need both the House and Senate, and without the teeth of Justice Department it will just be another slap on the wrist.

     Trump knows that, whatever happens next week, he will still be able to carry on cooking, so why have Republican victories in the midterms become so important to him, forcing him to get his billionaire pals to invest hundreds of million of dollars into countless campaigns? Obviously, they (the donors) don't want a future congress to stand in the way of their dream of a country carpeted in data centres and no taxes on the richest 1%, but for Trump it comes down to what it always comes down to: his colossal, fragile ego. Democrats winning the House, let alone both legislative bodies, would be a repudiation of him personally. Since he knows that the country loves him, Democratic victories could only be the result of skulduggery. I do not put anything past him when it comes to swaying this election, including putting ICE on the streets of selected (read: immigrant or black/latino) neighbourhoods to intimidate voters, or even declaring results null and void due to "irregularities" (as he is already doing in California, trying to get the Supreme Court to prevent the counting of 20,000 advance ballots). I fear for our southern neighbours; this election may be a true representation of just how far the scale towards autocracy they have slid.

     Despite my obvious pessimism regarding the near-term effects of this election, that doesn't mean I'm not cheering for a Democrat sweep. Trump needs to be repudiated, in as big a way as possible. He needs to have his ego bubble popped. Even if all the worst of this administration carries on unabated, watching Trump get further unhinged as he tries to comprehend his slap-down will be must-watch television. There are, however, other races on Tuesday that will have even more of my attention, namely the various governorships that are up for grabs. In the U.S. political system a lot of power is devolved to the states, and that includes running federal elections. If Democrats can rack up enough gubernatorial victories, especially in states that were formerly Republican, they will be able to halt Trump's assault on democracy and secure the integrity of the electoral system. They will also be able to reverse gerrymandering, either restoring former districts to their former boundaries, or redrawing districts according to demographics, not politics (it would be a huge mistake, in my opinion, for Democratic Governors to indulge in their own orgy of gerrymandering. That would result in a race to the bottom, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters for no good reason). Ideally, they could permanently put the drawing of district lines out of the realm of politics, instead ceding that power to independent bodies. Democratic governors could also reverse the criminalizing of women's health and reverse regressive education policies. The states could become the last bastions of sanity in the U.S. political landscape, until this MAGA nonsense abates (it won't die with Trump, trust me).

     I have said, many times in the last two years, that the real mystery isn't how the most powerful democracy on the planet descended into autocracy, but rather why it took this long. The U.S. political system is far inferior to a parliamentary system. The Executive branch (the President and his army of appointees) has far to much power, and the frailty of their much vaunted "checks and balances" has been laid bare (no one ever foresaw a party politicizing the Judiciary, for instant). The system is broken, and Tuesday won't fix it, but that doesn't mean it has no value. If nothing else, a Democratic sweep would show that, even a fractured, post-news media landscape, it is still possible to get through to people. It would be sad if the only thing uniting Americans today is a hatred of high gas and diesel prices, but hey, whatever it takes. Just be forewarned; it isn't Tuesday yet, and Trump is still capable of doing something outrageous. Here's hoping for, if nothing else, a clean, peaceful, democratic vote.

Past Time for a Change

August 20,2026 by N. Russell

I have devoted a lot of words, over the years, to explaining why Pierre Polievre doesn’t deserve to hold public office, let alone command a major Canadian political party. Over the last decade he has followed the populist appeal of Donald Trump, south of the border, and increasingly embraced hard right identity politics. The public, last year, showed they had no appetite for Trumpian politics and not only defeated Polievre’s party (the Conservatives) but even booted him out of his own riding. Any politician with an ounce of integrity would have read the writing on the wall and stepped down from his leadership role in the party, but not Polievre. He found a corner of Alberta where his hard-right agenda still sells and not only reclaimed a seat in the House of Commons but continues to believe he has a mandate to continue as the leader of the Conservatives. The field of politics is certainly no stranger to self-delusion, and by surrounding himself with a bunch of like-minded acolytes (when it comes to people like Ezra Levant, acolyte may not be the right word, as it’s hard to say just who is driving that bus) Polievre can continue on in La-la land until his fellow Conservative MPs grow a backbone and show him the door. Perhaps Polievre’s latest political stunt will help do that, because by inviting the son of the former Shah of Iran to Canada and holding him up as an exemplar of a future democratic Iran shows he has no grasp of either history or realpolitik.

A quick history lesson (I know I have outlined this in earlier posts, but bear with me): During the Second World War the allies occupied Iran and told the ruler, Reza Shah, to step down in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Shah (the person most people still refer to as “the Shah”). Around this time a famous conference (the Tehran Conference) was held by Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. One of the outcomes of this conference was the “Tehran Declaration”, in which the allied powers guaranteed the future independence of Iran. After the war there was a growing democracy movement in Iran, led by Mohammad Mosaddegh and his National Front party. In 1951 the Shah was forced to accept Mosaddegh’s election as Prime Minister (the Shah continued to rule, but with greatly reduced powers, similar to the British monarch). Sadly, Mosaddegh’s reign, and the country’s democracy, was to be short-lived. Mosaddegh decided to nationalize the petroleum industry in Iran, which infuriated the British, who had been sucking the majority of profits out of the Iranian oil fields since their discovery. The British intelligence services enlisted the help of the CIA, who were becoming quite adept at removing democratically elected governments who showed the slightest signs of drifting to the left (one sign of drifting to the left is demanding democracy in the first place). The CIA held nationalization of important industries to be an egregious sin (to be fair, Mosaddegh showed other signs of leftism, such as attempting to abolish the old feudalistic system and distributing land to the farmers), so in 1953 they orchestrated a coup, clearly abrogating the Tehran Declaration which they had both signed (Churchill’s role in this can’t be ignored. Eisenhower, newly elected, originally had a deep dislike of colonialism and foreign meddling in other countries affairs, but it was the height of the Cold War, when being “soft on communism” was the greatest sin a U.S. president could exhibit. Churchill painted pictures of Mosaddegh drifting into the Soviets embrace; utter nonsense, as Mosaddegh wasn’t at all a communist, but Eisenhower gave in to the pressure, as he would again and again as the CIA entered its most egregious period foreign meddling). In August of 1953 the country of Iran held a referendum wherein the country voted overwhelmingly to dissolve parliament and give Mosaddegh power to make a law. The Shah could picture the pitchforks and torches in his future and left his palace for safer climes, but he needn’t have worried, as the coup was launched before the end of August.

The Shah was placed back in power, and all his law-making powers were restored. It wouldn’t have taken a genius to foresee what would follow, as an autocratic ruler governing a populace thirsting for democracy doesn’t usually end in hugs and kittens. The Shah ruled with a heavy hand, with broad American support. His secret police (the SAVAK) quashed nascent buddings of democracy, and disappearances and torture were commonplace. The Shah became noted for his extravagant lifestyle, becoming increasingly disconnected with his people. Many modern viewers of Iran make the mistake that the young people involved in the 1979 revolution were thirsty for Islamic rule, but this is patently untrue. In Iran then, and as it was in many countries during the Arab Spring, the people weren’t desperate for Islamic rule; they were desperate for an end to corruption and autocracy, and were willing to support whomever seemed best placed to bring that about. The Ayatollah (in exile in London) took advantage of this because he already had an infrastructure on the ground; in effect, just as Lenin did in 1917, the Ayatollah and his mullahs hijacked a revolution and twisted it to there advantage.

1979 may seem like a long time ago, but they have have long memories in Iran and, whilst they are desperate to see the end of the current theocracy they have no desire to see another Shah on the throne, and especially this one. Reza Pahlavi has not said or done anything to show that he would be be a suitable leader for Iran. He has shown blatant contempt, if not outright racism, for non-Persian ethnic groups (of which Iran has many, including a sizable Kurdish population in the northwest). As far as I can tell, there is no groundswell of support within Iran for him, despite his operatives, working hard to create such a climate. His support by, and funding, from foreign (Western) powers, and his open courting of Israel, make him, to say the least, a polarizing figure there. More importantly, it isn’t up to us, as a separate country, to be dictating to the Iranian people who their leaders should be. Iranians tend to be well-educated and politically aware, and Polievre’s actions will be seen there for what they are; paternalistic and colonial. For the leader of the official opposition of Canada to engage in such nonsense is an embarrassment, to the country and to his party. It is past time for the Conservative Party to put Pierre “Trump-lite” Polievre to the curb and start rebuilding a once proud party, both for their good and for the good of Canada.

How Monsters Are Made

Aug.13, 2026 by N.Russell

     I promised myself I would take a break from constantly raging about Israel's continuing acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and their seeming impunity to do so. The problem with constantly yelling about some outrage, however valid your case may be, is that people eventually tune you out. We saw this in Trump's first term, when outlets like CNN, who tried to keep the focus on the daily litany of outrageous acts coming out of the White House, saw viewers tuning out; the result is that now, in Trump's second term, things occur every day that, just ten years ago, would have been headline news. I find, however, that I just can't keep silent; the latest evidence coming out of Lebanon is just to horrific to ignore. No longer content with just ethnically cleansing South Lebanon - after all, the people could always come back - Israel has started a literal scorched earth policy. They are deliberately putting the torch to South Lebanon.

     One could argue that, in any conflict, fires happen; if you drop bombs, things will burn. That is not what is happening. Israel is using drones, armed with incendiary devices, to ignite wildfires, then targeting fire crews who arrive to attempt to put out the flames. They are burning crops, they are burning olive groves, they are burning buildings, all with the goal of permanently depopulating  South Lebanon. This is so obviously a war crime that it scarcely merits debate. The question, once again, is why isn't the international community acting? The answer, as always, is the United States. Since the election of Donald Trump (for a second time, which still bewilders me) the U.S. has gone beyond just their customary role of protecting Israel from U.N. censure by using their security council veto. They have now become an active participant in Netanyahu's war crimes, going so far as to aggressively attack the International Criminal Court. Since the I.C.C. first indicted Netanyahu, in 2024, for war crimes committed in Gaza, the Trump has levied sanctions against numerous people in the I.C.C., and even issued arrest warrants against some, all in an attempt to make it impossible for these courageous people to do their job. The U.S. has also used the threat of sanctions against other countries who dare to support the I.C.C. in any way. 

     It is staggering, to me, how effective Israel and the U.S. have been in completely silencing official opposition to these war crimes, especially in Europe. Despite everything that has occurred (and continues to occur) over the last three years, it is still close to a crime in many countries (and is a crime in at least one) to advocate for the Palestinian people and to speak out against Israel's war crimes. Over twenty years of hard work by Netanyahu and his PR team have convinced countless people that criticizing Israel - a country, a political entity, like countless others - is the equivalent of speaking out against Jews. I will be posting a future essay that explains why we are susceptible to such manipulation, something too complex to go into here, but suffice to say that this campaign has left most politicians terrified. Just the accusation of being "antisemitic" (a term I despise; the Palestinians are also a Semetic people) can mean the end of a political career. Politicians who know better, who recognize war crimes, are cowed into silence. As I've pointed out before, the international community who stood up at Nuremberg and swore "never again" has been left impotent, and it's pathetic.

     I recognize that Israel is not the only bad actor on the world stage - there is ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing in South Sudan, and it is being funded, in part, by the U.A.E., another U.S. ally - but not only has Israel, in its actions against Iran, Lebanon and Syria, taken it to another level, it is the only country presently engaged in crimes against humanity which has the support and protection of the United States. In going from tacit backer, and arms supplier, to active ally, the U.S. has lost any cachet it may have gained in the Muslim world, and have become a valid target. The U.S. will be ruing the reckless actions of this administration for years As for Israel, one can only ask: How far is too far?

Why You Are Not Worried Enough

Aug,11, 2026 by N. Russell

     It seems that, with the ascendancy of the Trump regime, ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Near East, and interminable wars in Ukraine and Iran, the issue of global warming has effectively been pushed out of the public consciousness. That may be exactly what Trump, and the fossil fuel industry, wants, but we are making a huge mistake. Despite all the myriad things that can, and do, keep us up at night, global warming is the most dire problem we face as a species, and we continue to ignore it at our peril.

     Trump and his sad cabal like to pretend that global warming is "fake news" designed by America's enemies to hold the country back and prevent it from being "great", hence the cancellation, at great cost, of numerous alternative energy projects and the bizarre attempt to reignite (excuse the pun) a coal-based energy sector that was already dying. Of course, the administration knows that they are selling bullshit by the bushel; how else to explain them deciding to kill the Arctic Report Card, an annual summation of data on Arctic warming compiled each year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the same organization whose ability to study and predict hurricanes has been curtailed by Trump and company). The reason should be obvious; the data (which is still available, if you know where to look for it) shows that Arctic warming is accelerating at an alarming rate. It is the polar regions that are warming the fastest from global warming, and those ecosystems are the most at risk. This accelerated warming is also the reason that, however much you are worried about global warming, you are not worried enough.

     In earlier essays I have posted about global warming I have talked about feedback loops: the great danger they pose and great difficulty, for climate scientists, in quantifying that risk. The simplest example of a feedback loop, in the context of global warming, is the conundrum of sea ice. When the Arctic was still relatively cold, large portions of the Arctic Ocean were frozen for most of the year. This ice, in turn, acted to reflect a large portion of sunlight back into space (a phenomena known as albedo). As the Arctic warms, less of the ocean freezes and thus the albedo (the fraction of sunlight that is reflected) is reduced. More importantly, the now open water, instead of reflecting sunlight, now absorbs sunlight, and the water holds that heat. This warms the ocean waters, which causes less ice to form, and so on; an accelerating feedback loop. I called that a "simple" example, but the calculations to account for it are anything but. It is when we get to something like the permafrost that calculating the feedback loops gets truly complex. The permafrost is ice that has been trapped just below the arctic tundra for thousands of years. As well as water ice there are numerous gases that are locked up in the ice, including carbon dioxide and methane, and these gases are released as the ice melts. With the melting of the permafrost we get a repeat, to some degree, of what we just illustrated with the Arctic Ocean; the melting permafrost forms pools and ponds that overlay the deeper, still frozen ice. These pools absorb sunlight far more than the tundra would, and as the water warms more permafrost is melted. That is disturbing, but the truly frightening part isn't that the permafrost is melting, but what it is releasing in the process; more greenhouse gases, the most dangerous of which is methane.

     You will have seen, in various articles on global warming over the years, that methane is a far more effective gas than carbon dioxide is at trapping heat, but you would seldom see two estimates that agreed on how much more effective it is. The explanation for that discrepancy can be found in the explanation for why certain gases trap heat in the first place (after all, the atmosphere is full of gases). To greatly oversimplify things, a gas is more likely to absorb heat the more complex its molecule is. The primary components of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, exist as simple, tightly bound molecules of two atoms; most photons can pass through without getting trapped. The more complicated a molecule - the more atoms there are and how they are arranged - the more likely it is that a photon (heat is radiated as photons in the infrared spectrum) will get trapped by the molecule (that heat is absorbed and re-radiated out into the atmosphere). Methane is a far more complex molecule than carbon dioxide, and as a result it traps a lot more heat. In the first twenty years or so after it is emitted into the atmosphere (before it begins to break down), methane is at least 80 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. If we consider that most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 200 years has been due to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you can see just how much danger a large release of methane would pose to the welfare of the planet. This is where it gets scary; current estimates for the amount of methane trapped in the planets permafrost is 1.3 trillion tons. If all that methane is released in a short amount of time, you don't need complicated calculations of feedback loops to tell you that we are pretty much toast.

     Are you worried yet? You certainly will be, because there is another monster lurking in the closet. The amount of methane stored in the permafrost is piddling when compared to the amount of methane, in the form of frozen methane hydrate, trapped along the margins of the planets continental shelves; estimates vary, but even if we err on the side of caution we are still talking about at least 1500 gigatons. Obviously, it would take a catastrophic level of ocean warming to release those gases, but there is a good chance it has happened before. The greatest mass extinction in Earth's history (no, not the one that killed the dinosaurs) occurred at the end of the Permian period, when up to 95 percent of all species extant at that time went extinct. The culprit was massive volcanic eruptions (when I say massive, I mean more than half of what is now Russia covered in thick layers of lava), but some scientists have seen evidence of an astounding amount of methane released at this time, more than would be associated with a volcanic event alone. The likely culprit would have been a warming of the oceans sufficient to melt the methane hydrates, which in turn would have caused the planet to cook (we can thank our planets carbon cycle for preventing us from becoming another Venus).

     I am not claiming that we are in imminent danger of releasing the methane ices in our deep oceans, but as far as negatively impacting life on this planet we don't have to. A release of even a large portion of the methane trapped in the permafrost is all it will take to tip the scales towards a runaway greenhouse effect sufficient to make the planet unlivable. I truly don't understand why that isn't the first thing on peoples minds every day when they get up. Maybe it is too late to stop it (it actually isn't, but I certainly don't foresee action in the near future); that is certainly what the most of the people running the planet want you to think. In some ways you have to hand it to what I call the Trumpian world view; "it's all a hoax, we don't need to make any sacrifices, there is no reason the economy should suffer". It is very attractive to someone who is tired of being bombarded with dire predictions. I recall an argument I had with an oil executive, based in Calgary, a few years ago. When he was arguing against all the mitigation efforts I was proposing, I stated that we had to do something as we were in a crisis. He replied, in complete serious, that I was wrong; there was no crisis. He may have actually believed that, or he may have been parroting that line for so long that there was now a disconnect with reality. Either way, it is representative of the thinking that exists in Washington (and most world capitals, for that matter), and it has permeated down in to the public zeitgeist. Even for those of us who continue to wave a red flag there is a level of fatigue that has set in. I am tired of trying to explain the "global" part of global warming to people who ask "If the planet is warming up, why is it so cold this winter?". The last two years have seen horrific forest fires all over the globe. The heat in Europe has been so severe this summer that the Danube River, one of the great waterways of the world, has almost disappeared in places. Global warming isn't some speculated possible future event; we are living in it, and each year will be worse. So, if your chief worry today is the price of gas, then I envy you. Your children may not have a habitable planet, but they can always turn up the AC in their SUV.

Netanyahu’s Dream and Iran’s Nightmare

Mar.11, 2026 by N. Russell

     There has been a tendency, in the media and by political pundits, to call the Iran conflagration "Trump's war". There are a lot of good reasons for doing this (besides the fact that it is the U.S. that is leading the bombing campaign). One of the most cited is the fact that there is a long tradition of U.S. Presidents starting a conflict in order to prop-up sagging popularity, such as with George Bush senior's invasion of Panama, and Bill Clinton seeking to quell the uproar over Monica Lewinsky by bombing Serbia. There is no question that Trump's popularity numbers are at a new low (though not nearly as low as one would expect), and Presidents can usually count on the U.S. getting behind U.S. military action, even when it is deeply misguided. It may be true that there are some voices in the White House (one thinks of Stephen Miller) who may see the public distraction as a good thing, but that would only be a side effect.  Despite all his arrogant bluster, this isn't "Trump's war"; ownership for this debacle lies solely with Benjamin Netanyahu.

     Netanyahu has been salivating over the prospects of this war for years. He tried to win over the White House to his way of thinking before but, to their credits, both Obama and Biden saw such an action as folly. When Trump was elected for the first time Netanyahu saw his chance with an ego-maniacal, easily manipulated blowhard in the White House. Sadly for Netanyahu, the first Trump administration had a number of figures in positions of power that were somewhat competent, and while Netanyahu was able to convince them to tear-up the nuclear agreement that Obama had negotiated, he couldn't convince them to attack Iran. With the advent of the second Trump administration Netanyahu knew he had his chance. Instead of experience and knowledge, the new Trump administration is a collection of incompetents and sycophants who will fall over themselves to ingratiate themselves with their king. All Netanyahu had to do was lavish praise on Trump, convince him that this was a momentous moment and that Trump would go down in world history as the Great Liberator (Trump will go down in history, but I'm afraid he won't like how it will read). The result of all that slurping is that we have the U.S. military, the most powerful on the planet, being used to advance the hegemonic goals of another country. How the mighty have fallen.

     We should have seen this coming when Trump's pick for ambassador to Israel (the grossly under-qualified former Fox News host, Mike Huckabee) stated, publicly, that Israel has a God-given right to all of the Levant, a goal of which Netanyahu's cabal of far-right extreme Zionists have been quietly bringing about whilst the world has been turning a blind eye. The U.N., to it's eternal shame, backed a Trump/Netanyahu peace plan for Gaza that a) was reached without any input from the actual residents of Gaza, and b) does nothing to alleviate the suffering there, other than to  reduce the rate of genocide, a sign of international fatigue with the Gaza conflict. Meanwhile, Israel has now been occupying southern Lebanon and southwestern Syria for some months, and Israeli forces, with the world's focus squarely on Iran, continue to advance into both those countries. At present Israel is attempting to force the people of Lebanon's Beqaa Valley to leave the area, a forced expulsion that is illegal under international law (but then, so is genocide and ethnic cleansing, so in for a penny . . .). All of this is to the aim of finally establishing the extreme-Zionist wet dream of a Greater Israel, a recreation of a political state that may have existed, 3,000 years ago, for at best two generations. The only country that was countering such dreams of expansion was Iran, hence the present mess.

     I should state outright that I have no love for theocracies - any theocracies - let alone the brutal one that has existed in Iran for decades. I also won't defend many of their extra-territorial incursions, though it should be pointed out that not everything Iran had a hand in was to the negative. It was Iranian-backed forces, along with the Kurds, that defeated the outrage that was the Islamic State. Iran's involvement in Yemen was to counter Saudi intervention there, an intervention that included funding a local chapter of Al-Qaeda. No one needed Iran's partners in Yemen firing missiles at international shipping to protest the Gaza genocide, but it was the only protest one heard from the region, the rest of the Arabian states having rolled-over in Trump's first term with the promise of U.S. arms and technology. As for the recent brutal crackdown by the Iranian state on protesters, I agree it was shameful, and despicable, and any other adverb you feel like throwing around, but let's not pretend that that had anything to do with this war. I recall writing, eight years ago or so, in these very pages, about the brutal crackdown by the Saudi state on it's own Shia minority in the Qatif region, a crackdown that lasted for years and included mass killings, desecration of religious sites and a suspension of human rights. This crackdown was done using U.S. weapons, by a U.S. ally, and yet the U.S. raised nary a word. If the U.S. really gave a damn about the Iranian people they wouldn't be bombing water-filtration plants and other infrastructure necessary for their well-being (let alone schools). Besides all that, U.S. intervention in Iraq should have reinforced the basic idea that no one ever saved a people by bombing the crap out of them; I guarantee you that, however happy the Iranians would be to cast off the yoke of religious oppression, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone there who supports this madness.

     I stated at the outset that this isn't Trump's war; that said, it will be Trump's mess to clean up. Trump and Hesgeth, almost giddy in their public appearances as they revel in the death and destruction they are raining down on Iran, keep talking about "total surrender". If they really mean that, then, short of dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran (don't think Netanyahu hasn't floated the idea) it is going to mean boots on the ground. There is zero chance that those boots will be Israeli; the entire Muslim world would rise up if that were to occur. That means U.S. ground forces going in to Iran (and U.S. causalities being sent home in coffins; if Trump doesn't like his approval ratings now, just wait) and facing up against the Republican Guard. Let us accept that after an ugly struggle the U.S. prevails; what then? Trump has made clear, with his words and actions concerning Venezuela, that restoring democracy just isn't on his agenda. That means putting a U.S. puppet dictator, like the son of the former Shah, in power. That wouldn't go over well - the Shah was a brutal dictator and memories are long in Iran - so you would need to establish a security establishment to keep the people in check; in other words, a police-state, which is how we got here in the first place. This isn't some backwater country with no experience with democracy; this is a proud, Western-leaning nation with an history that stretches back millennia.  They had  a functioning democracy in the 1950's, until the C.I.A. decided it was better to have a puppet in their pocket than a wild card they couldn't control, so they instigated a coup and supplanted Iranian democracy with the Shah and his kleptocracy, which eventually brought about the Islamic revolution (the majority of Iranians didn't desire a theocracy; they just wanted an end to the Shah and his police-state). Iran wants to be a Western, Europe-oriented democracy, but Trump's ham-fisted geopolitics could easily put all that at risk. There is also great risk in totally decimating Iran's ability to defend itself. Israel isn't the only country with dreams of regional hegemony; Saudi Arabia has long sought to be not only the preeminent regional power but also the de facto leader of the Muslim world. They have been furthering this goal by exporting Wahhabist madrasas throughout the world, indoctrinating young Muslim men into that strict, archaic version of Sunni Islam (and, in the process, becoming the leading cause of global Islamic terrorism), and by involving them selves in a number of regional conflicts. An impotent Iran would be not only be a victory for Saudi dreams of regional dominance but would also rob Shia minorities throughout the region of their only defender, possibly leading to outbreaks of sectarian violence we can only imagine. A broken Iran isn't good for anyone (except Netanyahu, obviously).

     Trump also seems utterly blind to the broader geopolitical ramifications of this war. China, owners of the second-most powerful military on the planet, get the vast majority of their oil from three places; Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. Trump has completely severed China's access to Venezuelan oil, and is now determined to control the taps of the Iranian oil industry. The Chinese have been remarkably silent so far, but they have to be seething. As Trump blunders about on the world stage with lit matches it would be remarkable if he didn't eventually ignite a fire he can't contain. The entire world should have turned a cold shoulder to the U.S. and Israel over this debacle (huzzahs to Spain and Great Britain for refusing U.S. access to their military bases in order to perpetrate this outrage), but instead we saw a number of countries, including Canada, offer qualified support for the bombing campaign. I would offer a Neville Chamberlain award to the country that tries hardest to protect itself by appeasing a dictator, but there would be too many contenders. About the only positive I can see in this attack is that, perhaps, it gives the poor people of Cuba a short reprieve before they are next up in Trump's sights. For a President who promised no more foreign wars he is off to a hell of a start.

The Slippery Slope

Sept.20,2025 by N.Russell

     Anyone who reads these pages regularly may get the impression that I would embrace any methods the government may use to combat the ever-increasing deluge of toxic hate that seems to be swamping our society right now, such as the Combating Hate Act that as been introduced in Parliament. After all, it bans such fascist symbols as swastikas and Proud Boys flags. They would be wrong. This is a terrible bill, and it will be used to suppress valid means of protest. It may sound wonderful to say you are criminalizing the promotion of hate by banning "terror and hate symbols" but, as is always the case when you start down this road, the problem is always the same; who gets to decide what symbols convey "terror and hate"? We have seen a spate of these types of bills around the world lately, and they are already having ugly consequences. In Britain, the government, under pressure from pro-Israel groups, declared the group Palestinian Action a terrorist group and all visible support for it illegal, despite the fact that Palestinian Action has never committed an act of violence towards people (they have vandalized property, mainly related to defence industries who helping to perpetrate the slaughter in Gaza). There is no doubt that the same kind of pressure is being brought to bear in Ottawa. If this bill becomes law, the government will have the power to squash any protests they feel uncomfortable with by simply adding that group, and it's logo, to it's list of terror symbols. 

     This is a bad look in a democracy. Canada never enshrined the right to free speech into its constitution (something I've always felt was a mistake), but we have always recognized the right to protest. Living in the Ottawa area, I had to live through the "Trucker's Convoy" during the winter of 2022 and all the disruption and ugliness that entailed (how can a sign that says "Fuck Trudeau" not be considered a symbol of hate?), but I would have been horrified if the government had declared everyone there terrorists and rounded them up. To be honest, I don't think any symbols should be outlawed. If a group of idiots want to goose-step down the street waving swastikas, that's fine by me; then I know exactly who they are and what they represent. Take their pictures, post them online, be sure all their co-workers and family know who they are. You can't combat hate by driving it underground; then it festers and builds, and eventually explodes.

     At a time when free speech is under assault in the U.S.A. I am appalled that the Canadian government is trying to follow suit. Most M.P.s aren't seeing the potential abuse inherent in this Bill; they don't want to be the one who voted to allow people to wave swastikas, which is understandable. The problem is, this legislation is not only wrong, it is draconian. The way the law is constructed, the police could search your house and you could be arrested for having the wrong t-shirt. Make no mistake, however; this is aimed at those who continue to protest the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. It is not our job to see that the Netanyahu government is freed from being embarrassed by valid forms of protest. We can't label every new group formed to protest the genocide in Gaza guilty of "hate and terrorism", can we? Well, yes, if this bill becomes law, we can. If you really do think this legislation is just about fighting hate, just remember that, sooner or later, there will be a protest you do want to make, a cause that is important to you. Once this legislation is on the books it will be at the disposal of every future government. I was wrong to say "potential abuse" at the start of this paragraph; the abuse isn't potential, it is inevitable. We are on a slippery slope and I don't like what is at the bottom.

Fait Accompli

Sept. 5, 2025 by N. Russell

     First off, apologies again for taking so many months off; it wasn't by design, and I would have been writing if it was possible. Looking back, I see I did start a post after the combined Trump/Netanyahu assault on Iran, but perhaps it is just as well that post didn't see the light of day, judging by the emotional diatribe I had launched into. For those of you who were hoping for a continuation of my "Shadows of 1933" series, I'm sorry, that boat has sailed; there is no point issuing warnings about something that has already come to pass. Although I was desperately pointing out the probability of an imminent fascist, totalitarian takeover of the U.S. government, even I was shocked about how quickly it came to pass (thus the title of this post). History will look back on this and wonder how this could have unfolded with so little push-back or opposition, and well they should. The universities and colleges should have united and stood up to Trump's attacks on free speech and illegal withholding of funds; they did not. The law firms that were under attack by Trump could have created a united front and supported each other; instead they quietly acquiesced to Trumps demands. Congress should have woken up whilst Trump was usurping the powers that are solely the province of Congress, as mandated by the Constitution; now they have lost any credibility they may have had (which was low to begin with).

     All this falls under the domain of domestic politics, as is the assault on health care being headed by Robert Kennedy, and while I may marvel at the mess down there it is still their mess. Unfortunately, an autocratic government in charge of the worlds most powerful military is everyone's concern, as the world has to reckon with a situation no one, over the last 75 years, could have imagined. The complete lawlessness with which the Trump regime operates was really hammered home this week when Trump and Co. revelled in the murder of 11 Venezuelans by the U.S. navy. I use the word "murder" with absolute intent because that is what it was, whatever lame excuses Trump and Rubio may come up with. There was so much wrong with this action, besides the fact of extra-judicial executions. They claim these were Venezuelan gang members with a boatload of drugs; fine, then board them and prove it. Trump claimed that it was a boatload of cocaine on it's way to the U.S.A., but Rubio (obviously not realizing he was contradicting the Emperor) stated that the destination seemed to be the island of Trinidad which, for those of you without an atlas handy, is an island just off the coast of Venezuela (the sort of journey one could see someone attempting in an open motorboat). That means that the incident occurred in Venezuelan territorial waters (the U.S. ship that fired the missile may have been in international waters at the time, but the target most certainly was not); this is no different than if the U.S. had bombed targets within Venezuela itself. This is what the most powerful military in the world is being used for; the summary execution of Latin American civilians. 

     Trump and Rubio claim they have the right to such actions because they had the foresight to declare the Venezuelan gang in question (Tren de Aragua) a terrorist organization, using a law that George W. Bush created, in the aftermath of 9/11, to allow his administration to murder thousands across the Near East and Africa without ever having to provide justification. Such a law should never have existed in the first place, but at the very least it should have been annulled after victory in Iraq and the defeat of ISIS (I hope George W. sends Donald a Christmas card each year, as it is only because of the ascendancy of Trump that Bush isn't considered the worst U.S. President of the last 100 years). Even though that particular bit of legislation may exist, it was created to combat actual terrorists i.e. those plotting and/or carrying out attacks against the U.S. and it's allies; it was certainly never intended to be applied to street gangs carrying out drug smuggling. We have no idea if those individuals in that boat were gang members or if they were shipping drugs. We are supposed to trust this administrations intel gathering, after they have purged the intelligence services of anyone who dared put facts ahead of obeisance to Trump? Not a chance. They could have easily proved their intel was correct by stopping and boarding the boat (the normal way drug interdiction works), despite the fact they were in Venezuelan territorial waters. The fact that they didn't tells me all they were looking for was the sizzle; a video showing Trump blowing up a boatload of brown people, which his faithful lap right up. It shouldn't be a surprise; Trump has never really hidden the overt racism underlying much of his agenda. We've spent the last six months watching masked men abduct men, women and children (of a certain complexion, shall we say) off the street, even right out of courthouses, and we've witnessed the construction of concentration camps within the U.S.; should outright murder really surprise us?

     Trump has already taken the frightening step of placing armed-forces personnel on the streets of U.S. cities (that have Democratic mayors) with no valid reason (an armed insurrection, such as the one Trump used on Jan. 6, 2021 to try to overthrow the government, is the only valid reason to place the U.S. military on the streets of their own country); sooner or later one of those cities (possibly Chicago, or New Orleans) will explode, giving Trump an excuse to completely override local government. Yet Trump wants more than that; he needs a war. If he were to start a war, however lopsided it might be, he would have the excuse he needs to accelerate his assault on all those he sees as his enemies, especially the press. I'm sure Benjamin Netanyahu would prefer that war to be with Iran, but that is unlikely to happen (bomb them? Sure, but U.S. ground troops entering Iran would be a nightmare; the Iranians might fight back!). No, it seems pretty clear that it is Venezuela that is in Trump's cross-hairs. In launching such a "war" Trump would hardly be breaking new ground; while most U.S. involvement in Latin America over the last century has been covert, there has been overt military action as well. Who can forget U.S. armed forces heroically overcoming the armed might of the island of Grenada, or gunning down Panamanian civilians who made the mistake of going out into the streets to welcome the Americans they assumed were there just to free them from the Noriega dictatorship? Venezuela won't be welcoming U.S. invaders (the people may have had their fill of Maduro and his corruption, but they really don't the U.S.), but just means even more will die.

     Predicting a U.S. launched war isn't an exercise in crystal-ball gazing; Trump and Hesgeth pretty much telegraphed their intentions this past week when they re-christened the Department of Defence as the Department of War. Admittedly, the location of said war may change (Trump is notoriously mercurial, and his fixation can change as soon as the next bright, shiny object catches his attention), but Venezuela makes the most sense. Canadians are, understandably, nervous, especially after the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, made some ludicrous statements this past week concerning the avalanche of human smuggling apparently flowing across from Canada to the U.S., but that was more about providing excuses for maintaining punitive tariffs on Canadian goods than a prelude to invasion. That said, no one, anywhere, should let their guard down. In the 1930's a majority of Austrians cheered when the Nazi's took power in Germany, and felt secure in their close bonds with Germany; I'm not sure how many were cheering when the Nazis were marching down the streets of Vienna a few years later. Again, I will defend my daring to use the Nazi comparison when debating the Trump regime; anyone still labouring under the illusion that this is just U.S. politics as usual needs to wake up. I have described Trump as a toddler who is suddenly able to satisfy any whim that pops in to his underdeveloped brain; heaven help the world when he throws a temper-tantrum.

A Plea: Addendum

April 27, 2025 by N.Russell

There was one glaring omission from yesterday’s post, concerning the unsuitability of Pierre Polievre for public office, that needs addressing. During his entire time as Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons Mr. Polievre has refused to get a security clearance that would enable him to get briefings from Canada’s intelligence services. This is unheard of; leaders of the opposition have always obtained such clearances. They are a necessary part of doing the job. One of the most important aspects of being entitled to security briefings is that they make the leader aware of any foreign interference being directed at his MPs, and this, many suspect, is one of the main reasons Mr. Polievre has refused his security clearance. Ignorance is bliss, the old saying goes; if Mr. Polievre were to receive a briefing alerting him to an obvious examples of apparent foreign interference with any of his MPs, he would be expected to act, and he certainly couldn’t risk continuing to claim ignorance, as the Liberal government, privy to the same information, could call him out. Why wouldn’t Polievre want to know if there is foreign meddling either during an election or even after an MP is elected? Because, in most instances, that meddling has been beneficial to his party or furthers Mr. Polievre’s agenda. The same Russian meddling that helped get Donald Trump elected (twice) is certainly at play in Canada, and we know that the Chinese government has been very active trying to subvert Canadian democracy. We also have to admit, though it is now clearly obvious, that foreign meddling and subversion also comes from our closest neighbour to the south, and, as stated in my post yesterday, Mr. Polievre has a long history with the U.S. Republican Party; how much funding from the U.S. has found it’s way into certain campaign finances in this country? The fact that both the press and Mark Carney’s campaign team haven’t made this a bigger issue puzzles me; Mr. Polievre needs to be called out on his refusal of a security clearance. His defence – that he prefers to get his information from sources he can trust, not those controlled by the government – is both risible and an insult to everyone who works in Canada’s security services, who operate at arms length from the government and operate apolitically. In the end, the reality is that Mr. Polievre wants to be able to continue to do what he always has done; say anything he wants without being handcuffed by the facts. His continued refusal to attain a security clearance is just another reason why this man should never be allowed to sit in the Prime Minister’s office.

A Plea

April 26, 2025 by N.Russell

     Canada goes to the polls on Monday in what is possibly the most consequential election in a generation. A month ago the Liberals seemed to have done the impossible, and were leading all polls, but now, due to truly inexplicable campaign choices by the Liberals, we are once again in close to a dead heat. There is no question that the electorate is, by and large, fed-up with the Liberal Party, and understandably so. I like to compare the Canadian Federal Liberal Party to the U.S. Democratic Party; they are both led by inner circles who are arrogant, dictatorial, and completely out of touch with the average voter. Because of this voters tend to swing towards populists who don't have their best interests in mind. I, too, am fed up with Liberal arrogance, yet I am now going to make what is, for me, a difficult plea; it is time to swallow your disgust and vote Liberal. There is only one reason I would make such a plea; Pierre Polievre must never be allowed to hold the reins of power.

     I have followed Mr. Polievre's career almost from it's beginning; in fact, for quite a number of years, whilst I lived in Nepean, Ontario, he was my MP. I have found Mr. Polievre to be a man totally devoid of scruples and a master of mendacity. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognized these attributes in Mr. Polievre early on and made him his attack dog; when it was time to send a spokesperson out to do the media interviews and attempt to defend the indefensible, Mr. Polievre was Harper's guy. Harper realized back then that Polievre would say anything, however untrue, to advance his agenda. Since Mr. Polievre gained the leadership of the Conservative Party those traits of only become more pronounced. Of even worse concern, however, is his wholehearted embrace of fringe politics. Since his election as leader of the Conservative Party he has drifted further and further towards MAGA politics, in the belief that what worked for Donald Trump and the U.S. Republican Party (with which he has deep ties going back to his time with Stephen Harper) would work for him. Some of the causes he has chosen to identify with - western (Alberta and Saskatchewan) alienation, the widening urban/rural divide, for example - are valid issues, but rather than offer solutions, Mr. Polievre chooses to stoke the anger and fan the flames of division. Many of his MP's have espoused views that would alarm most Canadians, but Mr. Polievre chooses not to discipline them or even make a statement that their views do not represent his own. 

     While Mr. Polievre may represent an Ontario riding, he is very much an Alberta politician. He was schooled in the dogma of the old Reform Party and still holds to their ways. He has the enthusiastic support of the big oil/gas companies, who even developed the Conservative's climate-change initiative (the "carbon capture and storage" plan trumpeted by the Conservatives is simply a method the oil companies developed a while ago to help increase productivity in fields with slowing output; capture carbon dioxide and pump it in to the field to force more oil or gas out the other end, ultimately increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The only difference with the Conservatives plan is that instead of the oil companies bearing the cost, a Conservative government will have the federal government pick up the tab). There is nothing wrong with choosing to support western Canadian causes. What is wrong is choosing to embrace the worst of populist, undemocratic causes. When Ezra Levant starting toying with the idea of a convoy from Alberta to Ottawa in support of Alberta separatism, the Covid pandemic hadn't even started. Suddenly, when it was upon us, he, and his good buddy Pierre, saw a chance to tie discontent towards mask-mandates, vaccines, and work shutdowns into their protest. Never mind that the majority of Canadians supported the governments Covid response; Mr. Polievre was there to welcome the convoy and bask in their adulation.

     Now, of course, he has spent the last month backpedalling from everything he has been trumpeting for the last five years. No more talk of woke liberalism; now it's commercials of him standing, silhouetted against the sky, in front of a Canadian vista, our dear leader in waiting. Why the Liberals have chosen to take the high road lately is beyond me, and is in some ways a disservice to all voters. We need to be reminded of just who Pierre Polievre is; a man who went all in on bringing the MAGA movement to Canada, firmly believing he could ride a wave of populism to the power he apparently craves so desperately. Now that Donald Trump is showing Canadians just how dangerous that level of craziness is, Mr. Polievre is trying to pull it all back and convince us that was never who he was. Don't let him get away with it. To all you out there - you "red" Tories who have always voted Conservative, or you voters who are just sick of the Liberals - I offer two consolations. First, Mr. Carney is a "blue' Liberal, someone who will provide stable economic governance, if nothing else. There will be another election in four years, which is where my second consolation comes in. A Conservative defeat, after leading every poll by double-digits back in January, would hopefully spell the end for Mr. Polievre. The Conservatives would then be forced to correct their slide towards extreme right-wing populism and re-embrace the centre, where most Canadians reside. Strategic voting is required; if there is any chance that the Conservative candidate in your riding can be defeated, you owe it to yourself, and the country, to vote for the candidate with the best chance of doing so, even if, like me, it means rewarding the Liberals yet again. The costs of our failure - a "Northern Trump" - are just too high.

Post Script:

     A pro-Polievre ad has recently appeared, featuring former Prime Minister, and Mr. Polievre's former boss, Stephen Harper. In that ad Mr. Harper waxes on about how his sound economic stewardship saw us through the 2008 financial crisis. This is revisionist history at it's worst. The truth is that, in the months leading up to the crisis, the Conservatives were trying to table legislation that would have deregulated Canadian banks, including allowing the very types of subprime mortgages that caused the collapse of so many financial institutions in the U.S. Fortunately for Canada, the economic crisis broke before that legislation could be passed, and it was quietly withdrawn. Sound economic stewardship - spare me.