Probably way more. If we're going to be a "postnational" state, good luck figuring out what 'national security' means. And what would a postnational consensus about 'terrorism' look like?
"But the diplomatic own-goal the Russians scored on Canada’s open net last Friday might give you some sense of the cluelessness of the Fort Pearson fuerdai caste and its detachment from the real world, and even from the Canada that exists west of the Lakehead."
Terry: Your great National Post column today defines what I just decided to call the Constant Solitude plaguing us here in Canada.
"West of the Lakehead" figuratively includes East of Riviere du Loup or North of Sudbury......
Terry, I need some perspective because I just can't see how so many people (including you) are comfortable saying that the January 6 riot was an "attempted coup." I understand the impulse to reach for that label, I just don't understand how so many smart people can look at a rag-tag group of angry citizens, only a very few armed with anything more than indignation, and conclude they were part of a coordinated effort to overthrow the government. You, more than most, know what a bona fide coup looks like. Well-armed men coordinate to take key hostages by force and control key positions. People die - not of strokes or suicide but by machine-gun fire.
I realize this is US politics but in my view it has a direct connection to your Year of the Graves essay. Media everywhere, including CBC, are making wildly overblown statements about Jan 6 that are not only factually incorrect, they do a disservice to the significance of the wrong that was actually committed. CBC reported that 5 people died at the riot. In truth only 2 died that day. One was shot by police and the other had a stroke. The other 3 sadly died in the weeks and months following of suicide.
I'm not making any excuses for what happened that day and I believe there are many who should be punished. I also believe there was an important violation of democracy, if only symbolic. But to suggest it was an attempted coup? Where is the evidence to support that? Appreciate some insight into your thinking here.
US culture and politics steer Canadian culture and politics. There's no escaping the giant to the south has a vast influence on what Canadians think. Or, more correctly, are about to think.
There's were five deaths Jan 6. Four were protesters. Ashli Babbitt was shot by Capitol police officer Michael Leroy Bird. Rosanne Boyland was pepper sprayed, trampled by the crowd and subsequently beaten by a Metropolitan Washington police officer as she lay on the ground. Kevin Greeson died of a heart attack when police threw a concussion grenade. Benjamin Philips also died of a heart attack but I have no details on the circumstances. God knows things were chaotic.
The fifth death was Officer Brian Sicknick. Contrary to the establishment story he'd been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, the coronor's report revealed the officer had two strokes. The first about 3 pm the afternoon of Jan 6th and the second around 10 pm from which he died. Had his fellow officers responded to the pleading of an EMT in the crowd of protesters to get Officer Sicknick immediate medial care, there's a good chance he may have survived. Here's a Substack piece with more detail and links if you want to dive deeper. https://taylerhansen.substack.com/p/exclusive-first-hand-accounts-allege?s=r
There were suicides by other officers days and weeks after January 6. I don't know a lot about them except their families were pushing to have their deaths classified as occurring in the line of duty so they could collect insurance. Their argument was that the psychological trauma these officer suffered Jan 6 made them take their own lives. I've never before heard of a rash of police suicides following an 'event' but it might be common. I just don't know.
I believe January 6 was neither a coup nor an insurrection. It was unarmed people angry because they believed their votes were stolen. As a result of this perceived injustice they did some very stupid things without thinking of the consequences. There's still a lot we don't know but there's also a lot we do know. There's video evidence of provocateurs among the crowd, several of whom were there long before the Trump supporters showed up. They played leading roles agitating for people to enter the Capitol building yet for some reason haven't been charged. There's 14,000 hours of surveillance video the capitol police refuse to release. There's also the video of police officers waving protesters inside and the lingering question of how two 4" thick bronze doors came to be open when they can only be unlocked and opened from the inside.
Much is yet to be learned about that day. But I expect we won't get anything close to the truth from the partisan Jan 6 Select Committee. What they're after is a useful narrative to help their electoral prospects. They're playing politics and that's a colossal cheat of the American public's right to know. Let's hope the inquiry into Trudeau's invoking of the Emergencies Act yields better results but I won't hold my breath.
With respect, can you tell me how this "coup" would have been executed? How would they have gained control of major US institutions, not least of which, the military? Given they were almost universally unarmed, how could they have defended their position from the local police swat team, let alone the military? It's utterly laughable. Not only were they unable to seize control of the government, there is ZERO evidence they had any serious intention to do so, unless you count the empty rants of a few unarmed zealots.
Maintaining the position it was a genuine coup attempt is irresponsible because it contributes to the justification for a disproportional & inappropriate response.
The use of coup and insurrection to describe what happened Jan 6 sprang straight from US establishment media. When I hear those words I know where people source their information.
Choice of language reveals a great deal. You call Trump support a pathology and designate Jan 6 as an attempted coup but didn't state why. What convinced you 74 million Trump voters have a pathology? If it's a pathology, then the millions of Canadians who cheered on the trucker's convoy and donated millions of dollars - twice! - have also succumbed.
They didn't vote for Trump because he was Trump. They voted for the message - someone to finally fight for them. Frank Nobody would have got their vote with the same message.
As Stephen Harper's book, Right Here, Right Now points out, we're in a time of disruption and polarization between those who can work anywhere and those who have to work somewhere. In other words, globalists and nationalists. The former are few yet hold the power, the latter are many, distressed by political decisions killing their livelihoods and then having their distress mocked. How do the few retain power? By creating division and convincing the many to see each other as the enemy. Trudeau is a master of it.
He slanders the truckers partly out of pettiness but mostly to break down the cohesion of the many Canadians who publicly and privately came together across racial, ethnic and regional boundaries to support them. He didn't invoke the Emergencies Act to grant powers missing from current laws but for political branding to shame and isolate.
BTW if the inquiry was to find that there was no justification in enacting the EA then what? I guess since it was supported by the NDP, Justin will tell us it is a learning moment for the rest of us. Are there any real consequences? I doubt anyone would tender their resignation over it.
That would be our Prime Minister Silly Socks. His failings are an opportunity to scold us on our shortcomings. Resignations? Nah. Why would he when the taxpayer-subsidized media are only too happy to tongue-bath the dirt off his feet.
When I see 'postnational' my mind to pre-Albania. But that is just me.
I don't think anyone has a friggin idea what is going on. And everything is like inflation; the undeniable evidence proves that the decisions you made a decade ago were misguided.
The bifurcation I believe are the economic exigencies. At one time media needed a very broad audience to sell advertising to pay for the deforestation of northern Quebec and Ontario to print and distribute the papers. So you needed to reflect the interests of the broad community, the reward being all the marketing dollars of the largest and most prosperous economies in existence. Those vast sums were used to hire the obstreperous, stubborn and smart bunch that make up the pantheon of journalists that we of a certain age read with interest to find out what was going on.
Now the economics drive media into silos; you reflect the interests and opinions of a small group characterized by socio-economic or ideological status who also happen be attractive to advertisers who are looking for well monied silos.
And in Canada you can get some cash from government, or not if you are Rebel news.
More than any specific issue, many which are frightening, this scares me. A politician can get his druthers massaged endlessly and easily dismiss other media as misinformation, racist, denialist. The only feedback mechanism is when things fall apart.
Terry, as a fellow formerly engaged in the security of our once great nation I am truly mortified by what you have laid bare. It is incomprehensible that a people could be so distracted and disabused from reality but then this seems to have been Justin’s plan all along. Frightening how effective it’s been.
"But the diplomatic own-goal the Russians scored on Canada’s open net last Friday might give you some sense of the cluelessness of the Fort Pearson fuerdai caste and its detachment from the real world, and even from the Canada that exists west of the Lakehead."
Terry: Your great National Post column today defines what I just decided to call the Constant Solitude plaguing us here in Canada.
"West of the Lakehead" figuratively includes East of Riviere du Loup or North of Sudbury......
Terry, I need some perspective because I just can't see how so many people (including you) are comfortable saying that the January 6 riot was an "attempted coup." I understand the impulse to reach for that label, I just don't understand how so many smart people can look at a rag-tag group of angry citizens, only a very few armed with anything more than indignation, and conclude they were part of a coordinated effort to overthrow the government. You, more than most, know what a bona fide coup looks like. Well-armed men coordinate to take key hostages by force and control key positions. People die - not of strokes or suicide but by machine-gun fire.
I realize this is US politics but in my view it has a direct connection to your Year of the Graves essay. Media everywhere, including CBC, are making wildly overblown statements about Jan 6 that are not only factually incorrect, they do a disservice to the significance of the wrong that was actually committed. CBC reported that 5 people died at the riot. In truth only 2 died that day. One was shot by police and the other had a stroke. The other 3 sadly died in the weeks and months following of suicide.
I'm not making any excuses for what happened that day and I believe there are many who should be punished. I also believe there was an important violation of democracy, if only symbolic. But to suggest it was an attempted coup? Where is the evidence to support that? Appreciate some insight into your thinking here.
Thanks
US culture and politics steer Canadian culture and politics. There's no escaping the giant to the south has a vast influence on what Canadians think. Or, more correctly, are about to think.
There's were five deaths Jan 6. Four were protesters. Ashli Babbitt was shot by Capitol police officer Michael Leroy Bird. Rosanne Boyland was pepper sprayed, trampled by the crowd and subsequently beaten by a Metropolitan Washington police officer as she lay on the ground. Kevin Greeson died of a heart attack when police threw a concussion grenade. Benjamin Philips also died of a heart attack but I have no details on the circumstances. God knows things were chaotic.
The fifth death was Officer Brian Sicknick. Contrary to the establishment story he'd been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, the coronor's report revealed the officer had two strokes. The first about 3 pm the afternoon of Jan 6th and the second around 10 pm from which he died. Had his fellow officers responded to the pleading of an EMT in the crowd of protesters to get Officer Sicknick immediate medial care, there's a good chance he may have survived. Here's a Substack piece with more detail and links if you want to dive deeper. https://taylerhansen.substack.com/p/exclusive-first-hand-accounts-allege?s=r
There were suicides by other officers days and weeks after January 6. I don't know a lot about them except their families were pushing to have their deaths classified as occurring in the line of duty so they could collect insurance. Their argument was that the psychological trauma these officer suffered Jan 6 made them take their own lives. I've never before heard of a rash of police suicides following an 'event' but it might be common. I just don't know.
I believe January 6 was neither a coup nor an insurrection. It was unarmed people angry because they believed their votes were stolen. As a result of this perceived injustice they did some very stupid things without thinking of the consequences. There's still a lot we don't know but there's also a lot we do know. There's video evidence of provocateurs among the crowd, several of whom were there long before the Trump supporters showed up. They played leading roles agitating for people to enter the Capitol building yet for some reason haven't been charged. There's 14,000 hours of surveillance video the capitol police refuse to release. There's also the video of police officers waving protesters inside and the lingering question of how two 4" thick bronze doors came to be open when they can only be unlocked and opened from the inside.
Much is yet to be learned about that day. But I expect we won't get anything close to the truth from the partisan Jan 6 Select Committee. What they're after is a useful narrative to help their electoral prospects. They're playing politics and that's a colossal cheat of the American public's right to know. Let's hope the inquiry into Trudeau's invoking of the Emergencies Act yields better results but I won't hold my breath.
It's the Dems last grasp at milking Trump. Obviously the Orange Man is a clown, but this was not a coup. It was Hil Dog's déplorables.
With respect, can you tell me how this "coup" would have been executed? How would they have gained control of major US institutions, not least of which, the military? Given they were almost universally unarmed, how could they have defended their position from the local police swat team, let alone the military? It's utterly laughable. Not only were they unable to seize control of the government, there is ZERO evidence they had any serious intention to do so, unless you count the empty rants of a few unarmed zealots.
Maintaining the position it was a genuine coup attempt is irresponsible because it contributes to the justification for a disproportional & inappropriate response.
The use of coup and insurrection to describe what happened Jan 6 sprang straight from US establishment media. When I hear those words I know where people source their information.
As you might have noticed I don't take my cues from US establishment media.
Choice of language reveals a great deal. You call Trump support a pathology and designate Jan 6 as an attempted coup but didn't state why. What convinced you 74 million Trump voters have a pathology? If it's a pathology, then the millions of Canadians who cheered on the trucker's convoy and donated millions of dollars - twice! - have also succumbed.
They didn't vote for Trump because he was Trump. They voted for the message - someone to finally fight for them. Frank Nobody would have got their vote with the same message.
As Stephen Harper's book, Right Here, Right Now points out, we're in a time of disruption and polarization between those who can work anywhere and those who have to work somewhere. In other words, globalists and nationalists. The former are few yet hold the power, the latter are many, distressed by political decisions killing their livelihoods and then having their distress mocked. How do the few retain power? By creating division and convincing the many to see each other as the enemy. Trudeau is a master of it.
He slanders the truckers partly out of pettiness but mostly to break down the cohesion of the many Canadians who publicly and privately came together across racial, ethnic and regional boundaries to support them. He didn't invoke the Emergencies Act to grant powers missing from current laws but for political branding to shame and isolate.
BTW if the inquiry was to find that there was no justification in enacting the EA then what? I guess since it was supported by the NDP, Justin will tell us it is a learning moment for the rest of us. Are there any real consequences? I doubt anyone would tender their resignation over it.
That would be our Prime Minister Silly Socks. His failings are an opportunity to scold us on our shortcomings. Resignations? Nah. Why would he when the taxpayer-subsidized media are only too happy to tongue-bath the dirt off his feet.
When I see 'postnational' my mind to pre-Albania. But that is just me.
I don't think anyone has a friggin idea what is going on. And everything is like inflation; the undeniable evidence proves that the decisions you made a decade ago were misguided.
The bifurcation I believe are the economic exigencies. At one time media needed a very broad audience to sell advertising to pay for the deforestation of northern Quebec and Ontario to print and distribute the papers. So you needed to reflect the interests of the broad community, the reward being all the marketing dollars of the largest and most prosperous economies in existence. Those vast sums were used to hire the obstreperous, stubborn and smart bunch that make up the pantheon of journalists that we of a certain age read with interest to find out what was going on.
Now the economics drive media into silos; you reflect the interests and opinions of a small group characterized by socio-economic or ideological status who also happen be attractive to advertisers who are looking for well monied silos.
And in Canada you can get some cash from government, or not if you are Rebel news.
More than any specific issue, many which are frightening, this scares me. A politician can get his druthers massaged endlessly and easily dismiss other media as misinformation, racist, denialist. The only feedback mechanism is when things fall apart.
Terry, as a fellow formerly engaged in the security of our once great nation I am truly mortified by what you have laid bare. It is incomprehensible that a people could be so distracted and disabused from reality but then this seems to have been Justin’s plan all along. Frightening how effective it’s been.
Please keep removing the blindfolds.
Great read. Can't wait to read what's to come.
Looking forward to the next instalment.
"Americaland!" Nice play on a fools move.