adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Letters to the editor: 'This is the era of Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre.' Populist politics, plus other letters to the … – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Open this photo in gallery:

The Canadian Rockies west of Cochrane, Alta. on June 17, 2021.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press

United nation

Re “To restore unity in Canada, we need to build national understanding” (Opinion, Nov. 18): How refreshing to hear from Joe Clark. His generous and pragmatic conception of the nature of this country is sorely missed.

Canadians enjoy abundance, freedom and security virtually unmatched elsewhere. Yet we seem intent on frittering it away.

Government indecision and incompetence are rampant. Politicians seem to offer nothing but petty-minded demagoguery. Parochialism and divisiveness define our politics.

Where are leaders to encourage us to act as a unified nation? Who will exhort us to meet head-on myriad challenges? I look around, but I can’t see anybody.

Our nation’s future – and self-respect – are on the line. If our leaders won’t hold us to account, then maybe we need to do it ourselves. Perhaps Mr. Clark’s “modest suggestion,” that public-policy organizations convene “constructive discussions,” offers a way forward. Nothing else seems to be working.

Where do I sign up?

Neil Macdonald Toronto


Joe Clark’s thoughtful piece reminds me of a fear expressed by Robert Stanfield as he ended his career.

Mr. Stanfield said political parties, which historically built compromise among disparate Canadians, were being displaced by single-issue groups with no tolerance for compromise. He feared where that would lead us.

Mr. Stanfield was prescient. So what do we do now? Further to Mr. Clark’s experience, could ordinary Canadians, supported by experts who only provide the facts and the pros and cons, come up with sensible compromises to some of our nation’s most pressing issues?

How green, how soon? More immigration, less immigration? Higher deficits, lower deficits? Maybe ordinary Canadians could do that. They certainly couldn’t do worse than Parliament or the uncompromising “activists” who dominate national discussions.

Ian Thompson Halifax

Civil debate

Re “When should protest be considered offside?” (Opinion, Nov. 18): Columnist Marsha Lederman continues to present balanced and thoughtful ideas based on fact and reason. But someone should tell her the days of moderation and respect look over.

This is the era of Donald Trump and Pierre Poilievre, when partisan obscenities are flown on flags. Elsewhere, I hear Justin Trudeau telling Canadians which thoughts or opinions are unacceptable. Debating in a civilized and truthful manner seems over.

On the other hand, having reached the ripe, old age of 60, I find Ms. Lederman’s columns have that warm glow of nostalgia. We can dream of a time when sharing reasonable viewpoints didn’t jeopardize personal safety or job security.

My only question is: Can we go back in time?

Robert McManus Hamilton

Doctor in the house?

Re “Canada needs doctors – so why is the country forcing Canadian physicians into exile?” (Opinion, Nov. 18): I hope our federal and provincial health ministers read this. It points out that applying to medical school in most countries is highly competitive, but applying to Canadian medical schools is even more restrictive, with only about 3,000 positions available a year.

The consequences of this restrictive policy is that many well-qualified applicants have to study abroad. A former dean of medicine at the University of Toronto states that “many Canadian schools could triple their intake with no measurable change in the capability of their graduates.” Yet international graduates still face barriers and red tape in trying to return to Canada, while at the same time we have significant shortages of physicians.

In my opinion, it is time for our health ministers to have the political will and courage to facilitate change, to alleviate physician shortages and strain on the health care system.

Eric Paine London, Ont.


Canada absolutely needs more physicians (and nurses, social workers and myriad other health professionals). But leaving aside whether a “calling” for medicine is sufficient to be guaranteed a residency spot, Canadians studying medicine abroad should be aware of limited domestic residency spots before embarking on training in places such as Ireland or the Caribbean, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Residency programs are a critical part of medical education and need capacity to accommodate all qualified Canadian medical graduates. If training capacity could be increased, it would still be limited by the availability of educators and clinical encounters.

It should be noted that the second round of the residency-matching process is generally open to all applicants. This round is still very competitive, certainly. But having reviewed and interviewed residency applicants who completed MDs outside Canada, I’d suggest that these candidates review match-eligibility criteria more thoroughly.

Joshua Gould MD, FRCPC; Corner Brook, N.L.


Re “New University of Toronto medical school to address shortage of health care professionals in Scarborough” (Report on Business, Nov. 21): The way I see it, $130-million is being spent to help support a small geographic area in Ontario with medical manpower needs.

Are we prepared to put a new medical school in Cornwall, Kawartha Lakes, Manitoulin Island etc.? New medical schools should provide new graduates to all jurisdictions in need, in all of Canada.

Let’s have some rational foresight.

S.J. McMurray MD, FCFP; Brockville, Ont.

Take a pass

Re “Canadian seafood company High Liner cuts ties with supplier following forced-labour investigation” (Nov. 18): I think that no company should import any seafood from China.

China is well documented to be engaging in uncontrolled fishing all over the world. Given the precarious state of many seafood stocks, we should send a message that China’s way of doing business is unacceptable.

I personally never eat seafood that comes from China, whether it is produced by slave labour or not.

Jane McCall Delta, B.C.


Aside from the wrenching issue of forced labour, I lost trust in the safety of any food sourced from China more than a decade ago, after the scandal of infant formula contaminated with melamine.

Consequently, we go to considerable lengths to avoid buying any foodstuffs originating in China. Period.

Paul Thiessen Vancouver


Wiggle room

Re “Wiggly, jiggly goodness: Why gelatin is making its way back on to our plates” (Pursuits, Nov. 18): A favourite family story from 1952: My engineer father was finishing his job in Nigeria and considering his next posting. Canada looked interesting.

A local missionary family, who happened to be Canadian, invited us to a teetotal lunch which featured Kool-Aid and a jellied salad. “If that’s what they eat in Canada, we’re not going,” declared my father.

My mother calmed him down, and a year later we did arrive in Canada. But a jellied salad was never seen on our table.

Anne Moon Victoria

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

News

Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in ‘Baywatch’ for Halloween video asking viewers to vote

Published

 on

 

NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.

In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”

At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.

“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.

She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.

“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.

“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

The Harris campaign has taken on Beyonce’s track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending