Canada, Please Don't Ask Me to Take You Seriously Again

Growing up in Canada, one learns that an obligation of citizenship is to humor the nation’s delusions of grandeur.

In schools, to the extent history is still taught, Canada’s role in world events is revised to outsized proportions. Self-flattering terms like “moral superpower” are coined to imply that from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the supposed existential threat of “Climate Change,” it is Canada pulling the strings, like some benign and unfailingly polite Kaiser Soze.

One is enjoined to play along as Canada insists it is the best in the world at this or that – oftentimes in qualitative, subjective fields such as the arts. Even here, anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear or good taste to consult recognizes this is not the case. But the Canadian thing to do is nod, smile, and not object.

It is perhaps fitting that a vapid scion like Justin Trudeau should be the leader of such a nation. A country of little consequence is led by a young man who has never faced consequences.

Since he first thrust his way onto the national stage almost two decades ago at his father’s funeral, I have found Justin embarrassing. I resisted opining on him for as many years as possible, even as I knew he would one day be Prime Minister, as I imagined the topic would demean me and my listeners.

Even so, Justin proved handy for profiling purposes. To wit, if I encountered someone who did not blush at his nonsense, while I would still endeavour to love them as a fellow child of God, I’d recognize that we were simply not on the same page in life.

One cannot improve upon Ben Shapiro’s economical take: “Justin Trudeau is what would happen if the song 'Imagine' took human form and then ate a Tide Pod.”

There is nothing so trendy and insipid that you will not hear it escape Justin’s lips, pronounced as though he had alighted upon some ancient and arcane wisdom.

Again, he would seem the ideal leader for a nation constantly slathering itself with self-important fantasy like so much maple syrup.

But here we find the nostrums of complacent leftism colliding with such force that I cannot, though my passport may depend on it, pretend to take Canada seriously again.

After a single, inevitable term as Prime Minister, Justin has been returned to power, albeit with a minority government (that is, winning a plurality, but not a majority, of seats in the House of Commons).

Canadian voters have ratified Justin’s rule and his absurd behaviour. In this age of climate hysteria, female supremacy, and cultural hypersensitivity, Canada has re-elected a man who requires not one but two campaign planes, has groped, bullied and sidelined female press and colleagues, and who has, on at least three documented occasions, performed in blackface while deep into adulthood.

In short, politically correct Canada has given the ultimate privileged white male a pass on conduct that would likely cost you, gentle reader, your livelihood.

It is not as though voters can point to a record of economic or policy success to justify this result. After promising to eliminate the budget deficit by this year, Justin has ensured that overspending will continue for the foreseeable future. He and his fellow-travelers have not been friends to industry and there seems no end to the number of Canadian jobs they are prepared to sacrifice to the gods of their weather religion.

Again, Justin requires two planes while you cannot have a plastic straw.

All this being said, I love Canada, as a place to live. I hold three citizenships, enabling me to reside in about thirty countries, but I chose to return home and purchase the house in which I grew up.

But let it not be misunderstood – the splendidness of Canada is not due to Justin’s good offices, or the shrill politics of the frowny-faced moon maidens who support him. Rather, the nation lives on the capital of a society established before any of us got here.

From coast to coast to coast, the country is like one vast, holiday camp from reality. Canada is much like the Shire – if it were criminal to misgender a hobbit.

The whole proposition is a race against time. Will this generation pass before Canada is hollowed out by rapacious non-entities like Justin and his ilk, or will the cloud of their smugness and silly-bears consume us all?

Either way, perhaps it is best for Canada not to be taken seriously rather than just enjoyed. As Alan Watts opined, “Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the Gods made for fun.”

Theo Caldwell is a Canadian, Irish, and American citizen. Contact him at  theo@theocaldwell.com

"Racism" and "Climate Change": The Left's Answers to Everything

For ages, it seemed “racist” was the only world liberals knew, much like “Hodor.”

No matter the crisis or quandary, just give them a minute and those on the left could explain how racism, probably yours, was the cause of it all.

It was the only rhetorical move they had – and the only one they needed. No matter how abstract, they would apply it to any policy dispute, as in, “Oh, you aren’t in favour of Obamacare? Racist!”

Obviously, the technique has not lost its utility, as demonstrated by the shrieking eels currently making themselves heard across American college campuses.

But along the way, they came up with a new catch-all: “climate change” (actually, their original term was “global warming” but, as there has been no “warming” in almost 20 years, they’ve had to adapt).

Democratic presidential candidate and angry Muppet Bernie Sanders has repeatedly called climate change the greatest crisis we face (in this inanity, he is far from alone), and has even averred that this invented problem is the cause of Islamic terrorism and responsible for ISIS.

Funny how climate change doesn’t cause Christians or Jews to go on murderous rampages.

This is, of course, an exquisite vintage of stupid, but it does not end there.

A popular liberal claim is that 300,000 people die from climate change every year. As to which specific people these might be, that’s where the reception gets a little fuzzy. ‘Twas always thus.

Socialists love people in groups of a million or more. Consequently, they insist their preferred crises are walloping some colossal number of people, rather than give a name – just one – of a victim and explain specifically how that person was affected.

For example, aid worker Anita Datar, who devoted her life to helping others, was gunned down by Islamic terrorists. She was one among many victims of this genuine crisis this month alone, and their names are easy to find.

Presumably, the roster of those killed by climate change is alongside the list of those who’ve died from second-hand smoke.

My pal Gerry Nicholls recently quipped that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, frustrated at not being taken seriously, ordered Canadian war planes to bomb climate change. Not for the first time, Gerry might be on to something.

If we are fed up with leaders who insist on obsessing over a made-up crisis in the face of a real one, we should just tell them ISIS has a sasquatch-sized carbon footprint. That’ll make their bull run.

Speaking of bull, Hillary Clinton boldly asserts that Muslims, “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

If you subscribe to the belief that the vast majority of Muslims are neither terrorists not terrorist sympathizers (and I do), it is still patently obvious that Islam has at least something to do with terrorism.

But the worldview of people like Hillary, Justin, and Bernie is not about facts. It is about something else entirely.

Among the many life lessons to be gleaned from Kung Fu Panda is that we must let go of the illusion of control. It is well-documented that liberals are all about controlling their fellow man. Here, they strive to control the very nature of mankind.

It would be more convenient if Muslims had nothing to do with terrorism, which were really caused by climate change, and if any assertion to the contrary could be dismissed as racism.

Speaking of which, it is bemusing when leftists who wish to call you anti-Muslim scream “Racist!” as though this worldwide religion of over a billion adherents were somehow a race.

As the kids say, what the actual F?

The truth is, ISIS is not under control (nor is it “contained”) and no amount of insisting that our problems are of our own making, and thereby mutable by altering our own behaviour, will make them so.

To the liberal mind, however, it is always our fault (or, more particularly, your fault), and there is no problem too complex to be encapsulated by that dopey Facebook meme of Kermit the Frog drinking his damn tea. But that’s none of my business.

Steve Sailer has described political correctness as a “war on noticing.”

If you notice, therefore, that there has been no actual global warming in nigh two decades, or that a lot of “workplace violence” tends to be prefaced with “Allahu Akbar!” then you are declaring hostilities.

As to the former, it is impossible to take environmentalists’ worship of “science” seriously, or even to respect their capacity for basic mental agility after watching the Congressional testimony of Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on this topic. Take a look, I’ll wait.

And as to the latter, bear in mind that that same US government that promises to subject “Syrian refugees” to strict scrutiny also scrutinized Nidal Hasan right up to the rank of Army Major before he self-deployed as a “Soldier of Allah” and slaughtered his colleagues at Fort Hood.

Whether American-born like Hasan or foreign unfortunates like those fleeing the Middle East, the liberal mind has a willful blind spot when it comes to Muslims.

Incidentally, if your appetite has been whetted for footage of leftists discrediting their own positions through witless, inarticulate defences thereof, have a gander at Liberal Cabinet Minister Chrystia Freeland on Real Time with Bill Maher recently. Take your time, I’ll be here.

Where were we? Oh, right – you’re a racist. Also, 97 percent of scientists agree you’re worse than Hitler.

Racism and climate change are the one-two purse-slaps of political correctness.

On the topic of those Syrian refugees, accusations of racism have been predictably and ubiquitously leveled at all those who voice concerns about importing tens of thousands of unknowable people from such a hotbed of climate change.

As Canadian commentator Rex Murphy wisely noted, “Keeping our eyes open does not close our hearts.”

To the left, people who use their eyes, or their brains, or who speak the truth, are all racists. Just live with it. It’s how they roll.

Liberals refuse to see, and so they are perpetually mystified by the obvious. Also, it seems they want to be mad at someone, anyone. Political correctness offers permissible rage, moral superiority, and the ability to shrink existential problems to manageable size.

To the climate change obsessives, I say with the utmost compassion, you really need to get over it. Open your eyes, please, as we could use your help with the real problems of our age.

And to those who have, do, or will call me a racist: Y’all can kiss my black ass.

I will not go back and forth in a discussion instituted in bad faith, nor am I required to prove my innocence to self-appointed judges. Also, your fly is open.

Do they really believe it? That is, do otherwise cogent, seemingly sane adults honestly think the major challenges of this world can be miniaturized and explained away by first world obsessions? Or, as I suspect, are they just repeating received wisdom, having learned their outrage phonetically?

Either way, if you blame racism or climate change, without irony, for the crises of our time, you forfeit the right to be taken seriously.


Theo Caldwell has a dream. Contact him at theo@theocaldwell.com

What is Political and What is Important

The challenge for any elected official, especially one with a key portfolio, is separating what is political from what is important. Last week, Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty welcomed an eclectic group of Canadians to Meech Lake to help him do just that. Investment professionals, policy experts and entrepreneurs prioritized the nation’s problems and opportunities, from budget deficits to trade and beyond. Flaherty hoped to consult with Canada’s best and brightest, but one of them must have declined because I was invited, too.

Some issues that came in for discussion would seem beyond the purview of the Finance Department. But as other ministers inevitably request budget dollars to fund their priorities, Flaherty, or any Finance Minister, must exercise judgment on a plethora of concerns. Information and opinions abound. The trick is to determine what is germane and actionable. Two examples of matters that encroached on talk of dollars and cents were the environment and health care.

In the former case, there is an exhausting tendency in policy circles to couch every topic in terms of environmentalist dogma, no matter how tenuous the connection. Anyone familiar with this tic will appreciate that an otherwise cogent debate on Canadian pensions can quickly devolve to whether raising RRSP contribution limits will anger Gaia the Earth Mother. But issues like climate change do, in fact, hold real and immediate ramifications for the nation’s finances, especially in the area of trade.

The growing trend of “Green Protectionism” sees countries that enact environmental regulation adding duties to imports from nations that do not have the same Earth-centric standards. Owing to free trade agreements and economic reality, organized labour and other traditional tariff proponents cannot attain trade barriers overtly but, if they are able to achieve similar ends while wrapping themselves in the mantle of climate sanctimony, more the better. Such provisions are evident in America’s erstwhile “cap-and-trade” legislation which, though it may go no farther than the House of Representatives, provides a case study in this coupling of protectionism and piety.

Sagely, Flaherty sought insight on the state of this issue. Expanding Canada’s trade markets, while preserving the free trade relationships we have, is crucial to maintaining Canada’s economic strength, and understanding environmental policy is part of that task.

With an aging population, health care expenditures, particularly in the form of federal transfer payments to fund this provincial mandate, must factor into the Finance Minister’s calculus. Health care is perhaps Canada’s most contentious political issue, but with an unsustainable cost structure looming as baby-boomers enter their dotage, sober discussion cannot be delayed much longer. There was debate as to whether transfer payments should be increased, cut or eliminated to make room for private sector solutions. Folks could agree, however, that Flaherty will not be the last Finance Minister confronted by these questions. Over imminent years, political will and courage must be summoned and sustained to face this challenge.

In the field of finance proper, budget deficits can be both political and important. Oftentimes, when a government runs a deficit, its chief function is as a hobbyhorse for the opposition. “We left you nincompoops with balanced books and now look!” screams the finance critic of an ousted party anytime expenditures exceed revenues, no matter how marginally. This is the political factor. The important aspects to a budget deficit are the reasons it exists, the length of time it is sustained, and its size as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. At 3.3% of the nation’s GDP, Canada’s deficit is relatively small (despite its ominous $50 billion appearance), especially when contrasted with the 13% of GDP shortfall currently hobbling the United States.

Even so, Flaherty understands the importance of getting the nation out of deficit and, in case he harboured any doubts, this priority was reinforced in the strongest terms by his invited interlocutors. The Finance Minister has announced a plan to return to surplus by 2014 and he was urged not to neglect that goal. As budget items are entrenched and spending is less discretionary, a deficit can become inescapable and structural. To wit, once a government begins running deficits, it becomes increasingly difficult to stop. Conservative and Liberal governments have reduced Canada’s debt in recent years, and no one wants to see that progress reversed by habitually spending more than we make.

But Flaherty remains fretful for the goliath and growing budget deficit south of the border. Projected at $9 trillion over the next decade, it seems a matter of time before America’s spending overruns call the country’s creditworthiness into question. And the Finance Minister is not the only one who’s noticed. On his recent trip to China, a major creditor to the United States, Flaherty was gratified to learn that the Asian nation wishes to take its relationship with Canada to a higher level. It is unfortunate, though, that these overtures are partially prompted by Chinese concerns about our neighbour. The Canada-US trade relationship is the largest in the world, and no ancillary benefit of new markets can eclipse its importance. America must get its books in order, though there is precious little Flaherty can do about it. In this way, the matter is important without being especially political.

Flaherty thanked his guests in words of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, appropriate to a great nation in a challenging time: “Look a little ahead, my friends.”


theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Words Are Important: Stimulus and the Environment

In recent years, as brutal winters rendered the spectre of “global warming” a punch line, environmentalists have edged their argot toward the catch-all term, “climate change.” In the United States, a similarly subtle rhetorical shift has occurred regarding the so-called “Stimulus” package that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are pitching to the American people.

To wit, as the nearly trillion-dollar monstrosity lurching through the legislative corridors of D.C. is revealed to be primarily concerned with stimulating government, rather than the economy, its proponents have taken to calling it by the official short-form, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Words are important, and since not even the silver-tongued 44th president of the United States can explain how an omnibus appropriations bill that allocates billions to the ballet, hanging gardens, STD prevention and “neighbourhood stabilization activities” will do the first blessed thing to stimulate the economy, he and his colleagues must appeal to the greater good of “Reinvestment.”

This terminology adjustment is part and parcel with the political rudiment that whoever frames the question wins the debate. Throughout the sales process for this package, President Obama has chosen for his opponents straw men of his own design, refuting arguments that were never made. In his first White House news conference this week, Obama repeatedly chastised those “who believe we should do nothing,” as if opposition to this particular legislation were tantamount to declaring government has no place to address market failure. He spoke heart-wrenchingly of a school in South Carolina, where nearby train tracks disrupt classes, saying this package would help them. The president’s logic seems to be that if you oppose giving another $850 million to Amtrak, as the Reinvestment Act provides, ipso facto, you don’t care if kids learn to read.

Indeed, alternatives to this package, including a prominent role for government, have been suggested and summarily rejected. Senate Republicans cobbled together a mere $445 billion proposal that began by considering the most pressing causes of the current crisis – the housing meltdown and credit market freeze – then determining what should be done to remedy them. But Obama and Congressional Democrats prefer to stick with their method of dreaming up the largest dollar sum they can, then deciding after the fact how to spend the money.

Further similarity to the environmental movement can be seen in the urgency with which the Reinvestment Act’s supporters press their case. There is no time to debate, environmentalists have warned for years, the planet will incinerate if we do not switch to hybrid cars and unicycles by the end of the week. Likewise, Obama has set a deadline of February 16 for the Reinvestment Act, as though $650 million for digital TV coupons or $6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program could not wait one more day.

But crying wolf on a mass scale is always a risky proposition. As weeks pass and birds aren’t bursting into flames in mid-air, more and more people begin to question the purple-faced predictions of the green-savvy friends in our midst. Similarly, if Americans discover that the Republic can stand until, say, March, without spending $7.6 billion on “rural community advancement programs,” Obama may have a problem.

Speed and a lack of scrutiny serve the purposes of the Reinvestment Act’s advocates. For example, would House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey prefer America to linger on a bill that awards $1.7 billion to the National Parks System, for which his son, Craig, is the chief lobbyist?

Most important, once this massive spending is enacted, Americans will be stuck with it for decades to come. In Washington, government spending increases are used as baselines for subsequent years, making huge expenditures very difficult to undo.

As Milton Friedman observed, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” If President Obama and Congressional Democrats insist on “reinvesting” in haste, the nation will repent at leisure.




theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.