Enough with this Trump Bullshit

 We face a difficult challenge now.  No, not the risk of the US actually invading Canada but how to talk about Trump's demented and depraved bullshit about coercing Canada into become part of the US.  A friend posted this pic on facebook, and it speaks to me because of a picture (slightly inaccurate, sorry, Kaliningrad).  

What should we do about this bullshit?   And, yes, there will be much profanity because all of this is so unnecessary, all of this is bullshit, and it is going to lead to a lot of folks wasting time, energy, and, yes, blog posts.

On the one hand, an invasion and annexation are unlikely.  On the other, I have no doubt that Trump is going to try to extort Canada.  Why is he so miffed at this friendly neighbor?  Because Trump is a greedy narcissist who is increasingly losing his shit.  This didn't come up last time, but last time, he was not as demented and he was not as immune.  

First, a clarification: as a dual citizen, I feel doubly angry about this.  As someone born in the US, I feel betrayed by pretty much everything Trump does, but this in particular as the US and Canada have had a pretty great relationship for quite some time, and it is shameful that the US would now use its power to coerce its friendly neighbor.  Indeed, this is fucking embarrassing to be led by such an asshole.  As a Canadian, well, there is nothing we did to deserve this treatment.  Being bullied sucks, being bullied by a supposed friend sucks worse.  Canadians are not going to line up and support any politician who would go along with this.  Indeed, this is going to be a big test of the right wing politicians and media outlets--if they try to go along with this, it might just prevent the widely expected Conservative landslide victory in the spring.

Ok, as an international relations scholar, this situation is both normal and abnormal.  Going back all the way, yes, the strong do what they want, the weak do what they must, and the power asymmetry here means the US can bully around Canada.  However, the economic interdependence folks will have a point here--any real trade war or worse here will hurt the US.  Trump complains about the trade deficit--what is America buying from Canada?  Oil and electricity.  Canada can turn the lights off in the northern US.  In winter?  Yeah.  As Kelly Greenhill has taught us (among others), weaker states can be imaginative in how they can hurt stronger states.  

This raises a key question: what is the domestic constituency in the US for coercing Canada? Is this what people voted for in November? Is this what the tech broligarchs want?  This bluster has no real force behind it in the sense that there are no audiences clamoring for it other than Elon Musk.  This is just a stray idea that Trump has become obsessed with, so most of our theories of international relations can't really apply.  This isn't about the security interests of the US, this isn't about the economic welfare of the country.  Indeed, this is a great exemplification of the reality of a Trump Presidency--it is never, ever about the national interest.  It is about Trump's own fixations, resentments, and grift.

As a civil-military relations scholar, of course, I am most curious--is this the thing that would cause a mutiny.  Not a coup, I am not saying the military would overthrow Trump.  But would the military follow orders to invade or bomb Canada?  Note that he is only talking about economic coercion, so maybe somewhere in the recesses of his broken mind, he understands that would be an Ambassador Bridge too far.  He speaks only of economic coercion.  

Anyhow, we are outraged.  The question is do we take this literally, seriously, or both?  Because it is now a daily thing with Trump, we can't ignore it.  That sets him apart from the crazed relative you can block on facebook or refuse to invite to Thanksgiving.  People are worried that Canada currently has a prorogued Parliament (which means it won't sit until March), but I am less fussed about that.  The Prime Minister, yes, Justin Trudeau, until he gets replaced by his part, can act without any acts by Parliament.  So, if Trump wants a trade war on January 20th, Canada can respond immediately.  So, yes, we need to take this seriously if not literally.

The big question really is what is the token carrot that Trump can take home and declare that he won this battle of North America?  A bit more spending on the border? Trudeau apologizing for making jokes about Trump at NATO meetings?   Damned if I know.  But it is all about Trump's ego at this point.  There is no real policy substance to this--there is no real grievance that warrants this hostility.

So, I guess I am asking Canadians not to panic but to get ready for some real inflation, just as the Americans will be paying for this trade war with a jump in oil prices and electricity bills and the rest. And, yes, Canadians should mock Trump as much as they can.

PS  No, this would not count as irredentism as there is no lost ethnic kin, no lost territory in the American imagination.  People can try to make it so, but it ain't.

Regrets, I Have A Few

 Today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finally announced he was stepping down.  In that process, he indicated a regret, and I had a quick take on it:

If I were Trudeau, my biggest regrets would be: 1) not finding a way to undermine or at least challenge the premiers who are doing so much to fuck up Canada--the health care system, the educational system, transit, etc. 2) there is no #2 that comes close

[image or embed]

— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman.bsky.social) January 6, 2025 at 11:26 AM

One of two times I was in the proximity of PMJT

Seriously though, looking back at nearly ten years in office, we can think about what Trudeau did well, what he did poorly, and what opportunities he missed.  To be clear, I am neither a Trudeau lover or hater.  He wasn't bad, he blew some opportunities, but he was probably above the replacement level PM.  And, yes, his value above replacement PM (VARPM) declined over time.  And, no, I am not an expert on  Canadian politics, Canadian public policy, or the history of Canadian PM's.  But I do have lots of opinions and this blog is, of course, by definition half-baked.*

So, what did he do well?

1. Child tax benefit--a lot of kids were elevated out of poverty.  That is huge and underrated.
2. He protected Canada from Trump during the first administration--that was no easy task and required a sustained, well-organized effort.  That same kind of effort paid off with the next crisis
3. Canada did pretty well compared to other democracies during the pandemic.  Canadians didn't have to line up at food banks, and the death rate was far lower than its neighbor's.   People mostly vaccinated, at least the first time.  
4. This will contradict one of the regrets but the agreement (I'd say coalition but that is a curse word up here) with the NDP led to dental and pharma policies that help fulfill some of the promises of the, um, overrated national health care system (of course, much of the blame for the decline of that system is in the provinces's hands).
   

What bedeviled Trudeau?

1. Awful leadership at the provincial level across damn near most of the country.  They subverted the pandemic effort.  They took billions of pandemic relief money and didn't spend it on ventilation or testing but on tax cuts.  The far right wing protests that punished Ottawa and elsewhere were mostly a provincial responsibility, so the emergency Trudeau invoked was less about the provinces not being able to handle the problem but not willing to do so.  
2. His arrogance.  Most of the scandals and most of the alienation of his own party was the product of Trudeau's own sense of himself.  The scandals were so incredibly .... dumb.  How does one handle the most corrupt company in Canada as it is going through judicial proceedings?  Stay the fuck away.  
3. The Mideast.  He waffled a great deal in the face of a difficult situation, but he could have stood by the international institutions that have been challenging Israel's war crimes.
4. Pipeline politics--Canada is really a strange country as it has a diverse economy, but oil plays such a dominant role.  So, the country can't make much progress on climate change, and it impedes reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada. 
    

  What did he overpromise and underdeliver?

1. Electoral reform.  This really pissed off those who crossed over from the left.  He could have imposed a system since he had a majority, but having a thin majority (the joy of first past the post turning minorities into majorities) does not really give one much legitimacy to make massive changes to the rules.  I really don't blame him for not making much progress here, as the rules would have been seen as very self-serving.  However, it might have kept the Conservatives from moving too far to the right or punishing them for such moves, so, yeah, not great.
2. UN stuff.  No, Canada was not back at peacekeeping.  One temporary minimal mission didn't make Canada back, and refusing to extend a bit undermined whatever political capital that was gained.  UN Security Council?  Talk about arrogance--Canada was way late to the process and underprepared.  Trudeau should have waited for a different competition.  Oh, and he should have cleaned up Canada's record not just on peacekeeping but aid money.   
3. Reconciliation.  Lots of words, some action (fewer Indigenous communities have water advisories), unmet expectations. 
   

 What are the biggest unforced errors, other than the scandals?

1. Oh my, the India trip.  Pandering to Sihks and dressing up as a bollywood dancer was not great. Canadian-Indian relations were going to suck anyway because a Hindu nationalist party was never going to get along with a country that gave Sikh Canadians prominent positions.
2. Keeping a truly awful Defence Minister around because he was politically important.  Whatever tatters Trudeau had in terms of being a feminist prime minister, favoring some votes and some campaign contributions while keeping a Defence Minister who failed to get rid of one chief of defence staff who engaged in sexual misconduct and abuse of power and who then replaced that guy with another who lasted a month ended any seriousness of Trudeau is a 21st century politician.
3. On the defence file, which is where I have read/heard about the most, the delaying of the defence review and undercommitting to 2% meant that the eventual move got no credit. 

Biggest regrets?

1. The obvious one: lasting too damned long.  He could have left after the 2021 election (which was called at the wrong time), after the pandemic ebbed, declaring victory over the disease and getting the country through the crisis. What did he accomplish over the past four years besides antagonizing many folks who are tired?  He ended up burning out a bunch of good Liberal politicians while perpetuating his rule. The party is now poorly prepared for the next election.
   
2.  The move to cut the federal budget because the Conservatives argued that the spending caused inflation.  No, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the pandemic caused inflation.  Canada had perhaps the second best economic recovery--inflation is down even if prices have not been reduced to the levels before the pandemic (that would require a nasty recession).  Instead, Trudeau decided to fight on the Conservatives' turf and cut spending, which then hurt the military and the rest of government.  Focusing on delivering good government rather than on Conservative priorities would have been the right stance.  As Harris's loss indicates, incumbents were going to wear inflation no matter how well they performed, so one might as well stay true to oneself.
3. Which leads to the housing crisis.  Again, mostly a provincial problem, but Trudeau allowed it to foster xenophobia--that it was runaway immigration that did, and the way to handle that was to limit student visas?  While the problems of most universities in Canada can be put at the feet of their provincial leaders, the increased dependence on foreign students meant that federal policies on visas have much bigger impacts.  So, this may not be Trudeau's biggest regret, but it may be mine.  

Overall, the Liberals of the past ten years did ok.  Their corruption scandals were modest, their impact on the lives of Canadians were most positive and in some cases very positive.  The Liberals overplayed their hand internationally while accomplishing the most important goal--defending against Trump 1.0.  

Trudeau is not the hero that his fans think he is, but he is also far from the villain that the haters have portrayed him to be.  Ultimately, Trudeau was a pretty good disappointment.   

 

*  I will absolutely miss the Trudeau Administration as I had the best access to those in and near government in my career.  I got an early look at the 2015 Liberal Defence Platform as I trashed an early effort--which led to an ongoing acquaintanceship with a top operative.  I had a mostly twitter friendship with someone who became a Minister, which led to some interesting conversations, including at a party last month in the aftermath of Freeland's departure. I interacted with a defence minister who sought out those who had some civ-mil expertise, which led to her appearing in my class twice and on our podcast. So, yeah, I will miss this government even if I was not really part of a Liberal conspiracy to cancel a retired general.

 

Addressing the Backlash: Houston, There Really Was a Problem

 One of the consistent tendencies of 2024 was that posts here and conversations elsewhere on online about the Canadian Armed Force's command crisis was the claim that it was really a moral panic, a non-controversy as most of the generals and admirals who had been accused in 2021 were exonerated since then.  One thing I wrote in 2021 was that the opponents to culture change, to addressing the abuses of power and sexual misconduct, had few allies since it was hard to ally with these tainted officers. With the various court cases having been played out with one officer pleading guilty and the rest being found not guilty, the fans of the old ways now are aggressively putting forth the idea that this was all blown up out of nothing.  So, first, I'd like to address this concept of exoneration, then go through the three most important cases, and then conclude with what it means for policy and for Canadian civil-military relations.

First, folks have claimed that the various generals and admirals have been exonerated.  This reminds me of a classic meme:

To exonerate does not mean that a jury could not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.  To exonerate means: that there was new evidence that essentially proves that the accused could not be guilty.  From one legal website: "The difference is that just because you were found not guilty [an acquittal] doesn`t mean you were not guilty; it means that the State was unable to find enough evidence to convict you. Whereas, an exoneration means, the court has overturned, and dismissed all charges, based on new evidence."  In none of the cases and especially the top three was there any new evidence that proved that the generals and admirals could not have committed the crimes of which they had been accused.

Instead, what happened was that either investigators or courts ruled that there was not sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals (except for one) to convict or further investigate them.  To be clear, that is a high bar and an appropriate one for when one could be jailed.  It should not be the standard for appointment to the highest positions in the military (or the Supreme Court). It also means that if a court can't find someone guilty, that does that mean that there was not sufficient evidence to try to the individual.  In these cases, there were other factors at work that can also cause us to be at least a wary of thinking that these folks were treated unfairly: the well-documented criticisms of the military justice system by a series of reviews including the most recent by former Supreme Court Justice Fish and that it is very hard to try someone decades later.  There is also the canard that women are so willing to make false accusations--when the opposite is true.

Ok, let's get into the three cases, starting with the Mulligan Man--Vice Admiral Hadyn Edmundson.  He had been accused of a variety of forms of sexual misconduct and ultimately rape.  His court case ended with a not guilty verdict.  This was not the clear, decisive vindication that his lawyer suggested, but instead a problem common to many rape cases--of there being no other witnesses or corroborating evidence. This case is important because Edmundson had an established reputation as being problematic on sexual misconduct issues--his nickname of Mulligan Man--when General Jon Vance named him to be the head of personnel.  To put a man with such a tainted past in charge of personnel at a time where the military was supposed to be addressing sexual crisis in the aftermath of the Deschamps Report speaks to Vance's commitment to addressing sexual misconduct.  It also speaks to the failure of then Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan who should have been overseeing such important appointments.  Chief of Military Personnel should be integral to any effort to fight sexual misconduct since recruitment, retention, and promotion are just a wee bit central to damn near everything including making sure that sexual misconduct is disincentivized.  Plus there are the optics.  More on that below.

The second case is Admiral Art McDonald, who made it to the very top of the Canadian Armed Forces, serving one of the briefest terms as Chief of the Defence Staff.  He was accused of sexual assault at a post-exercise party, and the military investigators essentially said: everyone was too drunk at the time to testify.  Maybe that is what Art McDonald considers to be exoneration, but that ain't exoneration.  Of course, McDonald then demonstrated that he was unfit to serve as CDS since he completely misunderstood civilian control of the military when he sent a letter to all of the Canadian admirals and generals claiming he was coming back to command the CAF.  His replacement, General Wayne Eyre had it exactly right: "We must remember that in a democracy the military is subordinate to our duly elected civilian leadership. This fundamental is paramount to our profession." That Sajjan advised the Prime Minister to appoint a man who clearly out of touch with proper civil-military relations and also having this stain in his past is another strike against Sajjan--that the PM should have turfed him after McDonald was suspended.  Rule #1 of Minister-ness--take the blame for big mistakes on behalf of the PM (who should have also done his homework on McDonald).  

Of course, the case that started the cascade is General Jon Vance's.  In multiple comments on my blog, folks have said that I must be some kind of puritan to be upset by Vance's consensual relationship.  These folks cast many aspersions at the primary (but not only) target of Vance's attention: Major Kellie Brennan.  There are many responses to this, and I will focus on two: first, if there was no problem with this relationship, why did Vance seek to obstruct justice by telling Brennan to lie about their relationship?  Second, relationships between superiors and subordinates are fraught, which is one why norms eventually developed against professors having sexual relationships with their students (which do get violated from time to time).  That Vance preyed upon his subordinates at a time where he was supposed to leading the charge against sexual misconduct showed as much about his judgement and his sense of double standards and abuse of power as his appointment of Edmundson to chief of military personnel.  (Some have said that no one was convicted, but the guilty plea is very much the equivalent of a conviction, even if a judge was willing to ignore years of Vance violating his oath when he slapped him on the wrist)

Over the course of Vance's historically long term as CDS, I talked to multiple CAF officers about Operation Honour--the effort to address sexual misconduct in the aftermath of the Deschamps Report.  I repeatedly heard: "yeah, but that's led by Vance ...."  I never got specifics until Mercedes Stephenson broke the story.  The key is this: Vance's reputation, either from his preying upon subordinates or from his promoting an officer who skated past previous accusations of sexual misconduct, undermined the legitimacy of the effort to deal with sexual misconduct.

So, what should we make of those who argue that this is all overwrought?  What are the policy implications of dismissing the 2021 accusations against an entire command cohort?  It suggests we should toss out the reforms, I guess.  That is, rather than having civilian oversight of promotions and rather than having anonymous reviewers for the 360 degree reviews of senior officers, we should go back to the days where those seeking promotion got to pick their reviewers.  Sure, that's a great recipe for an old boys network, but wheres the harm in that?  Oh, these accusations led to a military that is too woke, too concerned with including Canadians who are not the traditional suppliers of personnel to the CAF: women, LGBTQ, religious minorities, immigrants, etc.  So, in a time of a steep personnel crisis, we should not worry about alienating the 70% of the Canadian population that have generally not been the target of recruiters?

From now on, when I hear folks dismissing the seriousness of the 2021 scandals, I will ask them--what reforms do you want to do away with?  And if they come back with the bullshit that there are quotas limiting white dudes from joining or from being promoted, I can walk away knowing that they don't know what they are talking about.

On to civil-military relations, what can we learn from both the "exonerations" and the backlash?  First, efforts to reform military justice need to continue. If people had more faith in the system, then it might serve as a greater deterrent to those who might abuse their positions and it might also serve to reassure people that they have recourse within the system or a pathway outside the system if they face sexual misconduct. Second, we need to have politicians actually care about their responsibilities as stewards of the military.  That Sajjan messed up his job in so many ways and was kept around in that position for months and months afterwards says a lot about how Trudeau viewed his role as the chief civilian in charge of the CAF.  This leads to a third implication: that civilian oversight of the CAF needs to be the job of more than just one person, more than just the Minister's job.  It should be the job of the Department of National Defence.  DND should not just be a supporter of the CAF but an overseer.  The job is way too big for one person, and, no, the parliamentarians don't think it is their job.  

The 2021 scandals were not just the fault of a handful of senior leaders abusing their power--it was also the fault of a broken system of civil-military relations.  Both civilian and military leadership failed the CAF and failed Canada.  The structures at the time facilitated and incentivized this failure.  Some of the structures within the CAF have changed, but, alas, little has changed on the civilian side.  Denying the problems and wishing for a glorious past where abuse of power and inappropriate relationships were seen as the benefits that came with those positions says much about those making those claims and can only lead to yet more crises down the road.

2024: The Year in Semi-Spew

 It was a year of great contrasts as we lost some important people but also ventured to new places and had some great experiences including the second half of my penultimate sabbatical.  I lost my mother in May, and Mrs. Spew lost hers on Christmas/Hanukah eve.  For both of us, these women played the most significant roles in shaping who we are and how we parent our kid who is damn near 30.  Neither death was a big surprise as both were declining for some time, which meant that 2024 involved a lot of stress about how to manage their respective situations.  

We (meaning mostly me) managed such stress with perhaps more terrific travel in this one year than in any other (I am too lazy to do the math).  It started with an amazing ski trip to Japan with my sister, her guy, and his kids.  Upon return, I immediately went with my brother and then my cousin and his family to a few Magical places--lots of thrilling rides, heaps of silliness, lots of time with the next gen.  We also celebrated

And then very shortly afterwards, I started the first half of my Humboldt Award time in Berlin (second half to start in just over a month).  It was really well timed as my host, the Hertie School, had an event shortly after my arrival on whether Europe was really at a watershed moment and whether countries were acting accordingly.  While in Europe, I got a chance to do something I have always wanted to do--experience the Alp in Alpine.  I also went to Finland to do some fieldwork, and then Mrs. Spew came for some tourism in the middle of Germany and then northern Italy.

I spent more of 2024 working on the previous book project than the next one as we met with some challenges along the way.  In discussing this, someone asked us why it takes so long to publish an academic book, so I had some thoughts.  And then we finally got a book contract for our legislatures and oversight over the armed forces and got the book into the publication process!  

Mrs. Spew's round number birthday by embracing our 1970's-80's by going to a Springsteen concert!  Oh, and I finished the year with another great ski trip with my sister to Mount Bachelor in Oregon. 

Being a doomsayer at various events around Ottawa was a consistent activity for the year, where I predicted that a Trump victory (that I considered unlikely) would be catastrophic.

Defence policy was major news in Canada this year with a defence policy update that came out in April and was revised in July to appease allies.  In the summer, we got a new CDS!

One recurring theme this year was the state of Canadian civil-military relations.  It is not just one part of my research agenda, but an ongoing challenge for the Canadian government and armed forces.  The backlash against culture change is definitely on, and one measure was how many of my posts got comments from people who thought the entire leadership crisis was overblown.  I guess having not one but two heads of the military disgraced was not sufficient?  What is a little obstruction of justice after all?   I will probably post soon about this effort to deny the severity of the GOFO culture crisis even though the fans of the old order will have deaf ears.  Oh, and I have been identified as part of a Liberal party conspiracy to cancel someone has a platform at a national newspaper (despite my best efforts apparently). 

In the broader civil-mil world, lots of discussion about the politicization of the armed forces.  I wrote about it occasionally on the blog and definitely built into the next wave of grant applications.  And those grant applications dominated the latter part of 2024, so much so that I fell behind on the Canadian civ-mil edited volume project.

As we anticipate a very turbulent 2025 with Trump taking power in the US and Canada facing elections at some point soon, I am hoping that our family learns how to get by without our respective matriarchs.  They will be missed.  I hope you and yours have a much happier 2025 despite the political madness.

Goodnight to the Sweetest, Fiercest Animal Goddess

My daughter teaching Susie about some new tech

 Last night, yes, on Christmas eve, we lost my mother-in-law, Susie.  She had been declining for the past two years, so this came as no surprise, but, of course, hurts quite a bit.  The last few years have been tough on her as Susie made it clear she didn't want to move to anything approaching a nursing home.  She had been so independent for so long, living on her own since the divorce something like 30 years ago, just her and her ravenous pack of squirrels that she fed daily.

When I first met Susie, she worked at an animal shelter, and it was clear she enjoyed the company of animals.  I heard stories of various baby animals being fed at her home as my wife grew up.  Late in life this turned into feeding the squirrels outside her home.  They loved her, well, sort of, as they also chewed through some of the lines in her car.  Anyhow, she was easy to buy gifts for--shirts and sweatshirts with animals on them.

Susie was dedicated to her two daughters, imparting upon them a love for animals and a fierceness deployed to defend those who faced some kind of challenge.  Despite being of modest means, she gave so much to my sister-in-law when the latter needed it. 

Family was everything to Susie, so she put up
with my mid-meal pics.

 Over the years, I saw Susie every year at the holidays, she got used to my winterfest ways--of hanging out on my computer and binging tv marathons.  She was not much of a cook, so she was happy to have me take over her kitchen.  She loved razzing me about my quirks and she put up well with my return fire.  And she was patient when we dragged her out to the movies every winterfest.

Susie was a bit of a paradox--she was a bit of a hermit who didn't like crowds or hanging out with people, but she was so incredibly sweet to everyone she met.  She was so very kind to every clerk, every salesperson, everyone she encountered.  She hated driving on the highways and she hated all drivers, so she would sit in the back seat of my car marveling at my patience with the other drivers as we would go on the long treks from suburban Maryland to rural Virginia to see her other daughter.  

Susie even put up with the SW sequels. 
A very patient hermit.

Life could have been kinder to Susie, but she never developed any malice to those around her.  For someone who did not really other people that much, she was full of love to those closest to her.  She let me into her family, and for that I will always be most grateful.  Susie will be greatly missed even if her nagging about the various items on her winterfest prep list will not. 

Winterfest 2024 Cookie Madness: Infinity War

 

Oh man, I went wildly overboard this year.  In previous years, I realized:

• a kitchen aid stand mixer makes things so much easier
• gifts of cookie scoops makes things so much easier
• one of my fave gifts of graduated cylinders/beakers from King Arthur makes it easy to measure the liquid ingredients.
  
• using a kitchen scale (good idea, Steph) makes it far easier and more accurate to measure the dry stuff that goes into the cookies
  
• cookies can be frozen so you can bake way ahead of time (3 months or so)
• 
• that my new kitchen is really optimized for max cookie production
• that a chest freezer acquired for the purpose of storing the winterfest hoard of cookies is super helpful (and I did fill it this year, see the pic)
  
• that I have a severe case of FOMO--I want to make all the recipes because I don't want to miss out on any
• that Costco butter is about half the price of what I can get in supermarkets
  
• that most importantly, while stress-baking is a very important part of getting through pandemics and other stressful times, and that eating cookies is joy, giving cookies away is heaps of joy.  

So, yeah, I made something like 25 batches of cookies.... so many recipes and so many cookies that I am not really sure how many I made from October through to December.  I do know that by the end of today I will have given cookie boxes of varying sizes to 28 people/households/gatherings including multiple Stef/Stephs, my family at Thanksgiving, the last sessions of my two classes this fall, both CDSN and NPSIA staffs, and a heap of friends around Ottawa. I spent yesterday driving around Ottawa delivering most of ten boxes, and I got to chat with most folks.  Today, I venture out for three more deliveries.  I will have enough leftover cookies for my in-laws and my daughter to snarf over the holidays as well as some in reserve for those who left town too early or were too sick or busy to receive them.  And, yes, I keep a bunch handy for whenever a former defence minister has time to receive the cookies I owe her.  

I get to meet an occasional dog,
which is a big bonus, when delivering

My key sources for recipes--the NYT recipes I downloaded before I dropped my subscription, King Arthur, Sally's Baking Addiction (great website and I received all of her books during previous winterfests), and a few others (I have received multiple cookie cookbooks as gifts and some of them are better than others).  What is my decision rule for which recipes to make?  Primarily: do I want to eat it?  I don't bake stuff that I don't want to eat as a key ingredient (sorry) for this entire thing is I want to make cookies I want to eat.  So, no peanut butter cookies.  I also don't like nuts, which is helpful for making cookie boxes that don't produce allergic reactions.  I generally try to make things that don't require a heap of difficult to get ingredients, and, yes, I prefer to make recipes that produce many cookies, which means I don't make many sandwich recipes.  I got heaps of boxes to fill!  

So, what did I make?  Because I have a few more deliveries, I will first post the list and then put up a bunch of pics (I don't have pics of all as I kept forgetting--cookie madness is not good for the memory), no ranking this year as last year's holds up pretty well.   

King Arthur:

• Candied Ginger Shortbread
  

• 

  One of my sister's gave me a long set of
  forceps (tweezers) for fancy cooking
  a la The Bear, but it really came in handy
  for the placing of googly eyes.  Which,
  yes, always make things better.
  

  Peppermint sandwhich
• Blondie (I had two blondie recipes and, so, yeah, I made both). I think I preferred KA.

Dorie (a new cookbook, and one that, alas, didn't really do it for me):

• Fudge mocha
• Double ginger molasses
• Mocha-ricotta
• Melody cookies 

Sarah Kieffer (another new and much better cookbook)

• Oatmeal Raisin
• Chocolate chip cookie
• Blondies

• 

  I have always sucked at arts and crafts, but
  I am learning to frost better and more quickly
  thanks to Steph's encouragement and gifts of
  some frosting tools. 
  

  Palmiers (tasty but I messed up the puffed pastry)

NYT

• Marshmallow Surprise
• Gochuchang Carmel (spicy)
• Peppermint brownie--Mrs. Spew's fave
• Maple Brown Sugar
• Grammy's Spice--the best
• Gingerbread Brownies
• Black and White
  

Smitten

• Thick Molasses
• Brownie rollout
  
  

Sally's

• Sparkling sugar
• Brown butter snickerdoodles--the very best-est
• Butter spritz--made with a cookie gun, which I got in a previous winterfest (I have many enablers)
• Cookies and cream--involves oreos.
• Chocolate crinkle
• Snowballs 

I may have missed one or two.  It has been a very sweet fall--lots of sugar and butter.

And here are the pics of many of the cookies I made:

 

Black & white

Marshmallow Surprise

Chocolate Brownie Rollout

Butter spritz

Candied ginger sb

Gingerbread latte

frosted sugar

Chocolate crinkle

Peppermint meltaway (meh)

Sparkling sugar

Brown butter snickerdoodle

Cookies and cream

Gochuchang caramel

Peppermint

Maple brown sugar

Peppermint sandwich

frosted gingerbread

Palmier

Blondie (I forget which one)

The other blondie

Peppermint Brownie

CCC's

My first ever attempt at
Oatmeal Raisin--worked very well.

The Two Games Aren't Level: Dems Shouldn't Cooperate but Countries Should Pander

 I am seeing some stories of Democrats trying to pick off some elements of the Trump 2.0 agenda and agreeing to cooperate with them while I also saw much condemnation of Canadian PM Trudeau for going to Marlago to pander to Trump.  This is exactly backwards.  The key is this: the Democrats and foreign leaders are playing completely different games so don't expect them to behave the same.

The easier thing is foreign leaders: yes, going to meet with Trump legitimizes Trump a bit.  But foreign leaders have no choice--the American people elected Trump president again.  Yes, it sucks, but here we/they are.  The President is the actor for any country around the globe in normal times, and when the President happens to threaten his opponents or even his supposed friends with political violence and when his party is full of cowards yet they dominate every national institution, a foreign leader has to interact with Trump.  

This pic also legitimates Ivanka... yuck

People's memories are short, but very prominent and powerful leaders visited Trump in December of 2016 to get a sense of Trump and also, yes, to pander to him.  Trump is easy to manipulate if you know how, and flattery will get you very far.  Japan's Prime Minister Abe played Trump early and it paid dividends for the entire Trump 1.0 administration.  Did Japan get heaps of crap for not spending 2%?  Not nearly as much as other countries.  As far as I can recall, Japan did not get nearly as much pressure as South Korea for the privilege of hosting American troops.  

To be clear, this time, trying to go around Trump will not work.  Team Canada did a great job playing to Republicans in Congress and to Republican governors to try to minimize Trump's threats to the US-Canada trade relationship.  This time, it will simply not work.  This GOP is not the same GOP--it is now thoroughly Trump's party, which means they will do his bidding most of the time even if it hurts the interests of their district or state.  They live in fear of his encouraging them to be primaried or to have his supporters sicced on them.  So, yeah, Trudeau pandering to Trump's ego is the right move.  Will Pierre Poilevre be able to do so or will Trump look at him like he looks at Ted Cruz?

On to the Dems.  They need to oppose everything Trump does.  They need to make him fail.  This worked for the GOP, so time to learn from the opposition. The Dems need to paint every bad thing as being Trump's fault, they need to block as much as they can for as long as they can.  His policies will do harm, and the "good" ones will only provide cover for the bad ones.  Working with Musk and Vivek on the dodgy DOGE bullshit only grants it legitimacy it should not have.  The problem with government is not that it is wasteful--the problem with government today is that the GOP prevents it from serving the American people.  Remember what the Postal Service did during the first Trump Admin?  FFS.

Musk should be confronted at all times--he has not been confirmed by the Senate, DOGE is not a legitimate government agency, it should not be treated as anything other than a billionaire's club.  

To be clear, the election was close, and Harris lost because the pandemic and international dynamics produced inflation.  It was not a mandate for radical change that Trump proposes.  While the immigration message played well, there is no immigration crisis and it should not be granted the status of a real thing.  The Dems should fight back on that even if it is not popular at the moment.  It will become more popular as Trump's massive deportation hurts lots of Trump voters and everyone else and as it devastates the economy.  Get in front of it, for fuck suck.  

The only thing the Dems should avoid doing is hurting people.  So, the Dems can't close the government in a bargaining situation with Trump.  But then again, they don't control either house, so that's not really a choice.  But they should block everything else.  Stand for something.  And don't grant any of Trump's initiatives any legitimacy.  Unlike a foreign leader, you don't have to work with Trump.