Trump chump

It seems that Donald Trump will indeed win the Republican nomination for president. For months I have been predicting, at first blithely and more recently grimly, that it would not happen. And now I am eating crow. I got it badly wrong and I apologize.

I have no excuse. I don’t even have an explanation. I have great faith in Americans and a great deal more faith in Republicans than most commentators around the world and even, I often feel, in the United States. And perhaps I allowed wishful thinking to distort my sense of what was likely to happen.

The GOP has nominated candidates I did not approve of in the past. So have the Democrats. But normally I could find some sort of explanation, even for Hillary Clinton, who I think would make a pretty bad president. For Trump I just can’t. It makes no sense to want this man as your leader or your representative. You can’t admire his grasp of the issues, his consistent adherence to a philosophy, his suavity, his gravitas.

Sure, he annoys the right people. But so did Ted Cruz and any number of other potential nominees. Ronald Reagan drove them berserk, as did George W. Bush. You didn’t need Trump for that, and I have no idea what anyone does think they need him for. And annoying people may bring a certain sour private satisfaction. But it cannot drive political conduct anywhere you want to go.

I’m not abandoning my faith in the United States or in American conservatives. But I am saying this outcome, and with Ted Cruz suspending his campaign after his crushing defeat in Indiana it seems inevitable that Trump will be their nominee, reflects badly on both the nation and the movement.

It’s too early to risk a prediction about what will happen in the general election especially given how wrong I was about this nomination race. But I am certain that those who backed Trump will eventually be very sorry they did.

As for me, I’m already sorry. In both senses.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

A sleeper fiscal issue

Yet another warning in my inbox this morning from the C.D. Howe Institute (full disclosure: my brother runs the place and was co-author of the study) about how the federal government continues systematically and dramatically to understate the unfunded liability in its employee pension plans. It may seem like a sleeper. But one day it will wake up and it won’t be pleasant.

According to authors William Robson and Alexandre Laurin, the feds admit to roughly a $150 billion shortfall. But the real figure is $269 billion. And, they say, if the difference were added to the national debt (as the admitted amount already is) it would stand at $730 billion not $612 billion.

It goes without saying that you should not try this sort of thing at home. The government would not like it.

It’s a Three Fold Total Bad. In the first place, it’s deliberately dishonest. C.D. Howe has been warning about it for years and they are not some radical right-wing outfit prone to bungling or torqueing their calculations.

In the second, it’s fiscally reckless. Even the move to have federal employees fund their pensions more fully is undermined, that other Robson and Laurin note, because they calculate the amount required according to the understated figure. And all the blather about how debt is small and manageable as a share of GDP is also undermined by such jiggery pokery.

In the third, it’s yet another case of people in government cutting themselves a great big generous slice of pie while the rest of us tighten our belts in hard times and, when we look at them sidewise, go “What? What?” as though their cheeks were not bulging. Whatever happens, federal employees will collect generous pensions they have not paid for. Even if the rest of us have to be taxed within an inch of bankruptcy to make it happen.

Then they wonder why government is in disrepute nowadays. All the way to the bank.

Of course, they’re counting on us to sleep through the various alarms. But this is no time to hit the snooze button.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

It happened today – the ebook

Faithful readers will be familiar with my daily, free “It Happened Today” feature on the website.

Now we’ve decided to publish it in ebook format, on a monthly basis, starting with June. The ebook is available for purchase on Kindle.

Subscribers to my website (or Brigitte’s) will get a free copy of each issue – it should be landing in your emailbox today. Backers of our documentaries are welcome to get a complimentary copy as well – please email Brigitte (bp – at- brigittepellerin – dot – com) and she’ll be happy to send you one.

So if you’re not already a subscriber or backer, make a pledge today and get the “IHT” ebook free.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

Keynote address to the Real Estate Institute of Canada

Next month, I’m delighted to say, I’ll be taking part in the REIC annual meeting and conference in Ottawa. The topic of my address will be “Without Ethics, None of This Works”.

Institutions are vitally important. But even more fundamental is a political and commercial culture that values honesty and shuns and punishes deceit. Without honesty, formal rules mean nothing, in government, in real estate and commerce generally, and in our private lives.

Without ethics, none of this works.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

It happened today – May 3, 2016

Depicted here with his slave

So I’m reading one of my This Day In History sources and I find that on May 3 of what we would call 752 AD, unless we call it 752 CE which is completely different and has no reference at all to that Jesus guy, king Bird Jaguar IV took the throne of Yaxchilan. What can you say about such an event?

Not much. The historical records are somewhat sketchy. Apparently there were questions surrounding his legitimacy and he had a long struggle to be accepted as king, before a fairly short reign that based on my sketchy research seems to have ended with a key victory after which the dynasty ends. But here’s one thing I can say.

These people had totally cool names. Bird Jaguar was such an excellent moniker they used it four times, as you see. But there were also kings called Knot-Eye Jaguar and Moon Skull. And Yax Deer-Antler Skull which isn’t quite as good. But then there’s Bird Jaguar IV’s mother, who may have created succession issues by not being his father’s first wife but was called Lady Eveningstar. (Undomiel in Quenya, of course.)

As for his father’s first wife, she was called Lady Xoc which would be a great name for a rock star, you’ll have to agree. And Bird Jaguar IV himself had four wives including Lady Great Skull.

OK, that one’s a bit spooky too. But it’s cool. And by the way it turns out that Moon Skull wasn’t a jibe about a big round head or anything like that. It was the Mayan word for spear-thrower. But it sure adds a certain je ne sais quoi to an otherwise potentially prosaic name.

So given how little we know about these people, either their virtues and accomplishments or their vices and misdeeds, let’s at least acknowledge that they had the royal touch when it came to choosing names.

Wouldn’t you love to read pieces by people called Bird Jaguar, Evenstar and Xoc? Even Yax Deer-Antler Skull would beat John Smith and Bob Roberts. Though the Mayans might think those were really exotic and resonant.

Yours truly,

Hedgehog Ink-hurler


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

Be counted… or else

Today I got this envelope from Statistics Canada saying “2016 Census: Complete the census – it’s the law.” (Equally rude in French: “Recensement de 2016: Répondez au recensement – c’est la loi”.) I am told the government is the servant of the people. But this peremptory tone, giving orders without even a pretence at “please,” is not how a servant speaks to a master. Quite the reverse.

Remember how all the right people were shocked and appalled when the Harper Tories got rid of the long form census? Without accurate data, they complained, social scientists would find it hard to engineer satisfaction of the human units to a sufficient number of decimal places. Which I always found rather an odd conception of the proper role of government and of its abilities. And look how they talk to us now that it’s back.

The smart set make a lot of fuss about “evidence-based decision-making”. But a decision to trust the intelligence or benevolence of government doesn’t seem to me to be based on much sound evidence. Not even the personal stuff I have to provide or else, according to this envelope that just marched into my house, waved a pair of handcuffs at me and started shouting questions.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.

I’ll drink to that

On Friday a Provincial Court judge in New Brunswick struck down a duly enacted law and I couldn’t be happier. It was a section of the provincial liquor act limiting the right to buy beer next door in Quebec and it was clearly unconstitutional.

Now it might seem that I like judicial activism when it goes my way. But it’s not that at all. It’s that properly designed constitutions are set up to keep government limited even when the ambitions of politicians or a temporary lapse in the good sense of the public push them to expand, and to guarantee that rights are respected even when expedience seems to argue for violating them. When courts strike down laws that infringe basic constitutional guarantees of liberty, it’s not activism. It’s proper checks and balances against legislative or executive activism.

There is in the end no paper defence against people genuinely heedless or contemptuous of their own liberties and those of others. But the American Constitution is famously an appeal “from the people drunk to the people sober” and so is ours even when the issue is the right to buy beer. As a Macdonald-Laurier Institute press release praising the judgement rightly notes, our Constitution deliberately forbade the provinces from engaging in petty internal protectionism.

The release links to a paper I had the privilege of coauthoring with Institute Executive Director Brian Lee Crowley and the late Robert Knox back in 2010 explaining what our Founders did and why and how, and how the federal government could and should act to make their vision a reality. It’s excellent that a court has taken the right view of this matter and I hope the ruling is not appealed or, if it is, that it is upheld.

I also hope the federal parliament will be emboldened to legislate and end to all such protectionism. It clearly has the power and not just the right but the duty.

Meanwhile our own draft constitution, part of our “True, Strong and Free” project, will not only reiterate but strengthen the constitutional provision against internal protectionism just to be safe. But here’s one case where a court has acted in the genuine spirit of the constitution and of upholding legitimate rights not inventing unworkable ones. And it deserves our applause.


This site is patron-supported. Please click here to make a contribution.