USA

Wednesday February 6, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday February 6, 2019

Knuckling under pressure to the U.S. won’t win battle of steel tariffs

What was Ontario’s economic development and trade minister thinking when he publicly called on Canada to surrender in the trade war with the United States?

March 3, 2018

On Monday Todd Smith said Canada should remove tariffs put in place in response to Donald Trump’s imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on steel imports and 10 per cent on aluminum. Canada’s tariffs match those dollar for dollar, and are used in part to support companies and workers in the affected sectors.

Further, Smith said his boss, Doug Ford, wanted the same thing. “I know that the premier has suggested this to the federal government that they should remove their tariffs as a first step in removing tariffs overall.” As far as we know Ford hasn’t spoken on the matter, but if that’s how he feels, he should go public.

June 15, 2018

Why on earth would anyone, Ford or his minister, believe that Donald Trump would respect capitulation? Has Trump shown in past behaviour that he respects weakness? We must have missed that newscast.

Smith’s suggestion is so patently ridiculous it took only hours for steel and aluminum companies to pipe in with their support for Ottawa. A tweet from the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said: “The federal government’s retaliatory action against the U.S.A. is vital in protecting businesses and steelworkers.” The Aluminum Association of Canada said the Trudeau government should “maintain all tariffs on U.S. imports and support Canadian businesses as long as U.S. tariffs are in place.”

June 28, 2018

Analysts and pundits from all quarters were equally mystified and distraught. Why would the Ford government side with Trump against Canada? More than one suggested it might be linked to Ford’s oft-expressed respect and affection for Trump’s leadership. But suggesting Canada should surrender?

It turns out, if you believe the updated position of the province, that wasn’t behind Smith’s play. He really meant to say we should revisit tariffs on things other than steel and aluminum, like Kentucky bourbon and playing cards. That, he says, will demonstrate to Trump that Canada is willing to deal. This new position — if it can be called that — isn’t nearly as damaging, but it’s equally stupid. Do Smith and his boss really think Trump will come to the table based on bourbon and playing cards?

June 6, 2018

He won’t. He thinks his tariffs, broadly, have been a huge success and a sign of his historic greatness. Yes, they’re hurting Americans as they’re hurting Canadians, but Trump isn’t one to worry about his own citizens welfare. In his view, measures like these are signs of strength and dominance.

Tariffs are a real and growing problem for steel and aluminum companies. High steel prices have cushioned steel producers to some extent, but the impact of tariffs is already being felt in Sault St. Marie, and will eventually hit Hamilton as well.

Canada continues to work trade and diplomatic channels to see tariffs lifted. Some have suggested the prime minister shouldn’t give final approval to the new NAFTA agreement without resolution, and that might be worth considering. Trump sees NAFTA as a major accomplishment, and the fact that it might be stymied due to his nonsensical tariffs will trouble him. His own Congress has said it won’t support the new trade pact until tariffs have been lifted, and that might be worth Ottawa’s consideration, too. Much more work remains to be done.

But please, no more suggestions that Canada take a knee to the biggest bully in the free world. That’s embarrassing, and would only make dealing with Trump more difficult. The Trudeau government has walked a fine line to date between working with Trump and not being pushed around. That should continue to be its strategy. (Source: Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Saturday February 2, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 2, 2019

No victory for U.S. as it leaves Afghanistan

The long and pointless Afghan War may finally be coming to an end. If so, this will be a relief for the U.S. and its coalition allies operating there. It certainly won’t be a victory.

June 21, 2013

The broad strokes of a deal in principle between the United States and Taliban insurgents were released this week. They are not likely to bring much solace to the families of soldiers — including Canadians — who fought and died in the 17-year-old conflict.

There is no mention of ensuring that girls can go to school, which at one point was given by Canada’s government as the rationale for this war.

There is no mention of defeating the “scumbags” as Canada’s then top general Rick Hillier described the Taliban. Indeed, it seems likely that the Taliban will be guaranteed a major political role in the country.

There is no mention of bringing democracy and development to Afghanistan — another of the Canadian government’s ostensible reasons for the war.

 

March 11, 2009

The essence of the deal, as described to the New York Times by chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad, is simple and familiar.

The Taliban will ensure that terrorists don’t use Afghanistan as a base to attack the West. The Americans, along with the 38 allied nations still operating there, will withdraw their troops.

Ironically, the agreement in principle bears a marked resemblance to the offer that Afghanistan’s then Taliban government made to the U.S. in 2001 after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Don’t invade, the Taliban said then. And in return we will expel terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to a third country. (Continued: Toronto Star) 

 

Thursday January 31, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday January 31, 2019

Trump is the most polarizing president on record — and almost nobody’s opinion of him is changing

Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones put things succinctly.

November 3, 2018

“Extreme partisan views of presidents are the new norm in politics,” he wrote in presenting new data on the partisan gulf in approval of President Trump. “The past 15 presidential years account for 14 of the top 15 most polarized years since Gallup began regularly measuring both job approval and party identification in the 1950s.”

The exception? 1996, when President Bill Clinton had an approval rating of 85 percent from Democrats and 24 percent from Republicans. To which the natural reaction is: His approval rating among Republicans was that high?

Since 2010, the average presidential approval rating from an opposing party in a year hasn’t topped 13 percent — and that was in 2010, when President Barack Obama’s approval rating was still slipping from his post-inauguration high.

The gap now is 79 points, 21 points shy of the maximum possible gap.

Who knows. Maybe we’ll get there.

But there’s another interesting aspect to Trump’s approval ratings that is worth isolating. The gap in 2017, according to Gallup, was only slightly narrower. Unlike Obama, Trump didn’t enjoy a period of broader support at the time of his inauguration. Views of Trump have been remarkably consistent by party since he took office.

There’s some movement, but not a lot. Data released Tuesday by Quinnipiac University make that clear. In Quinnipiac’s first poll of Trump’s favorability, taken less than a week after his inauguration, about a fifth of Americans had no opinion of his job performance. In the next poll, taken in early February 2017, 42 percent approved of his performance (including 88 percent of Republicans), and 51 percent disapproved (including 90 percent of Democrats). In Tuesday’s poll? Forty-one percent approve (including 86 percent of Republicans), and 55 percent disapprove (including 93 percent of Democrats).

Polar Vortex Animated Version!

What’s more, we’d normally expect some movement within those groups, as people who strongly supported the president became less enthusiastic or those who opposed him a bit grew more fervent. But while there are some isolated examples of shifts within each group in Quinnipiac’s polling, how strongly people view Trump has been steady over the course of the presidency. (Washington Post) 

 

Tuesday January 22, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday January 22, 2019

Indigenous veteran mocked by students in video says he tried to ease tensions at National Mall

Students at a Kentucky Catholic school who were involved in a video showing them mocking Indigenous people outside the Lincoln Memorial after a Washington rally could potentially face expulsion, according to the diocese.

June 6, 2018

In a joint statement, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School apologized and said they are investigating and will take “appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.”

The Indigenous Peoples March in Washington on Friday coincided with the March for Life, which drew thousands of anti-abortion protesters, including a group from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky.

Videos circulating online show a youth staring at and standing extremely close to Nathan Phillips, a 64-year-old Indigenous veteran singing and playing a drum. Other students, some wearing Covington clothing and many wearing “Make America Great Again” hats and sweat shirts, surrounded them, chanting, laughing and jeering.

November 3, 2017

“We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips,” the diocese statement read. “This behaviour is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person.”

According to the “Indian Country Today” website, Phillips is an Omaha elder and Vietnam veteran who holds an annual ceremony honouring Indigenous veterans at Arlington National Cemetery.

Marcus Frejo, a member of the Pawnee and Seminole tribes who is also known as Chief Quese Imc, said he had been a part of the march and was among a small group of people remaining after the rally when the boisterous students began chanting slogans such as “make America great” and then began doing the haka, a traditional Maori dance. In a phone interview, Frejo told The Associated Press he felt they were mocking the dance.

April 20, 2018

One 11-minute video of the confrontation shows the Haka dance and students loudly chanting before Phillips and Frejo approached them.

Frejo said he joined Phillips to defuse the situation, singing the anthem from the American Indian Movement with both men beating out the tempo on hand drums.

Although he feared a mob mentality that could turn ugly, Frejo said he was at peace singing despite the scorn. He briefly felt something special happen as they repeatedly sang the tune.

“They went from mocking us and laughing at us to singing with us. I heard it three times,” Frejo said. “That spirit moved through us, that drum, and it slowly started to move through some of those youths.” (Source: Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Wednesday January 9, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 9, 2019

Trump doubles down on push for border wall in televised address

U.S. President Donald Trump blamed unauthorized immigrants for killing Americans, taking their jobs and flooding his country with drugs as he doubled down on demands that Congress hand over US$5.7-billion for a wall on the border with Mexico in a nationally televised address.

In a 10-minute Oval Office speech, Mr. Trump tried to rally his base and hold his Republican Party together amid a government shutdown he triggered over congressional refusal to fund the wall.

August 29, 2013

“Some have suggested a barrier is immoral,” Mr. Trump said. “The only thing that is immoral is for the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.”

Democratic leaders on Tuesday rejected the President’s demands, and accused him of unfairly targeting asylum-seekers.

“The women and children at the border are not a security threat,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a televised rebuttal, as she accused Mr. Trump of “manufacturing a crisis.” Added Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: “The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a 30-foot wall.”

In his speech, the President described several murders committed by immigrants, lamented the quantities of heroin arriving from Mexico and claimed that “all Americans are hurt” by migrants coming to work in the U.S.

In fact, a study by the libertarian Cato Institute last year found that crime rates among immigrants in Texas – both legal and unauthorized – were lower than those among native-born Americans. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency found that 90 per cent of smuggled heroin went through designated ports of entry such as border crossings, and air or seaports, which means it would not be stopped by a wall.

The President also repeated an assertion that the wall will be paid for by Mexico through the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The trade pact contains no provision for Mexico to pay for the wall.

Mr. Trump, however, stopped short of declaring a state of emergency that would give him the power to divert money from the military to build the wall. Such a move would likely be met with a court challenge. (Source: Globe & Mail)