To include your event in the Briefing and Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Weather: Mostly sunny, with a high near 72. Monday Night: Partly cloudy, with a low around 62.
- Daily weather briefing from the National Weather Service in Jacksonville here.
- Drought conditions here. (What is the Keetch-Byram drought index?).
- Check today’s tides in Daytona Beach (a few minutes off from Flagler Beach) here.
- Tropical cyclone activity here, and even more details here.
Today at a Glance:
The Beverly Beach Town Commission meets at 6 p.m. at the meeting hall building behind the Town Hall, 2735 North Oceanshore Boulevard (State Road A1A) in Beverly Beach. See meeting announcements here.
Nar-Anon Family Groups offers hope and help for families and friends of addicts through a 12-step program, 6 p.m. at St. Mark by the Sea Lutheran Church, 303 Palm Coast Pkwy NE, Palm Coast, Fellowship Hall Entrance. See the website, www.nar-anon.org, or call (800) 477-6291. Find virtual meetings here.
Notably: Peter Singer is the 78-year-old Australian ethicist and philosopher made his name writing and advocating about such things as animal rights (as, if I understand him correctly, equal to, or nearly equal to, human rights). His appointment to Princeton University–to a chair in bioethics at the Center for Human Values–in 1999 was almost as controversial as Bertrand Russell’s appointment to City University of New York in 1940. Steve Forbes, running for president in 1999, demanded that Princeton rescind the appointment because, he wrote in a letter to the university president, it ”sends a dangerous and debilitating message that anything goes, that there are no bounds when it comes to questions of life and death.” Singer has advocated giving parents the right to kill newborns who have severe birth defects. Contrary to detractors’ misconceptions, he says he has not put the life of a snail above that of a child so much as he has placed the lack of consciousness of both snail and infants on the same plane. Somehow people like him, intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers and ethicists who make us rethink our assumptions without causing an iota of harm, are branded as controversial and dangerous while, say, a criminal who lies, cheats and commits real harms is elected president of the United States. Peter Singer also proposes pragmatic ways to end poverty. At any rate: I just wanted to excerpt a morsel from his recent interview with The New York Times’s David Marchese, where he is asked about his recent little book, Consider the Turkey. Marchese was curious why Singer was essentially wasting his time on turkeys. “There aren’t really new arguments in it,” Marchese tells him, right around Thanksgiving slaughters. “Could that time have been better spent doing something else?” Singer’s response: “This is an important issue. We’re talking about over 200 million turkeys who are reared in a way that comes close to being described as torture. It hurts them to stand up because their immature leg bones don’t bear the immense weight that they’ve been bred to put on in a short time. They suffer at slaughter and, as I describe in the book, if they get bird flu, the entire shed is killed by heatstroke quite commonly. It’s not the only method used in the United States, but it’s used on millions of birds. The ventilation is stopped in the shed, heaters are brought in, and they are deliberately heated to death over a period of hours. That’s something that Americans don’t know, and it’s important they should know, because it should stop. I think that’s definitely worth the time it took to write this book.” Ponder that as you pass the relish.
—P.T.
View this profile on Instagram
The Live Calendar is a compendium of local and regional political, civic and cultural events. You can input your own calendar events directly onto the site as you wish them to appear (pending approval of course). To include your event in the Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Flagler County Drug Court Convenes
Story Time for Preschoolers at Flagler Beach Public Library
Model Yacht Club Races at the Pond in Palm Coast’s Town Center
Flagler Beach City Commission Workshop on Beach-Management Plan
‘The Drowsy Chaperone,’ at St. Augustine’s Limelight Theatre
Free For All Fridays With Host David Ayres on WNZF
First Friday Garden Walks at Washington Oaks Gardens State Park
Friday Blue Forum
First Friday in Flagler Beach
Free Family Art Night at Ormond Memorial Art Museum and Gardens
‘The Drowsy Chaperone,’ at St. Augustine’s Limelight Theatre
For the full calendar, go here.
Perhaps the most egregious example of Singer’s bad habit of treating as a settled matter issues over which reasonable people disagree–and certainly the most significant such misrepresentation for his own theory–is his grandiose repudiation of the doctrine of “the sanctity of human life.” Singer argues that the doctrine of the sanctity of human life is a form of “speciesism,” an irrational prejudice rooted in discredited medieval religious ideas that gives priority to human beings while sanctioning discrimination against and oppression of non-human animals. […] On the basis of his atheistic premise, coupled with Singer’s contention that “the claim to equality does not rest on the possession of intelligence, moral personality, rationality, or similar matters of fact,” one might wonder what obstacle remains to the conclusion that might makes right, or what resources could be called upon to justify treating any form of animal life, human or non-human, as deserving of respect. Singer has an answer, naturally; but the answer hurls his theory into incoherence.
–From Peter Berkowitz’z “Other People’s Mothers,” a review essay on Peter Singer, The New Republic, January 10, 2000.
Pogo says
@P.T.
Shush — you’ll wake the rest of the farm!
Ed P says
Fasten your seat belts. Mexico/Trump pause tariffs. Mexico to send 10,000 national guard troops to borders. On going negotiations to follow.
Yep Trump is dumb, as a fox. Don’t spike the ball yet, it’s going to be a long long 4 years.
Canadian meeting at 3:00 pm today.
Laurel says
Ed P: Whether you think he’s a “fox” or not, he is in it for the money, for himself.
First, look at it this way: If you were an ally, and your neighbor decided to put the screws to you, would you simply cave, or would you start making other connections? Our friends, who we treat like trash, have already started looking elsewhere. China is starting to look better to them. Meanwhile, we are isolating ourselves. Our allies may never trust us again. Why should they? We are now causing chaos and uncertainty. The very people who are willing to come to our aid in wars, and fires, may turn their backs. This, to you, looks clever.
Actually, Trump is being kinder to China than to our border neighbors and allies.
If you are a country, with worms in your feet, and America comes to you with help that cures, wouldn’t you look fondly upon us? What if America stays away, and only strong arms you for possible help? How would you look upon Americans then? Look how he’s treating Ukraine. If you are starving, wouldn’t you look more positively on those who bring you food?
Do you realize, if Trump crashes the world, the ultra wealthy steps in and scoops up the spoils? Where does that leave the middle class? How would the rest of the world see us? BTW, what of the “pain” we are to suffer?
There is a reason for diplomacy, that has worked for us for centuries.
Got a book for you to read: “Masque of the Red Death” by Edgar Allen Poe.
Trump does nothing for us. He does for himself. Even a fox does not live alone. The world is much small than you realize.
Endless dark money says
Haha blow that statue up it represents an old dead nation. We are savages for a dollar. Enjoy the fascism!
James says
Don’t know about any of you folks, but me? After looking at bits and pieces of 60 minutes last night, as much as my TV reception allowed (so much for all the hype of digital broadcast technology), I then stuck around and watched about 10 minutes of the Grammy’s… then shut the TV and went back to my studies for awhile before going to bed.
All I could (sadly) think about, and now say, is that I don’t think Los Angeles is going to be rebuilt any time soon. Even if Canada becomes the next duchy in the kingdom, or new Republic, or whatever… “old growth” trees are hard to come by… even in Canada.
Never been there (LA… or Canada, for that matter), so I can’t say I “loved” or “liked” it… nor can I justifiably say I disliked it. As such an assessment seems to be required of one on everything in the age of Facebook… now even here, as I’ve noticed.
What happened to those simpler times when one could be quietly, truthfully, ambivalent? Gone, it seems.
Don’t know about AI, but personally, the “tech bomb” of mass destruction (if there were one) has already been dropped.
But I’ve digressed.
Just a tragedy, but one in the making for decades. Foreseen by many, taken seriously by no one… none who could have made a difference that is.
Remind you of anyplace else?
Just an unfortunate observation… perhaps one of my last.
Laurel says
Hopefully, you will have more, happier observations. One thing about the U.S., is we have been able to self correct, repeatedly, in the past. The fact that we are a nation of varied backgrounds, has proven to be a catalyst in being the most important country in the world. We have had blips in the past, terrible ones, but still came out ahead. This is just another bad blip. The poor against the wealthy. What both side do not understand is, we do the best, and are the strongest, when we have a middle class.
Is our political system corrupt? Yeppers. Now, it’s becoming more corrupt than ever. It’s been a project since the 1970’s, and is surfacing now to the awareness of half our civilians. We just have to wait for when the other half begins to see. Then, the shit will hit the fan. I don’t know when. You younger people have to pass on truthful information.
AI? Yes, it’s another revolution. Just another fight between good and evil, which has be around since the beginning of human time.
Jim says
Ed P,
Celebrate the wins and ignore the losses.
By the way, I don’t know if I call either Mexico or Canada a “win”, regardless. Canada getting hit with 25% tariffs over 40 pounds (or less) fentanyl coming across the northern border. I’m probably wrong but that seems a little excessive to me seeing that Canada has been a true ally to the USA for a very long time. Mexico, different story, I agree. However, I just wonder how long the USA is going to be “top dog” as we push our allies around by just punching them in the mouth?
As far as losses we should all ignore:
1. J6 convicts all pardoned (I know, old news – almost three weeks….)
2. Elon Musk has penetrated the security of the Treasury Department. Maybe that isn’t a loss. But as far as I know, Elon doesn’t have a security clearance, is not a member of the government and (seems to me) has millions and billions of dollars worth contracts with the US government. There can’t be any moral, ethical or legal issues with this, right?
3. Government employees being sent home left and right for nefarious reasons, to put it mildly. Due process? No longer in play in this government. And, after all, doesn’t the end justify the means, regardless?
4. A dozen Inspector Generals fired for no reason. Law requires 30 day notice and justification sent to Congress. Well, forget that!
5. FBI agents fired because the worked on the Trump investigations. Again, people just doing their job based on orders from above. Well, how else can you send a message throughout the federal government that if you cross Trump or his cronies in any way, they’ll get you!
6. A terrible plane/helicopter crash occurred because of DEI according to Trump. Like you said, dumb like a fox (did you mean Fox News?). In all my lifetime, hardly ever have the authorities been able to say the cause of most airplane incidents without a substantial investigation. But Trump, the fox, knew immediately that DEI is the cause. And I’m sure all the families of the dead were relieved to know the reason so soon after the crash. What a guy. Let’s keep pulling the country together!
So much more but why waste all our time?
I know, just get out of the way, it’s your turn now. And I’ll give you that but why is it that you and your MAGAtes can’t respond with coherent justifications for these little minor issues that Trump is creating? I just wonder what kind of person can celebrate the “wins” and ignore what some of us (not you) consider losses? Under MAGA rules, if you destroy the entire house in the process of finding where the water leak is, it’s a win!
I’m staying out of the way but I don’t think this is going to turn out the way you think. I think this country is rapidly heading to a crossroads where it will no longer even resemble a democracy nor a free country. I’m very sorry you don’t even see that potential as I do think you are an intelligent person.
Well, gotta go. I need to check on my investment portfolio. One thing I know you Trumpers practically guaranteed is that the economy will do much better under Trump. So I’m going to go look at that to get cheered up. After all, even Nero fiddled while Rome burned….
Laurel says
I remember that the Republicans cried “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” while under President Biden, where there were more jobs than under any other President. Now, under Trump, and his not vetted, not elected sidekick, with no governmental clearance, Musk, thousands of good, hard working Americans are being fired.
Notice, not a peep out of the Republicans? Now we’re not hearing “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,” we’re hearing about job losses.
Politicians are really showing their true colors, aren’t they?
Ray W, says
Does every FlaglerLive reader remember when, in 2021, Mexico surged 10,000 soldiers to the border without anyone having to threaten tariffs? Is it true that in 2022, Mexico agreed to invest an additional $1.5 billion to help with the migration issue? That in 2023, 15 new administrative actions were implemented, including deporting immigrants before they even came near the U.S. border? At the time of the 2023 actions, the U.S. was surging an additional 800 active-duty personnel to supplement the 2,500 who were already there.
During the last four years, we have listened to thousands of lies issued by the party that was out of executive branch power, many of them involving immigration. One of the biggest set of immigration lies was that the administration that was in power during the past four years had released 13,099 murderers into the population. The truth was that over the past forty years, 13,099 immigrant murderers had been released from immigration custody, including during every administration, with most of the murderers having been released after they had served their sentences. Many murderers, over 300 of them, had been released from immigration custody during the first Trump administration.
I don’t agree with you that Trump is acting as if he is dumb as a fox. I have long argued that he is vengeful person and for that alone he needs to be opposed on those grounds. He is not as dumb as a bunch of rocks (a phrase from my childhood). That is not the issue. The issue is whether his followers are gullible. All he needs is enough gullible followers.
It’s going to be a long four years of having to listen to never-ending claims posted by the gullible among us, based on misinformation, disinformation, or incomplete data.
Ed P., I didn’t ignore your last comment thread. I waited for you to post yet another partially accurate comment before responding to your previous set of partially accurate claims.
If you will recall, the first time we, in your words, “crossed swords” was when you posted a comment that the U.S. was sitting on enough crude oil to supply the world’s needs for 300 years. Since I knew you were ignorant to the facts, I challenged you. It took an unnecessarily long time for you to realize that according to U.S.-compiled data, the U.S. was sitting on known sources of oil sufficient to supply the world for 10 years, yet you did it. The fact that you were off in your claim by more than 97% may have made it easier for you to admit you were wrong. Who knows. But you admitted it. In so admitting, you proved you could educate yourself.
Our most recent crossing of swords, so to speak, occurred when you announced it was incontrovertible that undocumented immigrants consume more than they contribute. I controverted you with multiple economic studies establishing otherwise. You indignantly claimed that the results of two studies supported your position. I had already found your two studies and commented on them prior to you relying on them. I pointed out that those two reports had been purposely commissioned by people who did not want to know the true economic picture posed by undocumented immigrants.
The economic studies on which I relied had considered a vastly greater number of economic factors in reaching conclusions. One of the authors of your two studies, after reviewing the more complete studies, admitted that his study was purposely limited in scope and that the more complete studies were more accurate than his study. To this point, you admitted I was correct. You stated that the conceptual flaw made your two studies less good. No, Ed P., an economic study that purposely leaves out valid factors from consideration cannot ever be described as good, much less as less good. Your two studies were never good; they were garbage from the outset. They were designed to deceive. At least one person was caught by the deception.
You replied to my comment by stating that my studies were derived by looking at a federal program from 2008-2014. On that point I agree with you. The issue is valid for debate.
You went on to claim that you had found yet another study that showed immigrants of all types had a higher rate of participation in social services programs than do native-born residents. Since that study pertained to only that past four years or so, according to you, yours was more accurate. Unfortunately, you didn’t read your study. In it was a clause establishing that it didn’t apply to undocumented immigrants who had arrived over the past five years, because undocumented immigrants cannot, by law, apply to those programs listed in the study during their first five years of residing in the country. It seems ironic to me that you would miss that fact. The second problem was that your study was not an economic study; it was a sociological study that asked only what percentage of the many people who had applied for and received certain social services assistance.
As an aside, your most recent study broke down the numbers of people who applied for benefits from certain programs. Some applied for all the programs under consideration. Others applied for benefits from only one program, such as school breakfasts and lunches. Some applied to two programs, such as SNAP and school food. Others applied for three or more programs. Yes, nearly 59% of immigrants, documented or undocumented, had applied for at least one of the listed programs. But that is not the same as 59% applying for all programs.
This raises the most important point. Why do you repeatedly force other people to point out that your comments contain incomplete or false information? I accept that some of your comments are factually accurate. I have repeatedly thanked you for that. But many of your comments are not factually accurate.
Wouldn’t it be better if, before you posted today’s comment, you had simply typed into your search engine the question of whether Mexico had ever agreed to post 10,000 soldiers to the border prior to today? It really is that simple. But you just can’t seem to consistently do that. I don’t want to “cross swords” with you. I want you to post credible information in every one of your posts and for you to then draw valid conclusions from that credible information. On that basis can a debate thrive. This, as I have said many times, requires the use of reason in the three forms that were taught to our founding fathers and to rely on intellectual rigor to guide your thoughts.
If Mexico posting 10,000 soldiers to the border in 2025 turns out to be a good thing, why would it not have been a good thing in 2021? That is a great point for debate. Claiming that the prior administration did nothing in 2021, or 2022, or 2023, when it obviously did something during those years is not a valid form of debate. It is a form of lying, which is never a good thing.
As I typed above, it is beginning to look like it will be a long four years to come.
Ed P says
Governor Trudeau is also on board. Oops mean Prime minister.
Panama Canal and China issue turning and Venezuelan aircraft will pick up illegals.
Yep, Trump can’t even play checkers.
Ed P says
All done on a weekend too.
Sherry says
trump backs down on Canadian tariffs!
The Canadian province of Ontario will pause its own retaliatory measures against the US after President Donald Trump agreed to halt tariffs on Canada for a month.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that if the US decides to carry out its tariffs later, Ontario “won’t hesitate” to remove American products from shelves or ban Americans companies from provincial procurement.
Both British Columbia and Ontario had previously directed their liquor boards to remove American alcohol from shelves.
“Make no mistake, Canada and Ontario continue to stare down the threat of tariffs. Whether it’s tomorrow, in a month or a year from now when we’re renegotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, President Trump will continue to use the threat of tariffs to get what he wants,” Ford said.
Pogo says
@And this
Ray W, says
As foundation for this comment, history records, albeit in only a few references, that those few of our founding fathers who were selected by their states to attend what eventually become known as the Constitutional Convention had by late summer came to the verge of disbanding the joint effort without publishing a proposed Constitution.
Some of the members never wanted a constitution; they preferred a rewrite of the Articles of Confederation. Others sought a proposed Constitution modeled in their personal imaginary perfection, but each thought only theirs perfect. Strife was constant.
One member addressed the others. He proposed something different. He argued that everyone who was seeking perfection was bound to be disappointed no matter how hard they tried, as no consensus could ever be gained from that approach. Instead, he argued that the members should seek to accept the imperfections they could accept, so the group could agree to propose an imperfect document. The goal, he insisted, should be to produce a good but imperfect document and submit it to the people to let them decide whether the deliberately flawed document was good enough to be ratified.
Within a few days, an admittedly imperfect document was prepared by James Madison; it was then published. The issue shifted to the state ratification committees.
One of the imperfections involved the language of the pursuit of happiness. The first draft by Madison contained the phrase “pursuit of property.” As I understand the snippets of historical notes, John Adams led the opposition to the phrase. After debate, the members decided to swap out “pursuit of property” for “pursuit of happiness.”
A new set of founding fathers were then appointed by each state to discuss whether the document should be ratified.
Over the centuries much has been made of the phrase “pursuit of happiness.”
What I am about to describe to FlaglerLive readers comes from a George Washington University College of Law professor who initially studied the Constitution Convention in the 1980s in the traditional sense. As background, he earned an undergraduate degree from Harvard College, earned an advanced degree from Oxford University, and then a law degree from Yale Law School.
During the pandemic-induced shutdown, Professor Jeffery Rosen decided to take a fresh look at the Convention not by more study of the founders but by determining which books they had read and then reading those books.
He described the experience as a revelation and began speaking publicly about what he had learned. Brigham Young University leaders learned of his ideas and invited him to speak at a forum fostered by the University. Just under 5,000 BYU students attended.
Professor Rosen announced to the assembly that as a student in the 1980s, he had read tracts on Quaker values, but he felt no connection to the ideals of that faith. He asserted that he was coming of age during the decade now known as the me decade, a decade of greed and excess.
But decades later, he was ready. In what he described as an exhilaration of thought, he reconsidered the meaning of “pursuit of happiness.”
The assembly heard him say:
“It was a revelation for me, and there’s not other words strong enough that’s strong enough to describe the insight that for the Founders and for the Ancients and people throughout human history, happiness has meant not feeling good but being good, not the pursuit of immediate pleasure but the pursuit of long-term virtue.”
He went on to assert:
“What I came to realize by reading the wisdom literature is that by virtues, the Founders and the Ancients meant something in particular. … They meant self-mastery, self-improvement, character improvement, being your best self, overcoming your ego-based passions and emotions so that you can serve other people and connect to the divine. … It is ultimately a quest for moral perfection.”
He told the thousands that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson “independently attempted to chart daily progress on a dozen different personal values like humility and temperance.” As an aside, from my own readings on John Adams, I accept the idea that he, too, from his youth charted his daily progress on multiple values.
Professor Rosen offered his perspective that the “Founders … believed in personal and political self-government that seeks ‘to overcome unproductive passions and emotions like anger and jealousy and fear.'”
He used John Adams as an example of the impact of the Ancients on the lives of the founding fathers. On his deathbed, Adams announced: “I am composed.”
Professor Rosen asserts that the phrase derives from Cicero’s “Tusculan Disputations”:
“A perfectly composed person is one who has achieved virtuous self-mastery.”
Franklin chose another of Cicero’s works:
“Without virtue, happiness cannot be.”
During the forum, Professor Rosen asked the student to rise and recite the “Doctrine and Covenants 4”.
They said in unison:
“And faith, hope, charity, love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.”
“Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.”
After the forum, a BYU student stated:
It was quite impressive. … I thought it was inspirational to stand up with other brothers and sisters and recite that scripture together.”
The student added that the Founders tried to disagree agreeably, which to him is an admirable trait. He then offered that disagreeing agreeably was “certainly on the fall rather than on the rise today, … but it’s something we should all try to make better rather than worse.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
My position has for decades been that one set of founding fathers met to declare independence from the king.
Another set of founding fathers fought the military campaigns to force the king to accept American independence.
Another set of founding fathers wrote the Articles of Confederation.
Another set of founding fathers published a proposed Constitution.
Another set of founding fathers ratified the proposed Constitution.
Some founders served on more than one of the above-described efforts, but not very many.
Who knows which founding father to revere?
Many on this site claim Thomas Jefferson as the most important founding father. But Jefferson was envoy to France at the time of the publication of the proposed Constitution. He did not attend the Constitutional Convention. He was still envoy to France at the time of the ratification of the Constitution.
Yes, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but he cannot be described as a founding father of the Constitution.
Yes, he served as our third president, yet he did not attempt to amend the Constitution during his two terms in office.
Through the centuries, however, we seem to have forgotten that so many were actively involved in the founding of the nation. Even more importantly, somehow, if many of our founding fathers believed in virtuous self-mastery, how did it come to pass that spreading disinformation and misinformation is the preferred way of self-government.
To me, this raises an important issue. There can be little doubt that some of our founding fathers believed that, finally, on American soil, a generation of leaders had formed to create a government like no other.
In Federalist Paper No. 1, Hamilton wrote:
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government by reflection and choice or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”
In light of the held belief on virtuous self-mastery as described by Professor Rosen, could such self-mastery explain Hamilton’s hope for a future based on a liberal democratic Constitutional republic?
And, in light of James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 37, does virtuous self-mastery explain his admiration for the virtuous partisans whom he said miraculously set aside personal political passions for the public good? And does the concept of virtuous self-mastery also explain why Madison held such contempt for the “pestilential” partisan member of faction?
To Madison, the “pestilential influence of party animosities” … is a “disease most incident to deliberative bodies”, and it is “the most apt to contaminate their proceedings.”
Laurel says
John Adams did not own slaves and opposed the practice of slavery. He and his son, John Quincy Adams, were the only two of the first seven U.S. presidents who did not bring enslaved people into the White House.
Maybe he was composed.
However, I wish that the society of men were more inclusive of women. We would evolve faster.
For me, the most powerful quote was ““Without virtue, happiness cannot be.” It explains the unhappiness of greed and vengeance, or “retribution.”
Sherry says
A more objective view of the bizarre showdown with America’s neighbors suggests a blunter truth: Trump blinked.
The president vowed as recently as last week that there was nothing that Canada or Mexico could do to avoid the tariffs he planned to impose.
But he pulled back on imposing them anyway.
As markets tanked on Monday morning, the potential consequences of a North American trade war were laid bare. The potential for tariffs to spike the grocery prices that Trump was partly elected to fix came into focus. There were fresh warnings that the auto industry — a cross-border concern — could seize up and that the price of a new vehicle could soon shoot up by $3,000.
And Canada and Mexico didn’t really give up that much.
For the Canadians, the cost of a new border strategy was far lower than the fallout of a trade war — and they’d offered the $1.3 billion border strengthening program back in December. Adding a new “fentanyl” czar was hardly a huge political loss.
Mexico has several times moved troops to the border. For example, it sent 10,000 in April 2021 at the request of President Joe Biden, who didn’t need to threaten to pitch America’s southern neighbor into a recession to get it to act.
Sherry says
trump’s bullying is not only dividing US citizens, but is creating enemies with our wonderful Canadian neighbors:
On Monday evening, political and labor groups urged Canadians not to let up.
“The President declared economic war on Canadian workers and our country. There is no turning back,” said Lana Payne, Unifor national president and member of the prime minister’s council on Canada-U.S. relations. “No one should let their guard down at this 30-day pause.”
Trudeau revealed the first phase of Canada’s retaliatory plan on Saturday night. It included levying tariffs on $106 billion worth of U.S. goods targeting Republican states and Trump allies. Several provinces also proposed canceling contracts with U.S. businesses including with Elon Musk’s Starlink.
Small businesses are fed up with Trump’s remarks about Canada becoming a 51st state. That includes Liam Mooney whose business created a viral “CANADA IS NOT FOR SALE” ballcap, meant to be an antidote to Trump’s MAGA hat.
Following the announcement that President Donald Trump is set to impose 25-percent tariffs on imports from the northern neighbor, Canadians are posting on Reddit that they are canceling their vacations to the U.S., with many users on the site posting the phrase ‘F*** America,’ reflecting the depth of anger online.
Laurel says
And the Magas actually believed Trump’s behavior would cause the world to look up to us. Instead, we got booed, and by one of our best allies, and closest (literally) neighbors. That will be the least of it. Clearly why Ray W calls them the gullible among us.
Sherry says
An excellent article from the BBC regarding the complexities of international trade negotiations for which trump is completely out of his depth with his bullying, one dimensional style:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7vdjpj7pe3o