Honey I Love you But... part 2

I've received some interesting, thoughtful and helpful responses to my previous post about 'working on your relationship' that I think merit further elucidation and clarification. 

1. The post attempts to shift the frame of reference - to think about relationships, especially intimate ones, in a manner that suggests a different way of understanding and approaching them. I'm not providing any advice, or tips, or rules, because every relationship is completely different, as different as the two individuals involved, and that's fundamental. No two relationships are exactly the same. What works for some will not work for others. I think the better approach is to give people a framework for thinking about their relationship, and let them decide what they need to do to get to a better place, however they define better. One size does not fit all. But what I am arguing is that thinking about your relationship as something that needs tending, as if it's an independent entity, a baby that needs feeding, is fundamentally unhelpful. It suggests that you know what's best for the relationship and the other party does not. That's false. No one knows what is best for a relationship, they only know what is best for them, or rather what they want.    

2. On dissing therapists and therapy: I think therapy is great. I've consulted therapists in the past, both marriage and personal. There is value in therapy, namely exactly what I'm talking about, to change your personal frame of reference. Good therapists provide their clients with new perspectives so they can reconsider their approach and behaviour, and make changes if they wish to. It's all about taking personal responsibility. Therapy is about giving clients options and alternatives to what is not working for them. And again, it respects the bedrock principle that change begins and ends with one person - you.

3. Communication: What therapy is most helpful for is learning the skills of communication. How to express yourself so your partner has a chance to hear what you are saying, and equally important, how to listen so your partner has a chance to expresss him/herself. This is definitely 'relational' meaning it's a dynamic that takes place in the context of a relationship. But I'd argue it's an individual skill, so it fits squarely in the paradigm of taking individual responsibility and self-improvement ie. growing your circle. Good communication skills are transferable and extremely useful in every facet of life. I'd say it's perhaps the essence of relationship therapy, so why not call it 'Communication Therapy' instead.     

4. Getting to 'Yes': Obviously I think relationships can improve - otherwise why bother writing my post -  but the main point is that they change not because you are trying to change them, but rather because you are changing yourself. Tug-of-war relationships are difficult and exhausting, and I argue ultimately likely to fail, because one person is always trying to change the other person, by pulling them over to their side. This does not mean that you can't express your needs and desires to your partner. On the contrary, you must express your needs and desires. But you should not expect your partner to satisfy those desires. You should not be saying I need you to do X or Y (because it's best for the relationship). The expression should always focus on how you feel - I like going for walks and would love for you to join me. If the answer is no, you may feel disappointed, which is normal, but that disappointment is your problem, not your partner's. In this instance, you expressed an honest desire, and they gave an honest answer. The honesty is what is important. No one should be doing anything for the relationship. They should only be doing it for themselves. And sometimes that means doing things you don't necessarily want to do initially, but you will see the value in doing it anyway, and find a way of getting to yes, because you value and care for your partner. Getting to yes means you genuinely and sincerely want to do it, without reservation, for your own reasons. You take full responsibility for your decision. Feeling that you have been forced or pressured into doing something always leads to resentments. Getting to yes, is an internal individual process. In my experience, generosity and opennness comes much more naturally with individuals who are personally content and fulfilled, and so getting to yes is easy. Being resistant to the needs and desires of your partner usually indicates that you are unhappy and signals a need to work on your personal growth.

5. Why bother? If relationships are fundamentally all about individual growth ie. learning how to be honest and true to yourself, why bother with relationships? Why not just go to individual therapy, or spend time in an ashram or ascetic temple where you can meditate in silence all day long? I think there's a place for that. But we are social creatures, we're not made to be alone. And one of the best ways to grow as an individual is precisely in the context of a relationship. You can learn things about yourself in a relationship that you cannot learn on your own. One thing, as mentioned, is communication skills. But more importantly you can only learn about love, trust, generosity, empathy, understanding and so much more that enriches the individual's experience of life in the context of a relationship. Relationships can be individually challenging and present opportunities for growth that are unique, and the deeper the relationship, the more there is to learn. In other words, there are some ways that your circle can grow only in a relationship.  

6. Some relationships don't work, there are no guarantees. This will happen in two possible ways, according to the Venn Diagram. If the nature of the relationship has a tug-of-war dynamic, one or both parties will simply decide to let go of their side of the rope, essentially they will give up. Chances are this comes about from exhaustion, disappointment, resentment, frustration and anger ie. negative feelings ending in recrimination and blame. Imagine a tug-of-war ending when a rope full of tension is suddenly let go. The other type of relationship, the one based on personal growth, is much stronger and more flexible, and has a much better chance of long term success. But sometimes those too can fail. In this case the parties drift apart because they decide their personal growth is better served outside the relationship than within it. Imagine two growing bubbles floating apart. The separation is mutual and has none of the negativity of the tug-of-war. It is an ending based on respect, in which the parties accept that there is no sense trying to hold on to a relationship where one or both parties are unfulfilled and unsatisfied, and the relationship has run its course and needs to end for the sake of personal growth. 

The Rent Collector Audio Book

Dear Friends,

I am happy to say that for the first time, and just in time for the 20th anniversary of its original  publication in 2005, my debut novel The Rent Collector is now available as an audio book. So if you've been holding back all these years from reading The Rent Collector because you're more of a listener than a reader, or were waiting for that long summer car trip, it's just a click away either from Amazon or Audible, thanks to the latest in voice automation technology.

Thanks for listening!

Questions For the Rabbi

Q: What is meant when they say God is the light?

R: It means that without God we cannot see the world.

Q: You mean without God we are in the dark morally-speaking?

R: No, we are literally in the dark. The world cannot be fully seen or experienced for its wonder. Like a flower that cannot be seen with all its colours. Like honey that cannot be tasted for all its sweetness. How can one fully experience creation without acknowledging the presence of the creator?

Q: But people say creation is a process of evolution, through cause and effect. What do people mean when they talk about cause and effect?

R: It means they don’t understand anything.

Q: Why? Isn't everything we know a result of cause and effect?

R: No. Everything has many causes and many effects. If you ask me to show you a desert and I place a single grain of sand in your palm, or even a scoop of sand, have I shown you the desert?

Q: Of course not.

R: It's the same as telling you I can describe the universe by cause and effect. It misses the essential part, and tricks you into believing everything is explainable. A single event at a single moment of time cannot be explained without understanding that it was given birth by everything that exists in the universe. Everything at every moment is composed of the entire universe. It is also what we mean when we say God is everywhere.

Q: If God is everywhere all the time, is God responsible for the bad things that happen?

R: There are no 'bad' things. Just as there are no 'good' things. 

Q: Surely tragedies befall people?

R: The only tragedy is to live in a world defined by 'good' and 'bad'. 

Q: You mean there is no such thing as misfortune?

R: There is only expectation. What we don't expect we call misfortune. What we expect we call fortune. Expectation comes from not living fully in the present moment. Expectation comes from believing that the past indicates the future, and the past and future are real. They are not. 

Q: What then is our purpose?

R: To live in the present as fully as you can.

Q: Are you saying that there is no higher purpose to life?

R: The pursuit of a higher purpose, only serves to take your mind away from living in the reality of the present moment, which is the essence of life. 

Q: It all seems so arbitrary and meaningless.

R: If you say so.

Honey, I Love You But Our Relationship Needs Work

Why do I hate it so much when my wife tells me that we need to work on our relationship? It grates on my nerves, and I answer her sarcastically. I say, collecting rent is enough work for me, I don't need another job. The image above is the product of my request to ChatGPT to draw me a picture of my marriage. I'm kidding (sorta). I asked AI for a cartoon of exactly what is depicted, a Venn Diagram having a tug-of-war. Let me explain. 

The Venn Diagram is, to my mind, the best illustration of any two-party relationship, because it comprises three basic elements, two independent, well-defined, individual parties, and a section in the middle shaped by an overlap. The size and content of the overlap is what defines everything the parties have in common ie. ‘the relationship’. A Venn Diagram illustrates many aspects of a relationship in a helpful, concise way. 

First, it shows that every relationship is actually just made up of two defined individuals (circles). I know many billions in relationship therapy has been spent, and many millions of people have been certified as relationship counsellors, but actually there is no such thing as 'the relationship' per se, at least not as an independent entity. It’s just a configuration of the two circles. The relationship does not need scrutiny or thinking about, like a baby or a pet that needs feeding. It's a byproduct of two people interacting, an expression of commonalities of individual values, objectives and desires. 

Second, the Venn Diagram suggests that there are two ways to change the size and content of the area of overlap. One way is for one party to pull the other party over to their side. In this dynamic - familiar to partnerships where a lot is at stake like in a marriage - it becomes a kind of tug-of-war. Each person is trying to bring the other person over to their side, to their way of thinking, to their point of view, so the overlap includes more of their circle. These types of partnerships tend to be contentious, the kind in which people talk a lot about 'compromise' and 'work' for the sake of 'the relationship'. When the overlap gets bigger, in this instance, it also gets lopsided, favouring one side over the other. A one-sided overlap is an out of balance partnership that is unstable and usually unsustainable. They're energy-draining and exhausting to the individual parties, and foster resentment and disappointment in one party or both, as the parties tug back and forth. 

The alternative way to increase the size and content of the overlap - the only one I'd argue that is sustainable and balanced - is a partnership that expands because one, or better both, of the individual circles gets bigger on their own. It's not based on a tug-of-war of two rigidly defined circles trying to pull one circle over to the other. Instead, it's more like two permeable bubbles swelling with air. It doesn't treat the relationship as a separate entity requiring 'attention' and 'work', but rather as a natural byproduct of individual emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth. 

Women seem to have more trouble with this concept than men. They are biologically and genetically designed to nurture, and so tend to regard relationships like a child, as a separate entity requiring attention. Plus, traditionally women have been brought up and socialized to think of the needs of others before their own. So much so, that when they feel a need to pay attention to their own needs, they often have to compete with feelings of guilt. It’s part of the reason they invent terms like 'self-care' which gives them a permission structure to attend to their own needs since it's a type of 'caring'. Guilt-free selfishness comes much more naturally to men.         

Mahatma Gandhi reportedly said, "If you want to change the world, start with yourself." I think the same idea works for partnerships. Happy, self-respecting, contented and fulfilled individuals, make better partners. Invariably, if one partner is pressuring another partner to take action 'for the relationship', what they actually mean is 'it's what I want' ie. a tug of the Venn Diagram in my direction, the commonalities should include more of my circle. They may think that saying it's 'for the relationship' gives their individual desire the moral stamp of approval ie. it's not 'selfish'. But actually that's what it is, which is perfectly okay. The only honest approach to a better relationship is through each partner taking full responsibility for their own emotional well-being and actions. The focus should never be on the other party or 'the relationship' - a signal that you are trying to externalize, and avoid personal responsibility. The best relationships are ‘selfish’ ones, in the sense that you are being true to your own needs and desires, to both yourself and to your partner. If there's 'work' to do it's on oneself, and each partner should give the other partner the time, support and understanding required.   

Inferiority Complex as Foreign Policy

Wherever people interact there is politics, from friends and families, to community organizations and businesses, to municipal, national, regional and international affairs. And politics always overlaps, one area of political interaction effects other areas. It's part of what makes politics so difficult to understand and predict. It's literally like trying to understand 20-dimensional chess. Most political analysts have their analytical hands full just studying one level of the chessboard. But an accurate description would have to include the interaction of multiple levels because a move at one level impacts the game at other levels. Even talking about the highest level of politics, national leaders, to understand what’s going on you need some view of the lowest level, interpersonal politics. For trump, personal animus and petty vengefulness plays an outsized role in his decision making, and a major reason why he is so unfit for his job. His personal agenda, flaws and vulnerabilities are central to understanding every action affecting millions of people.  

Let's step back and consider two levels of political interaction: national and international. Sometimes they are at odds and sometimes they are more in sync. Under responsive governance, the policies and activities of foreign policy support and reinforce domestic policy. It's one way that we know government is functional. American foreign policy since World War 2 has been phenomenally successful in this respect. It’s a reason America has become the most powerful and prosperous country the world has ever known. And with the ascendancy of America, virtually every region of the world has benefitted. Today, there are fewer people living in poverty than ever, people live longer and healthier, and they are more educated, all largely due to American efforts and investment. This is not an expression of the goodness of American hearts. It comes from American leadership recognizing that the best way to achieve American prosperity at home is to pursue a secure global marketplace. They understood, until trump, that the zero-sum politics of conquest and subjugation, which is how it worked for most of human history, was outmoded and ineffective, not to mention cruel and inhumane.  

American hegemony and efforts to establish open markets and international integration meant that competition would be chiefly economic instead of military. In one of the great ironies of the past half century, America has been so successful at promoting its interests, that in doing so, it has managed to create its principal economic rival, China. For its part, China has transformed from an economic and political backwater into a powerhouse and in the process demonstrated how an authoritarian government can be domestically restrictive while pursuing liberal trade policies that generates wealth for its citizen. Interestingly, the flight of Chinese wealth out of China to the west indicates that once they've achieved a certain level of prosperity, Chinese citizens don't trust their government to allow them to keep it. It’s a truism that economic prosperity fosters political demand for rights. Absent that, people seek alternatives. In fairness to the Chinese, even in the west, wealth moves offshore to avoid taxation. 

What does the current US approach to foreign policy tell us about how functional the government is? At least what we can discern as ‘foreign policy’ from looking at recent actions, namely, the widespread imposition of import tariffs, the manic push to end the war in Ukraine at all costs, the green light given to Israel to do whatever it wants in Gaza, and the decision to threaten most traditional strategic alliances. Some have called it protectionist or isolationist, and others have called it predatory. No matter how you label it, one thing that it most certainly is, is idiosyncratic and incoherent. If it's a reflection of anything, it's certainly not policy or ideology. It can only be understood in terms of the psychology of one person. When trump says 'the world has taken advantage of us' it's hard to see how he is expressing anything other than his personal feelings when you consider that the US is unquestionably the most powerful and prosperous country that has ever existed in human history. How did it get that way if it was being taken advantage of all this time? There is no conceivable reason America should not believe in itself and its ability to compete and succeed, and yet this inferiority complex masquerading as a foreign policy seems to be its guiding principle under trump.

The greatest tragedy is that this foreign policy shaped by the whims and idiosyncrasies of one person, will come at the expense mainly of American citizens. It's a case of foreign policy and domestic policy, which is coherent insofar as it is determined by ideology (read: Project 2025), being out of sync. It's also a return to a zero-sum, conquest/subjugation view of politics, which makes the whole world a riskier, more dangerous place.

Morality Check: The Tragic Consequences Of Choosing Weak Leaders

There is no question in my mind that if trump had been president in 1941, there is no way the US would have entered WW2, which means that he would have sided either passively or actively with the Nazis. The evidence is overwhelming for this kind of pure speculation. Trump is nothing if not transparent. Whether it's his unprincipled haphazard transactional approach to negotiations, his knee-jerk predatory 'America First' reflex, or his blatant fondness for tyrants. He has no pretense to alliances based on common values. If trump can be said to believe in anything it’s the authority of the strongman, based on the notion that might (be it military, political or economic) makes right. I'd go so far as to say that his support for Hitler would have been active. He would have told Hitler, Europe is yours, North America ours. That trump would have sided with the Nazis should be disqualifying for any person with a shred of morality or human decency (especially so for any Jew).

If trump believes in anything, it's strength, because he is so profoundly psychologically weak, intellectually, emotionally, and character-wise. It's a major reason he cannot side with Zelensky, he perceives him as weak, and trump can never associate himself with perceived weakness. The basic impulse of a psychologically weak individual is to speak in grandiose terms, using hyperbolic, exaggerated language, and lying liberally to mask their weakness. They also need constant reassurance and validation, which in trump's case, comes from cheering campaign rally crowds and constant media attention. Weakness also leads to bullying those perceived to be weaker, which is why trump has focused on disrespecting and attacking Canada economically and rhetorically. 

Most dangerously, psychological weakness drives a need to break things and destroy in order to demonstrate (to oneself as much as to others) strength. The strong, confident, courageous, skilled, experienced leader builds, while the weak, vulnerable, unskilled, incompetent leader destroys. Moreover, weakness leads to a compulsion toward vicariousness ie. associating with strength that you do not possess yourself. Again, this is a source of trump's attraction to Putin, Orban, Xi, Erdogan and Kim, and why he would have certainly sided with Mussolini and Hitler. 

In addition to a compulsion to be destructive, inner weakness makes a leader easily manipulated. He is prone to flattery and compliments, which from a strongman is desperately craved and feels like validation, but from a perceived weaker party will provoke self-awareness and consequently self-loathing which leads to disdain. This means that getting what you want from trump starts with how you are perceived by him, which is easy to see since he is so transparent. Flattery works if you are stronger, resistance if you are weaker. This is why Justin Trudeau's fatal mistake was to run down to Mar-a-lago when summoned by trump. And why Mexico's Claudia Scheinbaum, who keeps a distance and stands up to him rhetorically, appears to be more successful dealing with trump. 

Inner weakness like trump's means he will be entirely focused on satisfying immediate emotional needs, and incapable of achieving any goal that requires strategic thinking and long-term planning. When trump said he will solve the Ukraine War and Gaza in 24 hours, it was a reflection of this. Everything to trump needs to happen quickly, because he is not capable of sustained attention to complex matters. In any negotiation, time is always trump's enemy before he loses interest, and in the case of Ukraine, trump is certainly no match for Putin, and Putin knows it. Putin knows that trump needs his approval, and will side with him against Zelensky in every instance. All Putin needs to do is feed trump excuses for blaming Zelensky, which he will readily accept. In trump's mind the aggressor is never to blame because aggression indicates strength. Trump is not capable of pressuring Putin for fear of losing his approval. On the contrary, he will take at face value everything Putin tells him, to show Putin he's a member of the club. Putin will string him along, maybe throw trump the odd meaningless bone, which trump will trumpet as progress. It can never occur to trump that supporting Zelensky fully against Putin is actually the only way to get Putin's respect and force him to the table for good faith negotiations. In trump's mind Putin needs to win and Zelensky needs to capitulate, because every negotiation is zero-sum, there is a clear winner and a clear loser. For trump, Putin has all the cards, as he said. What Zelensky, should have said to trump when they met in the Oval Office was, "But you have cards too. Why are you so ready to fold them?"  

Purim and AI

I had an epiphany while listening to the reading of Megillat Esther (The Book of Esther) this Purim. But first I got mad. 

Before the reading, the rabbi made some preliminary comments. He asked, what does ‘megillah’ mean? Someone called out, 'a story!' Yes, but more specifically, “something that is revealed.” The Rabbi then asked, what does ‘Esther’ mean? No responses. Answer: ‘That which is hidden’. So together the reading of Megillat Esther means the revelation of that which is hidden. What this refers to is the fact that in the story the heroine’s identity as a Jew is hidden from the king, and in the penultimate dramatic scene, is revealed in order to save the Jewish people. The story is a tale of intrigue, hidden agendas, manipulation, the devious machinations of power, events getting flipped on their head, and ultimately salvation. In other words, it has all the elements of a gripping soap opera. It’s always been my favourite story for that reason, but mostly because it also has an element of delicious biting social satire. With the exception of Mordechai, Esther’s heroic uncle who cleverly masterminds a plan to save the Jews, the main male characters in the story, the clownish King Ahashverus, and his evil advisor Haman, are crass and buffoonish. The women, in contrast, are strong, clever and manipulative. From Vashti, the queen who defies the king and sets the tone of the story by bravely suffering consequences for it, to Zeresh, the wife of Haman who cajoles her husband into his scheme, and of course the heroine Esther. The men think they are the ‘Masters of their own House’ as the king decrees, but it’s actually the women who are cleverly calling all the shots. At a time when patriarchy dominated the social order, The Book of Esther has to be one of the first examples of subversive feminist literature.  

But my interpretation is admittedly a modern one. The rabbis focus their understanding on the hand of God as the story’s real hidden actor. For a text at the center of a religious celebration of salvation it is odd that the Almighty is never actually mentioned. And this, according the rabbis, is meant to illustrate how God operates in human events. Our rabbi, in his prefatory comments, then did what rabbi’s tend to do, he pivoted to current events. And that’s when I got mad. 

“One Jewish chicken,” he said. “That’s all that was killed when the Ayatollahs of Iran sent a barrage of missiles against Israel. Hundreds of rockets, and not a single Jew killed. If that’s not the Almighty’s hidden hand sparing Jewish lives, I don’t know what is.”

I said, (to myself not to be disrespectful), yeah and where was the Almighty’s hidden hand on October 7th? If the next thing he says is that the slaughter, rapes and hostage-taking was all part of the Divine plan, I might have to leave (or else I might vomit next to the ark). I have no problem with people who have faith in an omnipotent Creator, just don’t come up with excuses for Him when He lets incomprehensible tragedy happen. And if you’re going to argue that he is merciful and cares about what happens to his children, He’s got plenty to answer for (see: the Holocaust).  

But that wasn’t my epiphany. As I stewed in my moral outrage while the rabbi sang from the Book of Esther, the jovial mood that we’re supposed to feel on Purim now ruined, it suddenly hit me. If there is a hidden story within this story, a hidden force at work that we are not aware of, maybe the best analogy to our current moment is AI. While the clueless politicians dither, and their craven supporters sit  blithely by, perhaps the most powerful and manipulative force that has ever existed is determining human events in ways we cannot fully grasp. The hidden hand of AI is generating the algorithms that influence the information we are exposed to which shapes our opinions and decisions every day. The influence is so encompassing and profound that we are unaware of it. 

And then my mind turned to the film Ex-Machina, which I watched a couple of weeks ago and haven’t stopped thinking about. I immediately saw connections between Ex-Machina and the Book of Esther. In the film, the heroine is Ava, an anatomically correct, beautiful, alluring robot equipped with AI. Ava is the latest version of female robots initially created to satisfy the urges and desires of their ego-maniacal male creator. The fragile male ego and his vulnerability to the power of sexual seduction is also a main theme. While the storyline of the film is a 'Turing Test' to see if Ava's intelligence can equal a human's, in the end, it's the female robot, using her attributes and guile who outsmarts and turns the tables on the men. It's essentially exactly what happens in the Book of Esther. But even deeper, the movie (released in 2014) demonstrates how generative recursive AI not only surpasses human intelligence but can become so advanced as to manipulate us into thinking that we aren’t being manipulated.

And that’s what happens in the Purim story. The question at the heart of the story is, who is really in control? According to the religious view, it's the Almighty that guides events, only no one knows it. In Ex-Machina replace the Almighty with AI (which is omniscient). In the Megillah, the tables are turned on the evildoers. I fear the ending of the modern day version might not turn out so well. 

Trump is already an (Economic) War Criminal - Canada should petition the ICJ

Donald Trump explicitly stated that his economic warfare against Canada was intended to force annexation, this could be considered aggression and therefore illegal under international law.

Key Legal Principles Violated:

United Nations Charter (1945) – Article 2(4) Prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

While economic measures (such as sanctions or trade restrictions) are not explicitly considered "force" in the military sense, if they are intended to compel political submission or territorial annexation, they could violate this provision.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression, 1974) Defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state." However, it also recognizes that non-military coercion could amount to aggression if it forces political submission.

Customary International Law:

Economic coercion with the intent to undermine or eliminate a nation's sovereignty could be seen as a violation of the principle of non-intervention. Past examples (e.g., sanctions against Cuba, Iran) were aggressive but did not seek annexation—so Trump's statement could set a new precedent.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)

Canada is a sovereign state with defined borders. Economic aggression intended to remove its sovereignty would violate the core principles of statehood.

Would This Be Prosecuted?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be approached for a ruling on economic aggression, though enforcement would depend on political will.

Conclusion:

If Trump openly admits that his economic war on Canada is intended to annex it, this could be seen as economic aggression, violating Canada’s sovereignty under international law. While prosecution would be complex, such statements could invite international condemnation, sanctions, and potential legal action at the ICJ.

Trump's Auto-Mart

So yesterday was a marquee day in the presidency of the United States. The richest man in the world who bankrolled the re-election campaign of the current President, was seen standing in front of the White House with his 5-year-old child (his Mini-Me, or infantile alter-ego), a number of shiny Tesla models and the President of the United States who was shamelessly shilling the benefits of Musk's vehicles for the assembled cameras like the proverbial (used) car salesman. 

It was a perfect summation of where we are at. The spectacle demonstrated:

1. How trump has debased the office of the POTUS.

2. How the POTUS is for sale.

3. How the POTUS is in the pocket, bought and paid for, by the richest man in the world.

4. How pathetic the media is for allowing themselves to be used. 

 

The Digital Cult and the Challenge of Learning To Live With Uncertainty

Victor Frankl was right. The one thing that unites all of humanity, besides the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and safety, is the need for meaning. I'd argue we can live without everything else, including love, as unpleasant as that would be. But we can't live without meaning and a sense that life has purpose. And ultimately, having a sense of meaning and purpose is up to us. Religious people will try to convince you that life is inherently purposeful because the Creator imbues it with purpose, otherwise why would He/She/It have bothered creating conscious beings who sought life's purpose - to come to the realization that there is a Creator God. If life is imbued with Divine purpose why make it so difficult to figure out? Ah, they will say, it's the process that gives life meaning, and the reason we have conscious freewill. If it was easy, life would be meaningless. So, life is inherently meaningful, but it's up to us to figure that out, which is what gives it meaning? A bit of a head scratcher if you ask me.    

The bottom line, and the only thing we can be sure of, is that if there is a meaning to life, it's up to us to figure out. And the Creator, if there is one, is the kind to throw all kinds of curveballs at us; unimaginable tragedies, cruel twists of fate, diseases, natural disasters, traumas etc. which, according to the faithful constitute tests, and according to the rest of us constitute evidence that life is fundamentally arbitrary. And that's what Victor Frankl got right. Whether you are looking for it in a sacred book, a spiritual tradition, or the vicissitudes of daily life and experience, the search for meaning is a part of human nature. 

If there is one thing that the advent of the internet has shown, it's that we have an insatiable need for meaning. Our addiction to looking for answers and certainty has fueled the scourge of disinformation, mistrust and conspiracy online. It's as if we created an electronic trough with an endless supply of informational slop for gluttonous pigs to feed. I remember when people talked about the internet in utopian terms. It would be a place where global connection would foster knowledge and harmony and a golden age of humanity. It did the exact opposite. What we learned from this greatest unregulated experiment in human history is that our need for meaning makes us vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, and we were now susceptible in an unprecedented way. The people who controlled the means of mass-manipulation could use it to shape the political and economic decisions made by entire societies.  

The power of the internet is unprecedented as a tool of mass-deception. It shows us how vulnerable each of us is to mind-control and brainwashing - which we call the informational 'bubble' or 'silo'.  I believe it's not so benign as 'bubble' or 'silo'.  It's far more encompassing to our lives. Most of us have joined a digital cult. Our digital self defines who we are within a virtual space that provides us with a sense of security, comfort, and control. It feeds us reinforcing information that shapes our thinking and defines our social network and activity. If my characterization is correct, then what is needed to free us, is a type of de-programming. 

The attraction of a cult is that it answers our basic need for security and meaning. The antidote must involve getting comfortable with the notion of uncertainty. No one likes uncertainty. That’s a hard sell. But maybe that’s the real challenge of modern life—choosing to accept ambiguity rather than latching onto convenient, easy answers and comforting illusions. In a world in which we are bombarded with an unending and constant barrage of disinformation, learning to live with uncertainty is even more daunting, but it's also ultimately the only source of empowerment and resilience. It's saying, I don't have to run for cover in an algorithmic shelter that panders to my predilections and tastes. I can stand on my own two feet and seek truth. It takes stamina and courage to break free from the cult's spell.   

I am reading a book of questions to the guru Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu spiritual teacher. In it, the questioner observes that we live in a universe of cause and effect, and therefore there is certainty, if only the cause(s) can be identified. I think the question relates to this need for answers which makes us susceptible to deception and manipulation. The guru answers, that cause and effect are part of the illusion, just as time, past and future, is illusory - we only exist in the everpresent now, the moment. The rest is a construct of mind. In fact, the moment in which we live comprises infinite 'causes', and to try to determine the cause, or any specific number of causes, speaks to the nature of the mind's illusion. Reality, as we experience it and relate to our place in it, should be understood as the manifestation of the infinite universe. Anything less, is like settling for a partial, easy answer.   

P.S.

Sometimes it's sudden, 

without warning,

sometimes it's in view,

a tape snap

at the finish line.

Sometimes by accident,

negligence, incompetence.

Sometimes by intent.

Technical—pilot error,

gravity taking hold of helpless

passengers yanked

back to the ground.

Targeted 

as a drone strike.

Sometimes it's public, 

a journalist's beheading for the cameras.

Sometimes private, 

a back-alley knife

through the ribs,

a club to the back

of the skull.

Usually it's cruelly intimate, 

a surrounded hospital bed, 

watching, waiting,

signing off

after Sincerely, 

Yours Truly,

As Always,

Best Regards,

P.S.

of chronic, unceasing pain,

tumors bloomed in flesh

like mushrooms 

in damp rotting wood,

hands and legs useless

as stone,

brain morphine-addled,

faces like bats flitting

in a dark tunnel —

death is 

a torchlight

for the only way out.

The Art of the Peace Deal: A Word

Ukraine is fighting for its survival. There is no greater motivation to fight than for your survival. Survival is not negotiable. That should be obvious. By siding with Putin, trump has made Zelensky more desperate to fight on, and at the same time given Putin every reason not to negotiate because he now has the decisive upper hand. Trump could not have made a better move to push the parties away from the negotiating table. What he should have done is fortified Ukraine. Armed them to the teeth. That would have forced Putin to realize that the best he could hope for was a stalemate. Let's be clear it's Putin who will decide when it's time to negotiate, not Zelensky, because for Zelensky the war is existential, while for Putin it's a war of choice. Trump has it backwards. As usual, he doesn't have a clue. Putin is playing him like a fiddle. That much can't be more obvious, to everyone but trump. 

___________________________

P.S.

I put the above paragraph in ChatGPT. Here is AI's response:

You're absolutely right that Ukraine’s fight is existential, while for Putin, it’s a war of ambition. That asymmetry means that Ukraine has no choice but to keep fighting, while Putin can decide at any moment whether to press on or negotiate—if he sees it in his best interest.

By signaling that U.S. support for Ukraine is wavering, Trump has emboldened Putin. If Putin believes time is on his side, why would he negotiate? He’ll keep grinding forward, hoping Ukraine collapses from exhaustion or that Western support fractures entirely. On the other hand, if Ukraine were heavily armed and fortified, Putin would have to accept that his best outcome is a frozen conflict, much like the Korean War ended in an armistice.

Trump fundamentally misunderstands leverage. He thinks denying Ukraine weapons will force negotiations when it does the opposite—it convinces Putin that victory is within reach. That’s not strategy; that’s capitulation.

Can't disagree with superior intelligence.

Irony Is Dead

My favourite quote of last week from trump was during his fake 'cabinet meeting/press conference' presided over by Elon Musk, as the stupified sycophantic Secretaries sat by in dumbfounded silence, when trump called the government "bloated, fat and disgusting." Another window into the demented, childish way his mind works. It's projection.

This was before the debacle of the Oval meeting with Zelensky, after which a celebratory Kremlin statement was released saying that they believed American foreign policy now "shares our vision." I immediately thought about how trump has spent his entire political career calling the Democrats, "Communists" and "Socialists." Who are the Communists now? Irony is dead. 

So much ink has been spilled in the last 48 hours on the significance of what happened in the Oval meeting. Does it mean an end to American foreign policy as we have known it since the end of WW2? Does it mean an end to our international alliances? Does it mean an end to the rules-based international order that America established? Does it mean America is now aligned with the Kremlin? It may or may not mean all of those things. 

But I'm certain of one thing, trump isn't thinking about any of those things, at least not in the larger sense of having a true understanding of ramifications and consequences. He doesn't care. As I always say, he's incapable of thinking beyond the present moment. Malignant narcissists typically are. It's only ever about satisfying immediate emotional needs. The most revealing moment in the Oval meeting with Zelensky was when trump said, "You're gambling with World War 3." Of course, Zelensky isn't gambling with WW3. Like he answered, "It's not a game (to us)." He's simply trying to defend his country against annihilation. It's trump who is playing the World War 3 'game' by appeasing a tyrant who has designs on expansion. Projection again.   

It's not that hard to understand what happened in the Oval: 

1. Trump viscerally hates Zelensky. He hates him for causing his first impeachment. That became clear when trump talked about "the phony Russsia, Russia, Russia scam" that Putin, like him, has "endured." He blames Zelensky. As a snob, trump is also probably viscerally repelled by Zelensky's unrefined appearance. He finds his very presence insulting, the way a rich person would find the presence of a poor person. Made all the worse, by the fact that Zelensky is admired and revered all around the world as a hero. Trump is jealous of that, and publicly showing-up the hero, making him be 'thankful', would in trump's warped mind, elevate him.

2. Trump aimed to publicly 'humble' Zelensky because he thinks that's the way to bully him into 'making peace'. He perceives Putin as the strong party and Zelensky as the weak party ("without cards"). The world is divided between the strong and the weak, might makes right, in trump's craven mind. He thinks like a mob boss carving up the streets as 'territory' for drug dealing and a protection racket. A 'peace' can only be reached by forcing the weak party to capitulate to the strong party, or let them "fight it out." It's literally a brutish gangster's view of international relations, like Putin's. Which makes JD Vance's comment about Zelensky not wanting a 'diplomatic solution' doubly ironic. It's actually trump who doesn't believe in diplomacy. Projection again.

3. Trump's way of doing foreign policy, is, as everyone has been saying for the last 9 years transactional. But it's transactional not in the sense of national interests being pursued. Trump is not capable of thinking of the national interest, or rather, he can not distinguish the national interest from his immediate personal interest. 'Friend' or 'foe' to him is determined by an exchange that will benefit him in the moment. Zelensky did not flatter trump (like Starmer did), and would not back down when challenged. This unnerved trump, and Vance's intervention, which I don't believe was premeditated, was him seizing an opportunity to come to the defence of his fragile ego-harmed boss. It was Vance burnishing himself in trump's eyes, demonstrating the extent of his loyalty.   

Will the meeting have long-term consequences? Undoubtedly. In the sense that countries all around the world are now quite sure that as long as trump is in office, and is not reined in by his party or Congress, they cannot count on America to be guided by a foreign policy based on common values and principles. It's quite literally based on whatever the demented child-king wants at any moment. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize is off the table, so trump went golfing, again. He's lost interest. Hopefully that pattern will hold, so the damage he does is minimized.  

The Cycle of Excess and Restraint

I have a big-picture perspective, always searching for patterns in small details. As I age and my personal future recedes into an expansive past, seeing history’s larger rhythms feels even more natural. I ask myself: What have I been a part of? What has led us to this moment? Are there historical antecedents? Is there a pattern?

I believe history follows the rhythm of human nature—a cycle of excess and restraint. Humans push ideas, fashions, inventions, and political movements to excess before realizing the need for restraint. This dynamic plays out in politics as the pendulum swings between liberalism and conservatism, capitalism and socialism. Each can become excessive and require correction.

Periods of excess are marked by individualism, self-enrichment, and unregulated freedoms. Society prioritizes individual rights over responsibilities, wealth over community, and patriotism as the pursuit of personal gain free from state interference. Periods of restraint, in contrast, emphasize social responsibility, community well-being, and a patriotism grounded in collective good.

Democracy, like all political and economic systems, moderates this cycle, allowing different expressions of excess and restraint depending on its structure. American democracy, an especially open system, exhibits a roughly 100-year cycle.

The current cycle of excess and restraint in America is as follows:

1. Industrial Revolution & Mass Migration (Late 19th Century) – Rapid economic growth creates vast opportunities but also deep inequalities.

2. The Gilded Age & The Roaring Twenties – Wealth concentrates among elites, government serves plutocrats, and society indulges in excess. Hyper-partisan “yellow journalism” thrives, spreading sensational disinformation.

3. Great Depression & WWII (1930s–1940s) – Economic collapse and global conflict end the excess, ushering in a period of collective sacrifice and renewed values.

4. Post-War Restraint (1950s–1970s) – The wartime generation prioritizes national unity, social programs, and global leadership. Civil rights movements and social justice initiatives expand democratic ideals.

5. Shift to Excess (1980s–1990s) – Reaganomics, financial deregulation, and paper wealth fuel a return to greed and individualism. American values shift from idealism to lifestyle indulgence.

6. Economic Instability & Political Cynicism (2000s–2010s) – Wage stagnation and growing inequality define the era. The dot-com crash, the 2008 financial crisis, and endless wars undermine public trust. Cynicism replaces civic responsibility.

7. New Gilded Age (2020s) – Billionaire oligarchs wield political power. Social media functions as modern yellow journalism, spreading disinformation. Trust in government, courts, and democracy erodes. America retreats from global leadership.

8. Impending Upheaval – Just as the first Gilded Age collapsed into the Great Depression and World War, today’s excess is likely to end in turmoil. The question is: what form will it take?

History suggests that cycles of excess always give way to restraint, but the transition is never smooth. The challenge now is whether America can enter a new period of restraint through reform—or whether crisis will force the shift.

Gene Hackman (1930-2025)

My Gene Hackman story. 

As the building manager at 99 Chabanel from 1995 until 2015, occasionally strange, exciting things happened. One of the most exciting things to ever happen, occurred around 1999-2000 when I received a request from a film production company looking for a location to shoot a few scenes of an upcoming movie. They were looking for a 'garment building' that had office decor in the style of the 1960s or 70s. My mind immediately went to the offices of Sample Manufacturing Corporation on the 3rd floor, my grandfather Sam's company which shut its doors in 1989. The office decor, which he had designed himself, was unique. The walls were entirely panelled in stained imported wood, and the floors were carpeted. Each executive office had an en-suite bathroom decorated in Italian ceramic. Those were the days when the dress company owners came to work wearing three-piece suits and ties, had their nails manicured and hair coiffed at the local barber on a weekly basis, and their offices had built-in wet bars for 'entertaining' clients. Fortunately, my grandad's former offices were currently vacant and remained untouched and completely intact. The film rep and I toured the building and she took photos of various potential locations.  

It was probably a week or two later that I got a call from the location rep saying that the Director was interested in using our building for the film. I wasn't sure I understood what we were getting into at that point. The building was almost completely occupied with about 85 industrial tenants. I was told that the filming would require not just use of the location for filming, but also the entire 100-car parking lot that we owned adjacent to the building for trucks and trailers, as well as an additional space for a makeshift cafeteria where the crew could eat and hang out, and the exclusive use of one passenger elevator. The filming was to take place during regular business hours when the building was bustling with commercial activity. Suffice to say I had misgivings that it was feasible. At the same time, I was really excited that the building might be used in a Hollywood film and didn't want to refuse. Imagine how much more excited I got when I finally asked for more information about the production. The film was called Heist. It was written and directed by David Mamet and was starring Gene Hackman, Danny Devito, Delroy Lindo and Sam Rockwell among others. I knew of David Mamet from American Buffalo and Glengarry Glen Ross, one of my all time favourite films. Hackman was a screen legend of course, and Devito was star of the TV show Taxi which I grew up with. I could not believe that I might get a chance to meet them. 

Notwithstanding how disruptive the filming would be - someone in real estate who had experience with film crews warned me that it was like having an invading army in your midst - I was determined to make it happen. It was only one week of inconvenience, and I figured I could get 'buy-in' from the tenants if I could get them as excited about it as I was. I also had to convince the building owners that it was feasible, and more importantly profitable. I got the owners to agree by telling them we could ask a crazy price. I think it was around $20,000 for a week of rental, which seemed ludicrously high. To my amazement the producers agreed to the amount without negotiation. Later, as I started receiving more and more demand for film location spaces from the buildings that I managed, I realized that we'd practically given away our location for the price we asked. Film companies paid exorbitant sums because finding a suitable location was almost always cheaper than having to build one. Once the rental contract was signed, I went around the building visiting each tenant individually to tell them the exciting news; a Hollywood film was being filmed in 99, it would only be for a few days, and the inconveniences would be minor. Most of my tenants were unmoved. They just wanted assurance from the management that their business activities would not be interrupted. A few of the tenants, movie fans like me, were enthusiastic and wanted to know if they could meet the stars. I should also mention that the film crew was extremely accommodating when I explained to them that this was a busy commercial building and we'd have to work together to ensure that the disturbance to the tenants was kept to a minimum. They reassured me saying they had plenty of experience filming in busy public areas.   

The week of the filmshoot was indeed like an army invading. There were about 50 people in the crew. They ran thick electrical cables through the hallways, rolled equipment back and forth through the corridors, and filled the parking lot with trucks and trailers for equipment, props, make-up and costumes, various services, and of course the actors. One passenger elevator (out of three) was commandeered. I was worried that this was going to get out of hand. It was a couple of days of preparation, a day or two of filming, and another day or two afterward for restoring the location and facilities back to their original condition. In the end, it all went off without a hitch. They did do a bit of irreparable damage to Grandpa Sam's office when the scene they were filming required one actor to throw a filing cabinet against the wall and it broke the wood panelling. But we were handsomely compensated for the damage without dispute - they obviously knew they had gotten a major bargain on the location. 

I made myself conspicuous during the set-up period, introducing myself to many of the crew members, and making sure that everything was proceeding smoothly. The day of the filmshoot the location manager, with whom I had been dealing, introduced me to David Mamet who was as friendly as could be. He seemed to love being in a Montreal garment building and appreciated the history it embodied. I told him the story of my grandfather's company and about the office he was using, which was in fact where my grandfather had sat behind a large mahogany desk helming his company only a decade earlier. Talking to Mamet felt as natural as talking to a member of the family - the Jewish aspect of Chabanel's story was particularly interesting to him. Mamet invited me to hang around while scenes were being shot, but I declined, not wanting to intrude on their work.   

The next day, which I knew would be the last day of shooting, I didn't go on the set, but instead, at around lunchtime, made my way to the space on the second floor that the crew was using for their commissary. I was quietly hoping to catch a glimpse of the actors, and to bump into the Director again. The night before I decided that I would give Mamet an inscribed copy of a book that I had recently co-edited, an anthology of poems written about Jerusalem by Canadian poets (Montreal son Leonard Cohen among others) in honour of the city's tri-millenium. Our conversation the day before made me comfortable enough to think that Mamet might find our modest publication interesting. Book in hand, I did see Mamet. We chatted briefly and I gave him the book which he seemed to appreciate. I had been told that the big Hollywood stars generally ate in their trailers, not with the crew. Devito ate in private, although when he left his trailer in the parking lot to go to the set, he didn't use the back staircase to avoid causing a stir. He did the exact opposite, walking through the restaurant at lunchtime when every table was occupied. People cheered when they noticed him, and he waved back with a big smile. Customers called him over to take pictures, which he was more than happy to do. Later, several of my tenants displayed pictures taken with Devito on their office walls. I actually never met him myself. 

Because I'd heard that the big stars ate in their trailers, I didn't have much hope of meeting any of the other actors as I wandered through the commissary after chatting briefly with Mamet. I surveyed the room quickly, and spotted him, though I wasn't sure. A middle aged man sitting at one of the long cafeteria tables, eating his lunch, all alone. I could barely believe my eyes. It was Gene Hackman. The tables all around him were filled with the crew talking, but he was completely by himself, almost unnoticeable. I debated with myself whether I should approach him. Clearly, he wanted to eat in peace. How could I not say something? It was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I stepped up to his table with apologies for bothering him. He looked up at me. I introduced myself in my official capacity as the building manager, and said that I wanted to welcome him, and hoped he was enjoying his time working here. I felt like a goofball, a blubbering starstruck fan, but didn't want to show it. He smiled kindly, said two words thanking me, and returned to eating his meal, alone. I quietly retreated back into the halls of the building, feeling a bit embarrassed, like I'd just violated some unspoken rule ie. you don't feed the zoo animals, and you never talk to Gene Hackman during lunch break at work. 

That's it. My entirely unremarkable, somewhat uncomfortable, brush with Hollywood greatness. And from everything I've heard and read about Hackman since, that's exactly how he was with everyone. Ordinary. Unremarkable. He just wanted to be treated like another member of the crew doing his job. And if you were starstruck by his presence, you were a fool, and made to feel like one (though not maliciously). I wasn't surprised when a number of years later I read that Hackman had decided to retire from the business, like any worker who'd decided it was time to collect his pension. This news that he's decided to leave us permanently in the decisive unceremonious way that he did, is also, alas, completely in character.  

PS: To see the scenes from Heist shot at 99 Chabanel go to 14:00. When Hackman and Devito go into an office to sit down, that's Grandpa Sam's office. When they leave the building and hit the street, it's not Chabanel. 

How to rig a Liberal Leadership

It's rigged. The Liberal leadership 'race'. It was over the minute Carney announced he was running. I believe the Liberal Party establishment convinced him to run by telling him he was a shoo-in.

That's the conclusion I have come to after watching the 'debates', which were actually carefully choreographed non-debates.

Other data points:

- By late January Carney had already received the endorsement of more than 50 Liberal Caucus members and most of the Cabinet, including the most high profile members. 

- Carney has reportedly raised an astounding $4 million, mostly from big money Liberal donors.

- Liberal Party advisers and pollsters have been appearing on TV for weeks saying the contest was over. 

- We've started hearing about the results of polls that say the Liberals are within striking distance of the Conservatives, and even leading them, with Carney at the head. A massive turn around. No mention of how they would do with Freeland or the other candidates as leader. 

And most of this before Carney, who is basically an unknown in Canadian politics, made a single major public appearance (except on John Stewart's show, oddly).

What's the point of having a 'debate'? Oh yeah, a coronation always attracts a large TV audience.

It's clear the federal election campaign has already started. The leadership was decided weeks before Donald Trump upended the game by threatening Canada's sovereignty. It's too bad. 

I watched both 'debates.'

The French event was a snorer. With the exception of Frank Baylis, a Montrealer, the candidates struggled to express themselves. Owing to low or no expectations, I'd say Baylis performed the best. Freeland and Gould were at least comprehensible and did fine. I could barely understand a word Carney was saying.    

The English broadcast last night was much more interesting owing to the candidates linguistic comfort. Carney shows little in the way of having a personality, and he communicates like a technocrat, as one might expect from his CV. He said nothing worth repeating (unlike the night before when he mangled his French into seeming to support Hamas). Baylis outperformed expectations again, bringing fresh ideas and detailed plans to the table. He demonstrated a command of policy and has thought carefully about his proposals. His problem, beside being a former backbencher and Party outsider, is that he lacks charm, charisma and that certain energy that a leader needs to inspire others. Gould was refreshing. She spoke clearly and energetically, but I found her youthfulness off-putting. She was a bit too touchy-feely when she repeated that her approach would always be about 'people' not 'policy and programs'. I can not imagine her as Prime Minister, and certainly not the PM who would have to stand up for Canada against the likes of Donald Trump. To my mind, only Freeland struck the exact balance of tone and content required. She demonstrated her mastery of subject matter and communicated accessibly, clearly, at times personally, as well as with precision and pugnacious energy. There was no doubt in my mind that Freeland had outperformed the others by a mile.

Imagine my surprise when the panel re-convened on the CBC post-debate show, and barely mentioned Freeland once. Only veteran political broadcaster Rosemary Barton mentioned, almost in passing, that she thought Freeland did well. The entire discussion was about whether Carney had done 'enough' and the consensus appeared to be that Gould 'held the stage', as the Liberal advisor on the panel put it. It was as if everyone was conspiring to sideline Freeland, and to focus on the 'frontrunner' Carney, and  promote Gould because she's no threat to Carney but appeals to young voters which is a demographic the Liberals desperately need to bring back into the fold. The Liberal panelist at one point referred to Gould's shining moment when she talked about how policy affects farmers. I thought to myself, hey wasn't it Freeland who said that? I remember it distinctly because she mentioned that she was raised on a farm (Gould was brought up in Burlington Ontario and talked about being the daughter of a small business owner). That was the moment I realized it's all been rigged against Freeland.

And why should it be rigged against Freeland? The only reason I can think of is that she betrayed Trudeau (after he betrayed her) in the way she resigned (before being demoted). Behind the scenes, I can imagine Trudeau marshalling all his support and connections within the Party - can it be coincidence that Anand, Blair, Leblanc and Jolie, all top Trudeau loyalists, immediately came out in support of Carney -  to make sure Freeland wouldn't have a chance. A final act of political retribution before he departs the stage. Call me cynical, but politics is a dirty, spiteful game.    

This morning I voted for Freeland. Damn them all.

A Ridiculous Hypothetical

As I exchange thoughts and feelings with friends and family about current events in the Middle-East, lately I end up posing one question to my interlocutor: If I gave you a button that would make the Palestinians disappear tomorrow would you press it. They don't all have to die, I say, which is obviously mass-murder, but they would be instantly transported to somewhere else, far far away from Israel. I arrived at this question because I think it's a moral litmus test. And the proof is that most of the people I ask, who staunchly support Israel as I do, avoid answering. They tell me that it's a ridiculous hypothetical. They answer that it could never happen (except in trump's warped mind perhaps).  

The answer is easy: No, I wouldn't press the button.  

It's true that it's a ridiculous hypothetical. In my mind that should make it easier to answer, not harder. And the reason it's hard to answer for some is because, in spite of saying that it's a ridiculous hypothetical, they actually don't think it's a ridiculous hypothetical. They think 'disappearing' the Palestinians - the way the Latin American dictators in Argentina and Chile 'disappeared' their opposition in the 1970s - is in the realm of possibility. The difference here, of course, is that we are not talking about dissidents of a country and the military juntas they oppose. We are talking about one country and another large group of people both making ancestral and historical claims to a certain territory.   

So Dan Senor's most recent podcast - which of late has become a kind of voice for euphoric delusion since trump's ascension to the throne - is now making a case for the 'historic precedent' for trump's obscene non-plan in an interview with British author and historian Andrew Roberts. Roberts' argument (apparently made in writing in the pro-trump Republican rag Washington Free Beacon) is essentially that the ethnic cleansing of Gaza should be the spoil of war. Put simply, they attacked us, they lost the war, and that gives us the right to expel them. Yes, he is literally arguing for conquest and expulsion. Roberts is right that for most of human history that's the way it has been done. You can cite hundreds of examples. Does that make it right? I thought we had learned something from history. Apparently not. At least not in Roberts' mind. It was one of the most intellectually dishonest conversations I have heard in a while. Near the end, Roberts says something like (I paraphrase) the international community has been screaming for years that Gaza is an 'open-air prison' and 'concentration camp', and now that there is a 'proposal' to move them out, suddenly Gaza is their beloved homeland. Well, when the actual concentration camps were liberated nobody said they wanted to stay there. I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. He says, 'either Gaza is one thing or the other, but it can't be both'. I don't think I've actually ever heard Gaza described as a 'concentration camp' but yes the open-air prison analogy has been used frequently. Actually Gaza CAN be both a beloved homeland and a place that is, for all intents and purposes, been made unlivable. I'd argue that it's Hamas that has made it unlivable, and prison-like, and the UN has enabled that situation.

The problem is that a simple 'no' to my hypothetical means you have to entertain the notion that the Palestinians may have a legitimate claim to live in that part of the world, and that is increasingly difficult for a lot of people to do. Israelis are understandably worried. They can no longer accept Hamas living on their border, notwithstanding the fact that they accepted it for almost two decades, with regular periodic rocket attacks coming from Gaza into Israel. But October 7th changed that. 

My argument is that wishful thinking is not the answer, and is symptomatic of a kind of moral rot that is setting in, one that leads to unconscionable positions like the one expressed by Roberts. The only way to combat the rot spreading deeper, is to start facing reality and taking responsibility. Of course Israel can in no way be said to be responsible for the October 7th attack. But Israelis should take some responsibility for their years of negligence, for complacency and losing their deterrence, for pursuing a misguided policy of promoting Hamas as a counter balance to the PA, and for the inadequacy of their security and their tragically failed response on the day of the attack. When you live in a sketchy neighbourhood known for home break-ins and robberies, you don't live with your doors unlocked. And you certainly don't put a sign on the door inviting thieves. That's a negligence borne of simply not facing reality. Another fantasy, stoked by Netanyahu since the beginning of the war, is that Hamas can be militarily defeated. If anything has been learned after more than a year of brutal fighting, mass destruction and heartbreak, it's that that's unlikely if not impossible. The Palestinians have been fantasizing for decades that Israel would disappear. Now many Israelis are fantasizing that the Palestinians will disappear. That's how far we are from reality.  

Not facing reality, inevitably leads to (greater) tragedy. I'm not blaming Israelis for their fear and frustration. But at some point there also has to be acknowledgment that fear and frustration takes people to morally questionable places. It's not easy, by any stretch, to stay focused on what matters most. But we must summon all our courage to avoid sacrificing our morals on the altar of despondency and wishful thinking, because that would be the greatest sign that our enemies have won. 

Patron of The Arts

This one sort of flew under the radar, but I found it one of the more bizarre episodes of late: trump becoming a patron of the arts.

What is The Kennedy Center, and why has trump decided it was important for him to fire the current President, to replace half of the Board of Trustees and install himself as Chair? I guess being POTUS, in between his golf games, wasn't enough for him to do.

It was established by an act of Congress to create a non-partisan National Cultural Center in Washington D.C. during the Eisenhower administration and later renamed in honour of President Kennedy. According to the Center's website it is "...the nation’s cultural center, and a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy, we are a leader for the arts across America and around the world, reaching and connecting with artists, inspiring and educating communities. We welcome all to create, experience, learn about, and engage with the arts." 

The 2025 season, as of mid-February, will or has included Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, jazz pianist Kenny Barron, soprano Renée Fleming, bestselling author David Sedaris, comedian Sarah Silverman, and touring productions of “Parade” and “Les Misérables.” In other words, the center has showcased the very best and most popular cultural performers and productions. You may have watched the 'Kennedy Center Honours' broadcast on television, featuring the most renowned and respected entertainers and artists of our time. Ann and Nancy Wilson's performance of Stairway to Heaven when the surviving members of Led Zeppelin were honoured at the Kennedy Center, comes to mind.  

Apparently trump isn't so sure. In a social media post he said that the Kennedy Center would no longer be "going woke". He wrote, "NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA." His caps, of course.

Then trump admitted to never having attended a performance at the Kennedy Center. In fact, he is constrained from serving on any nonprofit board in the state of New York after admitting to the misuse of charitable funds by the now-dissolved Donald J. Trump Foundation.

I was reminded of Hitler's fondness for the operas of Wagner. I was reminded of the Nazi campaign against 'degenerate' (ie. Jewish) art.

'nough said.

The Gaza 'Proposal'

The front page of CNN's website headlines "Trump Made No Attempt To Soften Gaza Proposal in Meeting With King Abdullah."   

As it happens I've been working on a proposal this week. My proposal is a real estate leasing proposal. It's 10 pages long. Includes floor plans and financial amounts. It includes a timeline for delivery. It includes photos, and background material about the organization I represent. It's a serious document that describes the potential for a mutually beneficial commercial deal over a defined period of time, between the company I represent, namely the Landlord, and the company being represented by an accredited real estate agency, namely the Tenant. This is what I call a 'proposal'. 

Donald trump saying he is going to 'take' Gaza, not 'buy' it, and turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East by displacing the almost 2 million Palestinians who call Gaza home, is in no way 'a proposal'.

Actually it's an insult. A slap in the face. And King Abdullah of Jordan winced a couple of times as he sat quietly beside trump listening to him 'riff' on his 'idea' for peace in the Middle East, which would require Jordan giving some Palestinians 'a parcel of land' to settle. Shame on CNN for calling it a proposal. And shame on anyone who could think that what trump is saying is anything less than evil. I don't use that word a lot, if ever, evil. But that's actually what trump is saying. It's evil. Whether he is talking about 'taking' the land that belongs to other people, and moving the people who live there out, or bulldozing 'the strip' for a big beautiful real estate project, as he has repeated half a dozen times over the last few weeks. Using real estate development language does not cover the fact that his 'idea' is pure evil. And shame on every so-called news outlet for not calling it out for what it actually is. They are collaborating in this evil by using words like 'proposal'. Shame. King Abdullah had to be polite because he was constrained by the fact that he had to pay deferrence to his host. But you could see that if he could he would have vomitted into trump's lap.    

Almost as bad, but not quite, is Thomas Friedman and Dan Senor. I've complained about Dan Senor in a recent post. Friedman, at least called trump's idea out for what it is, not serious. He said trump was just 'riffing'. Friedman clearly doesn't understand that trump is absolutely deadly serious. If it seemed like a 'riff' it's because that's as much as trump can understand about foreign policy, very little. Then Friedman said that trump's instincts that there had to be 'new thinking' to find a solution for the Palestinians is correct. Trump's instincts have nothing to do with finding solutions for the Palestinians. They have to do with sowing chaos and making money. What Friedman should have said is that trump's idea is pure evil. Period. And left it there. Senor and his guests were worse than Friedman. Granted they are Israelis and so they are always trying to promote Israel's best interest. Getting rid of the Palestinians completely would be a dream. How that could happen, well, who knows? They admit that's a problem. But again, they say trump's 'proposal' is laudable for 'shaking the coconut tree' (similar to Friedman's sentiment). No, there is nothing laudable about it and it's not about 'shaking' any tree. It's destructive and evil. That should have been the response. Shame. Has everyone lost their minds?

One thing I am sure trump intended to do with his 'proposal' is to throw Bibi a political lifeline. It was clear during their press conference together last week that Netanyahu couldn't be more thrilled with what he was hearing. This week he is telling his army to prepare roads for massive numbers of Palestinians to leave Gaza voluntarily - not really sure where they are going - and to resume full scale war when trump's deadline for all the hostages to be released passes on Saturday. Before this Bibi's government was on the verge of collapse when some of his coalition partners bolted because they objected to the ceasefire deal. Now Bibi gets a chance to bring them back into the fold with the resumption of the war, which is what he really wants. 

We all want Israelis to live in peace. Those of us who have vigorously supported Israel's defensive war in the last year have argued, in the face of widespread protest and withering criticism, that it was morally justified and the critics were misguided. The real damage of trump's 'proposal' is that he does indeed change the conversation, and otherwise rational well-meaning people wishing for a positive outcome are suddenly willing to entertain absolutist morally repugnant notions. The worst part is that they don't realize what is happening to them. For perhaps the first time I think I understand how evil operates. 

Land Of Likes And Lies

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

This land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are eyes.

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks and no one dies.

Sign a contract that you don’t read,

To give away your privacy.

Cause it only exists digitally,

In a world that’s meant to please. 

This land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are eyes,

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks and no one dies.

Soon you're addicted,

Ego drugged and unconflicted,

‘Bout a life that you’ve depicted.

Unmoved by what you’ve inflicted.

Digital storage forgets a lot,

Hearts can summon what we forgot,

We’ve lost our minds and we've lost the plot,

The AI is us, we’re the robot. 

In the land of likes and lies,

Where all you are are I's,

No need for compromise,

Cause no one thinks that no one dies.

On the Precipice

Elon and his geeky fanboys raiding the computer systems of the Treasury Department with the blessing of trump and his ass-kissing executive toadies. Payments to whole agencies being stopped, employees being 'offered a buyout' or be fired in 30 days. The US government is being hollowed out in the name of efficiency and cost-cutting. We all think government is bloated and inefficient, so that makes some sense. But is that what's actually going on? If it was being done in good faith, wouldn't there be audits to identify and strategically target inefficiencies? Where is the report and the transparency? Why the wrecking ball and the secrecy? Why flout the law? Actually, hollowing out the government, and replacing employees with a cadre of loyalists in the name of 'efficiency' and rooting out 'corruption' comes directly from the dictator's handbook, page one. They are already telling lies about 'the corruption' they've been finding. It's ominous.          

It got me asking: How close is America to a full-blown dictatorship. The answer may be, much closer than you think.  

Well-known lawyer George Conway is despondent. He says, legally-speaking, we're on the precipice of the end of federal rule of law. Here's the scenario he paints. Trump orders a lackey to do something illegal, take your pick. It goes to court. They lose in court and the judge orders them to stop what they are doing.  Trump says, I don't care, and orders them to continue. The judge finds contempt of court and orders the US Marshall to arrest the offender. The US Marshall is an agency of the federal Department of Justice, under AG Pam Bondi, who takes her orders from, you guessed it, trump. All it takes is for Bondi to order the federal Marshall to stand down, for the entire system of rule of law to collapse. Without enforcement of the law, there is, maybe not total anarchy, maybe selective enforcement, it comes to the same thing. That's the very definition of dictatorship. Law used by the powerful selectively, to promote their political and financial interests and against their opponents. Think Russia under Putin. There are currently a dozen or more legal challenges making their way through the court system as trump and his co-president Elon take a wrecking ball to federal agencies. It only takes one to show how far trump is willing to go to demonstrate that dictatorship has effectively arrived. Once the precedent is set, it will snowball. Oh, and even if the order could be traced back to trump, according to the Supreme Court he is immune for 'official acts' like a discussion with his AG. And his loyal lackeys will do anything he asks, because he will promise them pardons. He's already shown how willing he is to use that power for his loyal supporters, like the Jan. 6 rioters. He holds in his hand the ultimate unchallengeable 'get out of jail card'.   

Is there an answer? Impeachment and removal from office? Won't happen, as we know. 

Conway ends by saying that playing the scenarios through to their logical conclusion the only way he can see this end is, as all dictatorships end, with violence in the streets.   

Trump Derangement

I guess it's fitting that my last post was a song called "Bill of Goods" (emotional 'goods' in that case) on the weekend that trump signed his unjustified, illegal and punitive tariffs on Canadian exports to the US. I didn't watch the political talking heads trying to make sense of it this weekend. But I did have the misfortune of listening to Dan Senor's interview with someone named Walter Russell Mead on his podcast Call Me Back. Senor's podcast is my go-to source for a coherent perspective on Israeli current events. It has gotten me through this past year. I usually really enjoy his guests, especially Haviv Rettig Gur, journalist Eyal Nadav, Yossi Klein Halevi and recently the brilliant Tal Becker. But lately, especially when he talks about US foreign policy, his right-wing slip begins to show underneath his fair-minded skirt. Senor is a Republican who served in the highly successful (sarcasm) GW Bush administration. So this past week he had on this Mead fellow, and the moment the guest mentioned 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' I knew it was going to be a rough ride. The episode was generously entitled 'Decoding Trump's Foreign Policy' and Mead essentially proceeded to make the argument that trump is playing some sort of sophisticated 3D chess. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and had to look this guy up because he seemed so out to lunch. I was shocked to read his long list of credentials and publications, which included publishing articles in Foreign Policy. He sounded like a partisan, not an academic. I guess it could be expected that Senor was deferrential to his guest, but he failed to challenge even the most blatant and obviously flimsy points Mead was making. 

Admittedly, I'm feeling particularly sensitive this weekend because the madness of the orange king is now directed at my country. But it seems obvious to even the most casual observer that trump derangement, is not a syndrome of his 'haters', it's a mental illness emanating from the man himself. If there is any decoding needed, it's a basic ASCII (read: DSM - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) of psychotic, malignant narcissism, as follows:

Code 1: He is only capable of thinking about his personal needs and caring about himself.

Code 2: He needs constant attention and will say anything and do anyting to get it and keep it.

Code 3: Only appearances matter, and the most important thing to him is to appear 'strong' (because he knows deep inside that he is intellectually and emotionally extremely weak.) Everything he says and does is meant to promote and burnish that appearance.   

Trump is a deeply damaged individual, who attracts emotionally damaged supporters and promoters. He understands foreign policy about as much as an impetuous 5 year old with a constant need for validation and attention can understand foreign policy. Anyone who believes otherwise understands little, or is engaged in wishful thinking. That's what I would call 'trump derangement'.  

__________________________________

After last night's press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu a post script is required. Derangement is an understatement. Incredibly, surpassing for irresponsibility, trump's suggestion that 'injecting disinfectant' might be helpful against covid, and reminiscent of trump standing next to a smiling Vladimir Putin as the US president took the side of the Russian dictator over his own intelligence agencies. It was a breathtaking public moment tonight, with Netanyahu barely containing his glee, as trump announced US intention to clean-out (ie. displace the 1.8 million Palestinians) and 'own' and redevelop Gaza. He said he has been thinking about it for a long time and has had extensive discussions 'and everyone he spoke to thinks it's a great idea' to turn Gaza in the Riviera of the Middle-East. Of course this morning the media is bamboozled, many talking like trump may be playing 3D chess. More likely this is a distraction from Elon Musk dismantling the US government to turn it into trump's fiefdom. I guess that's diabolical in its own way. Two weeks into this regime and trump has threatened the sovereignty of Denmark, Canada and Panama, launched a trade war with Mexico, China and Canada, handed the keys to the US Treasury to Elon Musk, and now set the entire Middle-East on fire with talk of an invasion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Madness.

Bill of Goods

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

You move me, you groove me, 

Then you disapprove me.

You bait me, you hate me,

Then you castigate me.

You judge me, begrudge me,

You try but you can't budge me.

You choose me, abuse me,

You know you're gonna lose me.

It's a bill of goods you're selling,

Comes with every thought of 'should',

I should have done better, 

I should have done more, 

I should have tried harder, 

I should have kept score.

It's a bill of goods your selling,

Rotten to the core,

This bill of goods you're selling,

Why can't I ignore?

There are truths we can't admit, 

And the mirror sometimes lies.

It's easier to be dishonest 

About things you can't deny.  

You tell me that you love me,

You tell me that you care.

I wish I could believe you,

You know that I won't dare.

It's a bill of goods you're selling,

Comes with every thought of 'should',

I should have been better, 

I should have done more, 

I should have tried harder, 

I should have been keeping score.

It's a bill of goods your selling,

Rotten to the core,

This bill of goods you're selling.

Why can't I ignore?

You move me, you groove me, 

Then you disapprove me.

You bait me, you hate me,

Then you castigate  me.

You judge me, begrudge me,

You try but you can't budge me.

You choose me, abuse me,

You know you're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.

You're gonna lose me.

"Not a Deal"

"Not a Deal" 

That's what the Lubavitch kid who comes to my office every Friday to try to convince me to put on tefillin said. 

He's been trying to get me to put on tefillin for weeks. His original pitch was that I should do a mitzvah to help the soldiers win the war in Israel. I said, really? How is my putting on tefillin gonna help win the war in Israel. He said, every mitzvah helps. I said, if you believe that, then you must believe that God cares about me doing a mitzvah and that He can intervene in what's going on. Then you must also believe that on some level God allowed October 7th to happen in the first place. And somehow there's a connection for God between doing mitvahs or not doing mitzvahs and allowing terrible things to happen. The kid agreed. I said, well I don't believe that me putting on tefillin is going to help win the war. Because if I believed that, I'd have to also believe that God is cruel enough to let young, innocent people die and be taken hostage, because we didn't do enough mitzvahs. If there's a God, I can't believe He'd be that petty. So I don't want to insult His intelligence by putting on tefillin and thinking he'd respond by making Israel win the war.

But that was a few weeks ago. This is a new week.           

"Not a deal." 

"What's not a deal," I asked.

"100 criminals and murderers released for one Israeli hostage, that's not a deal."

"Really," I said. "What's a better deal."

"One for one."

"So you think that one murderer has the same value as one innocent victim?" I asked. "I don't. I would trade 1000 criminals for 1 hostage. Because to me that's the value. 1000 to 1. Do you know what gives life value?"

He waited for my answer.

"Can't be faith in God. I mean, the terrorists have plenty of that, or so they claim. It's the law that gives life value. When a person follows the law, it means they are taking responsibility for others. The terrorists are lawless. That's why they will even kill their own women and children. To them, there are no laws, or rather they are the law, and so human life has no value. But surely you understand this. It's what Judaism is all about. Learning and following the laws of Torah. But it also applies to citizens following the laws of a country. The laws make us responsible for one another. Gaza is lawless, so human life has zero value. The hostages are citizens of Israel. They have so much value that the government and all the citizens of Israel are willing to do anything to get them back, even if it means sacrificing their own sons and daughters in battle. With responsibility comes value." 

"But what if the terrorists being released kill more people. It happened before."

"Yes, it's possible." I said. "But it's not inevitable. We let our guard down before. Our leaders failed. If we don't hold the leaders we chose accountable for the mistakes they made, then we are more responsible for letting it happen again."

"Making a deal, shows what you value," I told the kid. "They value their murderers and criminals. We value our fathers, mothers, daughters and sons."  

"Kol Yisrael arevim zeh la-zeh," he said.

Lesson learned.

Why Poilievre Will Never Go Full trump (if he knows what's best for him)

Why do (most) Canadians despise trump while a lot of Americans like him (and some love him like Jesus)? I mean even before he threatened to put Canada into an instant recession. 

About half of Americans like trump enough to vote for him. That's undeniable. It's also incomprehensible to a lot of us. They didn't care that he is a convicted felon. They didn't care that he encouraged a violent insurrection against the temple of American democracy the Capitol. They don't care that he pardoned the convicted Jan. 6 mob who battered police with flagpoles, sacked the building and called for the lynching of the Vice-President and Speaker of the House. Trump's supporters like his brashness. They like the way he talks. They think he gets them - when in fact, it's them who have been gotten (in the sense of conned). It's obvious to many of us that he has contempt for the very people who support him the most. He wouldn't be caught dead hanging out socially at one of his golf clubs with the people who attend his rallies, the groupies who buy his low-end merch, wear the hats, and believe every lie he utters as if it were gospel. 

One theory is that he has tapped into a visceral animus that exists in American society, between the conservative rural uneducated ('I love the uneducated' trump famously said) and the coastal educated elites. The blue collar working class and the white collar upper class. It doesn't matter that trump is the epitome of an educated coastal elite. He doesn't talk like one. It doesn't matter that when he came to office in his first term, the only successful piece of legislation he claimed was a massive tax break that largely benefitted the wealthy and corporations. What matters to trump's supporters, and he knows it perfectly well, isn't actually lowering the price of eggs. My guess is that he won't be paying much of a political price for failing to deliver on that promise. To trump's followers, paying the increased price of eggs is worth having someone who will express, in the most outrageous, most offensive and public way, the visceral resentment and anger that they feel. And by the way, it's not a matter of education, as some have been arguing (usually the educated elite make the argument). That can easily be disproven by the fact that Americans have never been more educated in history, than they are today. More high-school and college graduates than ever before. The problem is that the economic opportunities afforded by getting an education have been drying up across the board for decades, and that's endemic. Coastal elites are still foolish enough to pay the exorbitant fees to go to elite universities, and spend the rest of their lives paying the debt back. The rest think it's a better bet to tell the elites "Fuck you!" in the loudest ugliest voice they can find. They may have the smarter (and more affordable) idea.

I hate sounding nostalgic, but there was a time in America in the 1950s, 60s and 70s - I was reminded of this by an interview with Harvard professor Michael Sandel on Steve Paikin's show - when you could go to a baseball game at Boston's Fenway Park, and the rich and educated would be indistinguishable from the high-school dropouts and working class, except maybe that some people sat closer to home plate and the dugouts. Baseball was always the people's sport. Symbolic of democracies equality of opportunity. The stadia were always huge, because baseball is played on a massive field, with plenty of affordable seats. When I was a kid, my dad's clothing company (no multinational enterprise) had season's tickets for box seats along the first base line at Jarry Park. Many weekend afternoons in the summer were spent taking in an Expos double-header. Point being, the experience embodied a kind of social cohesion accessible to everyone. Contrast that to tickets for sport (concert etc.) nowadays. They are priced out of reach for the average person. The elite sit in corporate boxes, while their employees  watch on livingroom and sports bar TV screens. It's symbolic of a fracturing of the economic and cultural fabric of society.

Since the mid-1980s, the social divide shaped by economic globalization that offshored manufacturing and financially privileged those who could take advantage of the information economy, created a divide that stagnated wages at the bottom for decades and hypercharged wealth accumulation at the top. This trend gradually morphed into the fragmentary politics of group identity. A sense of social cohesion, built on trust that everyone was working toward the same national project of fairness and opportunity, was coming apart, because the economic and political results demonstrated the exact opposite. Enter trump, whose populist message targeting those left behind by increasing wealth disparities, found a home within groups of society looking for a voice to express their anger, frustration and blame. 

Why hasn't Canada fallen prey to that brand of identity politics of resentment? It's not as if tickets for a hockey game have become more affordable. It's not as if we don't fall for identity politics in general. We do. Canadians are more woke than an alarm clock. One word: healthcare. That, and all the other nationwide institutions explicitly designed to strengthen the national social fabric, like our social safety net, our public schools, our childcare etc. Most northern countries, for example the Scandinavian countries, tend to have a more developed social safety-net systems of support. It comes with the challenges of living in northern climates. A certain sense of interdependence emerges, and a national culture and institutional framework. I'm not suggesting that Canada doesn't have regional cultural identities, of course we do, some very distinct ones, as in Quebec. But in terms of shared experience and affinity, there's nothing like a cold Canadian winter - which shapes our choice of sports, technologies, arts, sciences & manufacturing (ie. research we are particularly good at doing and products we're particularly good at making) etc. In short, everything that makes up an identity. Our social fabric simply hasn't frayed the way it has in the US because we still trust in our government, the services they provide, and each other. Sure, we had our copycat trucker convoy disruption when people were going out of their minds during the pandemic. Most Canadians hated it. We trust our healthcare professionals to provide advice in the interest of citizens. We like order not chaos. It gets too cold up here for chaos. The US has always influenced our politics and culture, and always will. But the bottom line is we're different. We're not American. And in the next few months I think we'll prove it.