Canadian Consumers Win With Superbowl Commercials

The bigwigs at Bell Media are whining like babies because for the first time, Canadians were allowed to see the always highly-anticipated American Superbowl commercials. For once, the CRTC listened to Canadian consumers instead of this country's corporate fat cats and Can-con lobby. Canadian consumers have said loud and clear for years that they wanted to see the Superbowl commercials and not have to watch the crappy, boring Canadian ads. So let Bell whine and complain all they want. This time, Canadian consumers have won the day!

No New Canada Under Justin Trudeau

I hate to say I told you so. Prime Minister Selfie just confirmed it today. He will not change Canada's unfair and undemocratic electoral system. The Toronto Star, from which this article comes, proudly proclaimed, "It's a New Canada," on their front page after Justin Trudeau and the Liberals won the last federal election with less than 40% of the vote. After all, the Star led the cheerleading section for Trudeau the younger along with the CBC during the 2015 election campaign. What a bunch of crap!

This latest flip-flop by the former drama teacher turned prime minister proves once and for all that there is no new Canada, nor will there ever be a new Canada under Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. There will just be the same old Canada that there is every time the Liberals are in power. Once again, the Liberals have fooled Canadians into believing that they are true harbingers of change, when in fact all they do once they get into power is bring back the same old policies that the Tories get rid of every time they're in power.

Now I already hear the folks who support our fraud of a prime minister saying something like, "Would you rather live down south where President Trump rules the roost?" Isn't it interesting how the first thing supporters of the status quo will tell you is that it's worse somewhere else. You know why? Because they don't want you to believe that there can be something or someone better. But I say that surely we the Canadian people can find a leader that has more substance than just a famous name and policy ideas he stole from someone else's playbook. I sincerely hope we find that leader before the next election comes around. 

With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?

Barack Obama will soon end his term as U.S. President, but not before delivering another slap in the face to Israel. If you follow the news, you know what I'm talking about. Obama allowed a U.N. resolution condemning Israel's "settlement" building in the so-called "occupied territories" by not exercising the U.S. veto at the Security Council. It was Obama's way of saying that his administration would abandon its greatest ally in the Middle East and not put a stop to a clearly antisemitic declaration telling Jews that living in their ancestral homeland is a war crime. 

I knew there was no way that Obama would end his presidency without taking a parting shot at Israel and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the U.S. president's obvious antithesis. Bibi is of course a leader who believes in standing up to terrorists and power-hungry, genocidal dictators, whereas Obama believes in appeasing them and trying to reason with them. Indeed, even members of Israel's left wing are not as naive as the outgoing U.S. president. Obama has kept taking shots at Israel, not necessarily because he hates the state and hates the Jewish people, but because Israel and its current prime minister in particular have refused to bend to his naive worldview.

Actually, Obama isn't just naive. He's also ignorant. He doesn't know his history. If he did, he'd know that trying to trade land for peace, as he has encouraged Israel to do, is a bad bargain and always has been. Israel has tried multiple times to give up land in the hopes of achieving peace, only to be attacked again and again and again. Israel withdrew from large Palestinian towns and cities, only to see them turned into safe havens from which terrorists could launch suicide bombings and other attacks to kill and maim Israeli citizens. Israel left southern Lebanon, only to be attacked again by the Islamist terrorist group, Hezbollah. Israel vacated the Gaza Strip, and in a matter of days, terrorists turned once thriving Jewish towns into sites from which to launch rockets at Israeli civilians. 

"Oh, but what about Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula," Obama might ask. Well Mr. President, the first time Israel withdrew from Sinai and the Gaza Strip after the 1956 Suez Conflict, it was under threat of annihilation from Egypt and several other Arab states just a decade later. So Israel took preemptive action to defend itself in the 1967 war and again took control of Sinai and Gaza. Egypt eventually agreed to a peace agreement with Israel in 1979, in exchange for the return of Sinai. But fast forward a few decades and Israel is still regarded by most Egyptians as an enemy state. In fact, anyone in Egypt who appears to support normalization of relations with Israel is swiftly condemned, even within the country's political leadership, despite the existence of a peace treaty for over three decades. In addition, the Sinai has most recently become a base from which Islamist terrorists like Hamas and the Islamic State attempt to infiltrate and attack Israel. So did Israel really get peace in exchange for leaving the Sinai? It doesn't appear that way, Mr. President, does it?  

If only Obama would study the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict before he attempts to impose solutions on us. Actually, he should first take a look at the history of his own country. If he did, he would find out about how Native Americans gave up much of their land in exchange for promises of peace with the expanding American empire. And look where it got them. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but I don't want my own people to share the same fate as those whose conquered lands now comprise the United States of America. 

   

Donald Trump Will be the Next U.S. President. God Help Us All.

Election Day in the U.S. this past Tuesday was shocking and appalling to say the least. After all was said and done, Donald Trump, a man who has openly called for banning Muslims from the U.S., who has made countless remarks demeaning women, visible minorities, disabled people and even war veterans, and who has bragged about sexually assaulting and harassing women will be the next President of the United States, the most powerful nation-state on Earth. I see dark times ahead; very dark times indeed.

The fallout from Trump's election has already begun. In fact, even before the official result of the election was announced, Canada's Ministry of Immigration website crashed after being overwhelmed with Americans looking for information on how to immigrate to their good neighbour to the north. The day after the election became a day of hate as bigots across the country became emboldened by the election of a man that seems to think just like them (see: Day 1 in Trump's America). Protests against Trump's election have taken place all over the U.S. and some of them have turned violent. All this has happened in the span of just a few days and Trump hasn't even set foot in the Oval Office yet! Imagine what will happen when he does. I can imagine what's coming and it's not a pretty picture.

Within the first year of his presidency, mass deportations of suspected illegal immigrants will begin and will not end until millions are kicked out of U.S. territory. Trump will show no mercy to those who have come to America seeking better lives for themselves and their children, for in his mind these people are all criminals. And unfortunately they won't be the only ones forced to leave as a result of Trump's policies. Their misery will be echoed overseas by multitudes of Ukrainians and perhaps others in eastern Europe as Putin's Russia celebrates the beginning of the Trump administration by seizing more territory.  Meanwhile in the rest of Europe, the rise of anti-immigrant, pro-fascist politics will be getting a big boost. There will undoubtedly be a lot more bigots and xenophobes filling the seats of Europe's governments and legislatures.

Trump's foreign policy will make much of the world a lot more vulnerable to attacks by power-hungry dictatorships, like Russia, China and Iran. Trump's unwillingness to protect America's allies if they don't pay what he thinks they should will inevitably mean an exodus of U.S. military forces from key strategic areas. In the far east, Trump will pull U.S. forces out of South Korea and Japan, leaving the two countries and the whole region vulnerable to attack by an increasingly aggressive China. Trump will also pull American forces stationed in Europe out at the same time Putin grabs more territory on the continent. In the Middle East, as if the situation in Syria isn't bad enough in light of current U.S. President Barack Obama's ineptitude, it will become worse once Trump takes office. He'll do even less than Obama has done and leave the Syrians to suffer and die under constant bombardment by the forces of the country's dictator, Bashar Al-Assad and his Russian allies. As for the rest of the Middle East, Trump will likely sit on the sidelines as failed states like Iraq and Yemen descend further into chaos. After all, he doesn't really see the region as a worthwhile investment (see: Foreign Ministry: 'Trump doesn't see the Middle East as a "wise investment"').

All this I see happening in just the first half of Trump's presidency. And if you think it's bad, it will only get worse; catastrophically worse. As I've said in previous posts, I believe that Donald Trump will put the world on the fast track to World War III. The reason for this is because although Trump will preside over very isolationist foreign and military policies, growing Russian, Chinese and Iranian aggression will eventually force his hand. And once his ego collides with leaders like Vladimir Putin, God help us all! 

My Advice for Americans as They Vote for a New President: Hold Your Noses and Vote for Hillary

I really don't envy American voters right now, because tomorrow when they vote for a new president, they have to choose between a serial liar and a megalomaniac who has proven himself to be a bigot, a chauvinist and a sexual predator. I've only been around for less than forty years and I've only been politically aware since my early teens, but I must say that this year's U.S. Presidential campaign has been the absolute worst I have ever seen. Not only do Americans have a horrible choice to make, but the campaign has polarized the country so badly that I don't know if the United States can truly be united again.

It's a sharp contrast from eight years ago, when a youthful, charismatic politician named Barack Obama managed to unite Americans of every background in order to get himself elected president. If you've read some of my previous posts, you know that I am not a fan of Obama, but I have to respect a man who has been able to unite so many people and give them hope, because that's a hard thing to do for any would-be leader. In contrast, all Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have managed to do is divide the country. This has been a campaign filled with hatred. Each candidate's supporters have no respect for each other, although I'm not surprised since the two candidates have no respect for one another either.

In my opinion, neither Clinton nor Trump make an ideal candidate for the so-called leader of the free world. So what should U.S. voters do when the go to the polls tomorrow? Well, they should probably do what most voters do when faced with a choice they don't like; vote for the lesser of evils. And in the case of tomorrow's election, I believe that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of evils between herself and Donald Trump. Yes, she may spin more lies than you can count, but at least she's rational and not the kind of loose cannon that Trump is. Indeed, in a post last February, when both Clinton and Trump were still fighting for their respective parties' nominations, I warned that if Trump is elected the next U.S. President, he may set the world on a fast track to World War III (see: What If Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders Becomes the Next President: A Grim Future Awaits the World Either Way), not to mention what he would do to the U.S. itself, where he has already empowered bigots and fascists all over the country. So if Americans want to avoid an epic disaster for the next four years, my best advice for them is to elect Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States. She's far from perfect, but I don't think her leadership will lead the U.S. to disaster the way Trump's would.

Prime Minister Netanyahu: Do the Right Thing and Give Non-Orthodox Jews Their Rights at the Kotel

Anyone who has taken the time to read my posts on Israel should know that I am a big admirer of our current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  I agree with him on most things and always trust him to protect our country from all who threaten it.  But I'm afraid I have to profoundly disagree with the way he has dealt with non-Orthodox Jewish movements in the country.  In a recent Facebook post, he scorned members of the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements for marching with Torah scrolls at the Western Wall. They were protesting the Prime Minister's refusal to give them a place at Judaism's holiest site where they can pray as they choose, without the restrictions imposed by the country's Orthodox Jewish monopoly (see: Violent outbreaks at the Kotel between orthodox and liberals).  Prime Minister Netanyahu's Facebook post said, "The unilateral violation of the status quo at the Western Wall this morning undermines our ongoing efforts to reach a compromise."

I don't know what ongoing efforts Bibi is referring to, because ever since the religious parties in his coalition threatened to bring down the government over the proposal to create a non-segregated space at the Kotel for non-Orthodox Jews to pray in, he has sat on his hands and done nothing. Instead, he has allowed the religious establishment to blackmail him just as they have blackmailed other prime ministers throughout Israel's history. This isn't the Bibi I know, because the Bibi I know does whatever he feels is necessary to protect the country. He has no problem standing up to U.S. President Barack Obama or any other world leader when it comes to Israel's interests. He does what he believes is best for the country, and if the international community doesn't like it, well, too bad. Yet the Israeli Prime Minister who has no fear in confronting the whole international community to defend Israel's interests is also the same Prime Minister who won't stand up to a few overzealous religious leaders who fear losing their power to control how Judaism is practiced in the country. How does this make sense? Yes, I understand that Bibi risks losing his coalition government if he stands up to the religious bullies that don't want any sort of compromise that would allow non-Orthodox Jews to worship at the Kotel as they please. But I don't think this should scare him, because he still has the courage to stand up to Obama, even though the Neville Chamberlain-esque president's administration has tried to unseat him as Israel's leader (see: US-funded resources used in 2015 campaign to unseat Netanyahu).

Besides, even if the religious members of the coalition carried out their threat to leave the government and possibly trigger new elections, Bibi would have the opportunity to prove himself as the person who can stand up to the tyranny of Israel's Orthodox establishment, just as he has proved himself as the leader best suited to stand up to Israel's enemies. I believe that our prime minister wants to do the right thing and allow non-Orthodox Jews to worship at the Western Wall as they see fit. He just has to find the courage to do it - the same courage he uses to defend Israel on the world stage.  

Update: November 3, 2016 - Our brothers in the religious Zionist movement support the right of non-Orthodox denominations to their own space at the Kotel: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4874299,00.html

Iraq: One Mistake After Another

Yesterday, I read an article written by Toronto Sun columnist, Farzana Hassan, in which she warns of sectarian violence breaking out as Coalition forces gain ground against the so-called Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq (see: Sectarian violence will be an issue post-ISIL). She's right of course. In fact, she's just one of many people, including myself, who have been warning the world's leaders about sectarian conflict in Iraq for years. It's too bad the world's leaders haven't been listening. Indeed, the Pandora's box of ethnic and religious conflict in Iraq was opened when some of those leaders, notably President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, decided to invade the country and remove its dictator, Saddam Hussein, from power. Now of course, removing a ruthless dictator from power is never a bad thing. What is bad, however, is not having a sensible plan to deal with the aftermath. Saddam Hussein and his despotic regime was the only thing keeping Iraq together. But once his dictatorship was removed, all hell broke loose and none of our leaders in the Western world knew what to do.

The invasion of Iraq was just the first mistake. The second mistake was believing that once the people of Iraq were given the chance, they would create a vibrant, Western-style democracy. This was a very stupid assumption. It would be as if, after defeating and overthrowing the Nazi regime in Germany, the Allies decided that they would leave the country to its own devices after a year or two and assume that its people would create a modern, democratic state. Thankfully, that's not what happened. The Allied occupation of Germany lasted until the early 1950s, almost a decade after the end of World War II. During that time, the Allies set about transforming Germany into a Western-style democracy. Even after the Allied occupation formally ended, Western military forces remained in the country to oversee the German people's democratic transition. I remember a former professor of mine, who lived in Germany during the post-war years, telling me that as late as the 1970s, they were still being force-fed messages about the values of democracy. To make a long story short, building a modern, democratic state takes time. It's not something that happens overnight, or in just one to two years. So the presumption that once left to their own devices, the Iraqis would create a genuine democracy, was extremely short sighted.

Another crucial mistake that leaders like George W. Bush and Tony Blair made was keeping Iraq together in the first place. Two years ago, I wrote a blog post arguing for the partition of the country (see: Iraq: A Country Never Meant to be Falls Apart). I still stand by this argument today. As I said in my post two years ago, the country was never an exercise of self-determination for the people therein. It was an artificial construct of the former colonial powers, Britain and France. Several very distinct groups of people, most notably Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds, were forcibly incorporated into a state designed by Western imperialists, not to mention a significant number of Christians that trace their ancestry to well before the Muslim Arab conquest of the region. The creation of what we now call Iraq was not only unjust, but was the catalyst for future conflicts.

When U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, they had the opportunity to right a historic wrong by dismantling the Iraqi state and allowing its different ethnic and religious groups to govern themselves independently of each other. But instead, they opted to keep the colonial-era construct together, leading to the kind of sectarian conflict that people like myself and Toronto Sun columnist, Farzana Hassan, have been warning about. What the U.S. and its allies should have done after invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was to divide the country into separate states, just like the victorious Allied forces did to the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI, when they gave each of the peoples of that former imperial realm the right to form their own independent nation-states. They could then have proceeded to transform these new states into democratic countries, just as the Allies did in Germany after WWII. But alas, it's too late for any of this to happen. And although Iraq may still break up into different states (in a way, it already has when you look at the facts on the ground), there likely won't be any transition towards true democracy, but rather the emergence of new local despots - something a region as undemocratic and bereft of freedom as the Middle East hardly needs.