Smoldering Stump Gazette
News and Commentary
About The Log
Tr$mp and the Actual Political Geography of Canada
Today's geographical analysis — by an actual PhD geographer: Fearless Leader's idea of incorporating "Canada" into the USA might not have the results he imagines.

A quick search of the WWW asking: "If Canadian provinces were states in the USA, which USA party would prevail in each?" — coupled with living within 150 miles of the Frozen North for about 40 years — can be summed up as follows.

First important fact not considered by the Very Large Brain: Canada is not a unitary state; it is a federation of (historically 10 now 11) provinces. Canada extends about 3,049 miles from St. John's, Newfoundland to a point at the intersection of Alaska, NW Territories and the Arctic Ocean, compared to 2,724 from Miami to Seattle or 2,696 from Bangor ME to San Diego or 2,613 from San Diego to Honolulu, with comparable differences in landforms, climate and society. (Of course I left out the 5,158 miles from Honolulu to Bangor, reasoning no one would choose that trip.)

Second: Based on the political leanings and characteristics of Canadian provinces, if they were to become U.S. states, most would likely lean Democratic. However, there would be some variations across provinces:

Quebec: Likely Democratic, but with a unique political landscape. Quebec's politics revolve around nationalism vs. federalism rather than a traditional left-right divide. The province's strong support for public healthcare and progressive policies aligns more closely with the Democratic Party.

Ontario: Strongly Democratic. As Canada's most populous province, Ontario's urban centers and generally liberal attitudes would likely translate to Democratic support.

British Columbia: Likely Democratic. The province's urban areas and environmental concerns align more with Democratic policies.

Alberta: Potentially Republican. Alberta's conservative leanings and focus on oil and gas industries might make it more receptive to Republican policies. However, it would still be more moderate than many current Republican states.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Leaning Democratic, but potentially competitive. These prairie provinces have a mix of rural and urban populations, which could lead to closer races.

Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador): Likely Democratic. These provinces generally support social programs and have a history of voting for liberal parties.

Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut): Likely Democratic, given their significant Indigenous populations and reliance on government services. (Note that the combined population of these territories barely sums to the 125,000 required by the Constitution for statehood.)

Third: It's important to note that Canadian political ideologies don't directly translate to the U.S. two-party system. Many Canadian conservatives would be considered moderate Democrats in the U.S. context. Additionally, about one-third of Canadians describe themselves as "political orphans" who find all parties too extreme, indicating a significant centrist population.

Overall, if Canadian provinces became U.S. states, they would likely add a substantial Democratic-leaning bloc to American politics, potentially shifting the balance in favor of the Democratic Party. Of course, many voters would retain their Canadian perspectives, possibly leading to a structural realignment of the continent's politics, and since only about 1/3 of US voters appear to be dyed-in-the-wool Trumpistas, one imagines that the current administration would have some 'splaining to do.
JD Vance Grasp of Biblical Precepts Comes up Wanting
J.D. Vance, speaking with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, (recently, as quoted in The Atlantic) provided further "Catholic" reasoning for his administration’s approach to migrants and refugees, arguing that he thinks it’s “a very Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

In fact, J.D., the Bible, a well known religious text to which many Christians purport to adhere, makes no mention of Jesus imposing a hierarchy of whom to love, the sole exception being God. To wit: Jesus provides several key teachings about loving one's neighbor in the Gospels:

"Love your neighbor as yourself." This is one of the most well-known statements Jesus makes about loving one's neighbor, found in Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39. In both instances, Jesus presents this as the second greatest commandment, after loving God.

In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus says:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

With regard to "strangers" — AKA foreigners as used throughout the New Testament — Jesus expands on this concept in Luke 10:27, stating:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Additionally, in John 13:34-35, Jesus gives a new commandment to his disciples:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

In Matthew 25:35-36, Jesus directly equates welcoming strangers with welcoming Him:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

Jesus goes on to explain that when we treat "the least of these" with kindness, we are treating Him with kindness. This teaching elevates the act of welcoming strangers to a profound spiritual significance.

Now I frankly don't believe for a moment that these are direct quotes, as they were written decades after Jesus' death and likely mistranscribed over the centuries, but these teachings emphasize the importance Jesus placed on loving one's neighbor as a fundamental aspect of Christian faith and practice. One need not be a professing Christian to grasp the universality of such principles.

Vance in his "Hillbilly Elegy" alludes to the paucity of his upbringing and early education, and now he offers proof.
Let's all dance on the grave of foreign aid, or maybe not
The US federal budget for 2023 was about $6,307 billion, yes over six trillion. That is the last year for which comparable statistics are available. The average taxpayer paid just over $19,000 in federal income tax in 2023. Most paid less, as outliers with immense incomes skew the statistic upward.

Some of this money goes to "foreign aid," which has been much in the news this week. For 2023, foreign non-military aid including USAID cost the average taxpayer about 40¢ per day. Depending on one's social and moral beliefs, either it was wasted or it paid for health, safety and economic well-being in some of the world's poorest countries.

For comparison, the U.S. military budget for fiscal year 2023 was approximately $820 billion, which accounted for about 13.3% of the federal budget. The average taxpayer paid about $13.99 per day for defense, or $14.40 per day if we include aid to allied military forces.

For example, about $3.3 billion went to Israel, or about $412 per Israeli or 68¢ per square foot, or 4¢ per day per US taxpayer, which roughly quintupled the following year due to the war in Gaza.

In other words the Pentagon's budget is about thirty-six times the foreign aid budget.

Completely eliminating "foreign aid" would save the average taxpayer about $0.80 per day, or, for example, just a bit less than a daily ration of therapeutic pediatric survival food** (photo). Happily for certain leade(R)s, the impact — increased poverty, disease and conflict — would be felt by people who are far away and powerless.

If the overriding goal is really to save some money, consider this. Each year recently something in excess of 40,000 people have died in firearms-related incidents — usually for no good reason. If we assume that each of them loses 20 years of adult life during which they would have produced $100,000 worth of goods and services annually (an amount far below actual US productivity), then the annual loss to the economy is (40,000 X $100,000 X 20 =) $80 billion per year and compounding, which this writer estimates to be much more than the foreign-aid bill of $71.9 reported by Pew Research Center for one recent year.

(It's important to note that estimates of foreign aid range from about $50 million to about $100 million, usually with the clear sound of an axe being ground in the background. We've used median values in this analysis, and we could be off by a factor of two either way, but that does not change the overall trends.)


Sources: (URLs responsive as of 2025-02-07)

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut

* https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-states/individual/taxes-on-personal-income

* https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/fy2023congressionalbudgetsubmission508cpdf/download

* https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/average/2023/us/receipt/

* various additional government documents
And then they came for me
They came for civil servants, health care and public safety workers, but I was not among those, so I said nothing.
They came for public assistance, but I was not poor, so I said nothing.
They came for workers' compensation, but I was self-employed, so I said nothing.
They came for early childhood education, but my children were grown, so I said nothing.
They came for women, but I was not a woman, so I said nothing.
They came for Medicare and Social Security, and because I am old I spoke up.
They came for me, and no one dared speak.

(Apologies for appropriating allusion to much worse events.)
Caroline's Letter: A Fable
Once upon a time, a president of the Kingdom of America, formerly the Duke of Orangeness, proclaimed from his throne the anointment of Prince Robert of Kennedy the Younger to be physician to the king and —- as time allowed —— to aid such other other subjects of the realm as might shower shekels upon his shoulders, all while eschewing the use of aught from the treasury.

The people of the kingdom responded with mixed emotions. Lamentably, most shrugged and accepted their lot. A minority at the margin whose lives hung in a tenuous balance between simple unreason and perilous insanity hailed the choice. A smaller minority who ofttimes pondered difficult concepts like gravity and chemistry and who carried a memory of the days before the monarchy seized power were verily vexed.

One brave kinswoman of the prince, who had traveled beyond the kingdom and learned the ways of other lands, challenged the king's proposed action, writing thus to the kings ministers...

"Dear Senators Crapo, Wyden, Cassidy and Sanders:

Throughout the past year, people have asked for my thoughts about my cousin, Robert Kennedy, Jr. and his presidential campaign.

I did not comment, not only because I was serving in a government position as United States Ambassador to Australia, but because I have never wanted to speak publicly about my family members and their challenges. We are a close generation of 28 cousins who have been through a lot together. We know how hard it has been, and we are always there for each other.

But now that Bobby has been nominated by President Trump to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, a position that would put him in charge of the health of the American people, I feel an obligation to speak out.

Overseeing the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — agencies that are charged with protecting the most vulnerable among us — is an enormous responsibility, and one that Bobby is unqualified to fill. He lacks any relevant government, financial, management, or medical experience. His views on vaccines are dangerous and willfully misinformed. These facts alone should be disqualifying. But he has personal qualities related to this position which, for me, post even greater concern.

I have known Bobby my whole life; we grew up together. It’s no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator. He has always been charismatic — able to attract others through the strength of his personality, willingness to take risks and break the rules. I watched his younger brothers and cousins follow him down the path of drug addiction. His basement, his garage, and his dorm room were the centers of the action where drugs were available, and he enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in the blender to feed his hawks. It was often a perverse scene of despair and violence.

Of course, people can grow and change. Through his own strength — and the many second chances he was given by people who felt sorry for the boy who had lost his father — Bobby was able to pull himself out of illness and disease. I admire the discipline that took and the continuing commitment it requires.

But siblings and cousins who Bobby encouraged down the path of substance abused suffered addiction, illness, and death while Bobby has gone on to misrepresent, lie, and cheat his way through life. Today, while he may encourage a younger generation to attend AA meetings, Bobby is addicted to attention and power. Bobby preys on the desperation of parents and sick children — vaccinating his own children while building a following by hypocritically discouraging other parents from vaccinating theirs. Even before he fills this job, his constant denigration of our health care system and the conspiratorial half-truths he has told about vaccines, including in connection with Samoa’s deadly 2019 measles outbreak, have cost lives.

And now we know that Bobby’s crusade against vaccination has benefited him in other ways, too. His ethics report makes clear that he will keep his financial stake in a lawsuit against an HPV vaccine. In other words, he is willing to enrich himself by denying access to a vaccine that can prevent almost all forms of cervical cancer and which has been safely administered to millions of boys and girls. During my time in Australia working on the QUAD Cancer Moonshot, I learned that cervical cancer is among the top three forms of cancer among women in a majority of countries. Tragically every year, more than 200,000 children lose their mothers, orphaned due to a lack of vaccines and screening. These are the real-world consequences of Bobby’s irresponsible beliefs.

We are a close family and none of this is easy to say. It also wasn’t easy to remain silent last year when Bobby expropriated my father’s image and distorted President Kennedy’s legacy to advance his own failed presidential campaign — and then groveled to Donald Trump for a job. Bobby continues to grandstand off my father’s assassination, and that of his own father. It is incomprehensible that someone who is willing to exploit their own painful family tragedies for publicity would be in charge of American life-and-death situations.

Unlike Bobby, I try not to speak for my father — but I am certain that he and my Uncle Bobby, who gave their lives in public service, and my Uncle Teddy, who devoted his Senate career to improving health care, would be disgusted.

The American health care system, for all its flaws, is the envy of the world. Its doctors and nurses, researchers, scientists, and caregivers are the most dedicated people I know. Every day, they give their lives to heal and save others. They deserve a knowledgable leader who is committed to evidence and excellence. They deserve a Secretary committed to advancing cutting-edge medicine to save lives, not rejecting the advances we have already made. They deserve a stable, moral, and ethical person at the helm of this crucial agency. They deserve better than Bobby Kennedy — and so do the rest of us. I urge the Senate to reject this nomination.

Sincerely,
Caroline Kennedy" *


And the people were sore afraid.


* As transcribed by Couric, et al.
Animal welfare sub-cabinet post to be filled
US Pres. Donald J. Tr$mp's press secretary has not confirmed that the president has chosen a nominee for undersecretary of agriculture for animal welfare.

Previous reports have indicated that his choice is Bulgarian immigrant Круела Де Вил (portrait), well known for her discriminating taste in adolescent canines. The choice is said to be a condescension to immigration supporters.

UPDATE: Ms Де Вил has stated that she'd be delighted to accept the appointment, noting that she could think of at least 101 immediate actions she could take in furtherance of the president's platform.

Apology to Disney et al.
New presidential portrait?
The Tr*mp Campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the adoption of a new official presidential portrait to be used in the 47th presidency beginning on January 20, 2025. A purported image has been circulated on the Internet.

More information

Texas, MAGA, Trump Combine for New Misogynist Gambit
From our smirking MAGA fratboy department: The worst of the worst are not only imposing pain and tribulation on their sisters, they're laughing about it.

History

About the meme

Nuance? Hardly

Impact

Cruelty is the whole point

Defense (A-ho Department)

A prince of a fellow.

(No one else dares.)

More on Topic

Suggested by...

Tourists Beware: A Brief Trip into AI-World
The intriguing world of artificial intelligence (AI) has called most producers of online content seductively to its bedside. Some have dipped a toe; others have leapt joyfully. It all bears much more examination than will be possible in a few short lines.

So far I have fenced my own playground around a few simple cartoons, graphs and inquiries into simple facts. Without doubt, the products have on occasion been superior in several ways to what some of my former students and clients could have created for themselves.

Simple cartoons are already equal to what the average commercial art program's students produce, though they are limited to the styles already extant on the Web and exhibit none of the individuality of great cartoonists. The best use file formats allowing them to be scaled for multiple output media.

Graphs based on mathematical equations are for the most part accurate. Rendering is consistent, allowing the visual presentation of complex relationships in two or three dimensions based on tables of data that can themselves be called forth by textual inquiries.

So far these results imply no threat, except to the least competent of artists and graphics technicians. That leaves the formulation of inquiries and statements of problems as the probable core of any issues we might have with the beast(s) in the machine.

I asked Perplexity.ai "what is the variability in price of three-quarter inch ball bearings in the USA from 1950 to the present?" The system answered that it did not have enough information on the specific values required to construct an answer. So it gets an A for humility.

Continues...

PDF download

To vaccinate or to Kennedy, that is the question
Most of the conspiracy theories about vaccines, which seem to drive most of K's thinking and that of others of his ilk, are not based on science or statistics.

In the past, for example, smallpox killed between 1/3 and 1/2 of all who contracted it. At the time most people lived in small villages. Because nearly every American child born before 1971 was vaccinated as part of a national program, with the world following suit, humanity has destroyed smallpox. It took 200 years of incessant human effort. Those now over 55 stood in line for their inoculation at about age ten in schools across the world for decades.

For those too young to remember, "Smallpox was an infectious disease caused by variola virus, which belongs to the genus Orthopoxvirus. The last naturally occurring case was diagnosed in October 1977, and the World Health Organization certified the global eradication of the disease in 1980, making smallpox the only human disease to have been eradicated to date." (Wikipedia)

How bad was it? Donald Henderson — who directed the WHO’s program to eradicate smallpox worldwide — reports that during the 20th century alone, "an estimated 300 million people died of the disease" in his review paper “The eradication of smallpox — An overview of the past, present, and future.”

The estimated population of the world in 1960 was 3,015,470,894. If we use that as the est. average population of the century, then the death rate from smallpox was about one percent. Applying the historic death rate to the current world population, a pandemic in an unvaccinated world (the RFKJ model) would see four billion deaths from smallpox and an unknowable number from the strep and staph infections that would accompany the impossibility of burying the dead.

The virus is still out there, lurking in dark places and in sample vials in labs in Russia and the US. It could be unleashed by an accident or a madman, and as a Russian scientist told a conference in 1982 (UPI) about nuclear war, "the living will envy the dead."

Scores of other less virulent diseases are on their way to oblivion, and we're on the cusp of being able to develop preventive measures, as shown by the Covid19 experience, in short order.

The downside, which is real, is the possibility that in any effort to eradicate a disease, a minority of the population will instead find the cure worse than (the absence of) the disease. The statistical probabilities as well as historic experience, however, are clearly in favor of the vaccination concept, and like it or not, the preservation of society, not of the individual, must be the focus of government.

You might want to write your senator about this and other pending appointments.
Your vote is your voice
Last word on the subject of the week: If you're voting to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and if you're doing this to please a relative, spouse or friend who consistently tries to dominate your life, remember that you possess one of the world's greatest powers, the Secret Ballot. No matter what scoundrels trying to undo our civil rights and liberties may tell you, no one will ever know how you voted. This would be a good time to look into your own soul.
Walls simply invite climbers; ask any ivy expert
Dear "Build the Wall" people: About your dumb idea...

To enter the US illegally one needs a guide, transportation and a chunk of money.

The money is not trivial but it's within the means of millions of would-be US residents who are well heeled or are willing to sell all they have. (https://adnamerica.com/.../coyotes-now-guiding-higher...). Cash problem: Solved.

Let's assume for a moment that the average illegal immigrant weighs less than 300 lbs. Transportation is not a problem if you have a friend with the right equipment. (E.g., https://www.rmus.com/prod.../rmus-heavy-duty-police-drone...). A "coyote" could recoup his investment with the fourth successful hop over the border. The migrant would no doubt be scared witless for a few moments, but who cares after all? Transport problem: Solved.

As for the guide, with the simple GPS controls inherent in the mini-copter a migrant could be airlifted at night to any destination within a few miles of the border and whisked away in a waiting car.

If I, who am not interested except as a thought exercise, have thought of it, surely some coyote is already experimenting.

Let's consider who else built "the wall." The first who comes to mind is Maginot, who persuaded France that a row of artillery platforms along the borders with Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg would keep the Germans out. Do a web search to learn the result.

Next comes a certain A. Hitler, a strategic thinker much admired by the current wall-builder in chief. AH built his wall along the Atlantic coast of France, comfortable that no one could invade across the English Channel.

Side note: Walls are nothing new. Hadrian built one to keep the Scots out about 1700 years ago. However, since 1762, nine Scots have risen to prime minister in the British government. Works pretty well.
Hitler, Fascism and other Nomenclature in the Trump Era
It has been suggested that one cannot fairly compare Trump to Hitler or call him a fascist. As St. Ronald would say, Well...

What part of "Hitler did some good things" as reported by former White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly fails to suggest affinity with things Hitlerian or fascistic?

It instantly calls up memories of Trump's Charlottesville comments that "very good people" were parading through the town carrying torches and shouting Nazi slogans.

Trump is responsible for the mindset of his followers. There are no speakers at anyone else's rallies calling to wild applause for the expulsion, incarceration, or outright murder of their non-Trump-loving neighbors. Much of the rhetoric of the rumbling Trump Train could have come straight from the pen of Joseph Goebbels, and along for the train ride go the world's Putins, Kims, Erdogans, Orbans and others who lean so far to the right that the whole train is unbalanced.

Dictators invariably claim affinity with the masses. Last week's performance at a McDonald's restaurant in which Trump attempted to play the role of a fry cook and counter clerk was laughable. Nearly all news outlets (except Faux News and its emulators, of course) were within hours running footage of a bare-chested Benito Mussolini harvesting wheat around 1930.

A much better term for this political stance is "totalitarianism." In totalitarian systems, whatever the Fuehrer says is gospel, and anyone can be punished for the crime of not going along with whatever nutty notion that "leader" pulled out of his ear that morning — be it useless tariffs or injection of bleach to cure disease.

The fact is that Hitler never did anything even temporarily good that did not serve his yearning for self-aggrandizement. The Trump Agenda and Project 2025 are in no uncertain terms schemes to achieve that same end, concentration of wealth and power ever further into the hands of the already wealthy and powerful.

Sounds like a quacking duck to us.
More efficient fuels no solution to energy crisis
Just read a soc med post by some true believers arguing over whether adding hydrogen to conventional fuels would solve the energy crisis.

These technical arguments matter not one iota. Our 19th Century fuels, as improved more recently, are an extremely efficient way to create goods and services and move them around, and those of us who have the option will not easily give them up.

Now raise the fuel consumption of the whole world to that of the USA and Europe, and it becomes impossible or at best improbable that we could run the system without massive heating of the atmosphere and seas. Sadly we are like the fabled frog in the warming pot of water, who never imagines his ultimate fate.

The solution to our transportation problem does not lie in the type of engine used, but in elimination of individual vehicles driven short distances and parked to await the owner's pleasure.

A permanent solution will require that all vehicles be almost perpetually in motion and not used only at the whim of the owner. This is how airlines can afford aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars; they are almost never still, pausing only for loading and unloading or for maintenance. Profitability depends on full occupancy.

Try to imagine vehicles of several sizes, from single-occupancy to hundreds of passengers, in almost constant motion, with through and local pathways all managed by computerized switching. "Seat density" — the number of passengers per mile of roadway — and the number of destinations reached could be many times current levels.

Using a handheld or wall mounted device, a traveler would define a trip, and a vehicle would be routed to the origin and take the person to the destination or to a transfer point, where the vehicle or seat would be released to the next person. Presumably one could opt for a single or small-group seating arrangement if desired or for security reasons.

In this scenario, the number of vehicles moving during any given period would be greatly reduced, and the total investment in vehicles could be shifted to better infrastructure, both of which would lower energy and manufacturing costs.

The fundamental power generation would be overwhelmingly electric, based on heat-sink technology in lieu of batteries. Such power plants already exist and will only get better. Fueled vehicles will probably not go away for a very long time in remote regions with low population density.

The only losers would be the man-children who live only to race their engines at traffic lights to impress the other boys.

We have the intellect and are acquiring the technology to solve the conflict between energy and environment, so the question is: Do we have the will?