(It is very challenging to satirize a monumental political blunder – a trade war that is rapidly escalating
and could devastate the world’s economy – but here it goes.)
Among the countries and territories affected by President Trump’s Liberation Day-announced expansive new tariffs are the Antarctic Heard Island and McDonald Islands, located more than 2,000 miles southwest of Perth, Western Australia, some of the most remote places on the planet.
Trump slapped a baseline 10% tariff on imports from those islands.
The mainstream media is having a field day mocking the tariffs solely because the islands are uninhabited, except for large populations of penguins, seals, albatrosses and other marine birds.
In 1987, the islands were designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site and are described in the CIA World Factbook as “80% ice-covered” and “bleak.”
And, indeed, Trump’s announcement of tariffs on these islands received an icy reception.
However, it is a well-known fact that — paraphrasing the President — “for decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by penguins near and far.”
He specifically pointed to the 10% tariff imposed by the self-anointed Emperor Penguin on krill, squid and fish generously flown to the islands daily from U.S. waters, in addition to other shady “currency manipulation and trade barriers” perpetrated by the Penguin regime to rip off American taxpayers.
The president had no other choice but to impose a 10% reciprocal tariff on all penguin-crafted, decorative ice cubes imported from the islands, as the lack of reciprocity constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.
The president warned, “Should the Heard Island and McDonald Islands penguins retaliate against the United States in response to this action, I will fly all the penguins to an undisclosed, tropical location for intensive re-education.” And, he added, “they can forget about any swimming, walking or toboggan activities.”
They could soon be joined there by other tariff-abusing creatures from Svalbard and Jan Mayen, from Norfolk Island, from the Christmas and Cocos Keeling islands and, let us not forget, from the collection of islands making up the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
Hopefully, US military personnel at the Diego Garcia base would be exempted from such relocation.
Marine Le Pen, figurehead of France’s Rassemblement National (RN), one of the most established far-right parties in Europe, has been found guilty of embezzling funds from the European parliament.
During her time as an MEP between 2004 and 2017, Le Pen and her team paid party staff with funds that should have gone to European parliamentary aides. The ruling estimates that a total of €2.9 million (£2.4 million) in European parliament funds
were involved in the crimes and that Le Pen personally embezzled €474,000 of that total.
She has been sentenced to four years in prison, two of which would be electronic monitoring. She is also unlikely to see the inside of a cell for the other two years as she is appealing her conviction.
More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that she has been banned from holding public office for five years. Crucially, the ban is to start immediately, meaning that even with an appeal, Le Pen is highly unlikely to be able to stand as a candidate in the next presidential election in 2027.
For many in the RN, the court’s decision will be a major blow. The party appears to have lost the candidate they believed was on course for victory in 2027. However, others will no doubt see this as a chance to distance the party further from the Le Pen name, following the death of Marine Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen
earlier this year.
This process has been in motion for some time. Jordan Bardella took over from Le Pen as president of the party in 2022 and has clearly been waiting and preparing for this eventuality. Allegations were first levelled at Le Pen many years ago and her crimes relate to her time as an MEP between 2004 and 2017. He has been the plan B option throughout her trial.
Bardella led the RN to victory in the 2024 European election in France. He also managed to send a record number of parliamentarians to the National Assembly after French president Emmanuel Macron called a snap election
just weeks later.
This was, nevertheless, a somewhat disappointing outcome as many on the far right had started to imagine Bardella as prime minister. Since failing to meet this expectation, his leadership has come under more scrutiny. His reaction to Le Pen’s sidelining will be watched carefully.
Playing the victim
Overall, it is good news to see corruption being taken seriously and justice being served. However, Le Pen’s conviction comes after years of embezzlement which has allowed the far right to build its strength. All this has come on the back of a system it has vowed to destroy. As such, it feels like too little too late.
Furthermore, this decision, and the fact that it is tied to the European Union, is likely to feed into typical far-right propaganda on the domestic stage. Le Pen and the party will play the victim, blaming Le Pen’s fate on a wide conspiracy organised by something akin to the deep state
operating via Brussels.
The deep levels of distrust in public institutions and mainstream politics are likely to play a role here. Le Pen will aim to paint the decision of an independent court as the political assassination of the “champion of the people”.
She could become a martyr, turning her cause into a revolt against “the system”. Bardella has already said that Le Pen’s conviction amounted to the “execution” of democracy.
Crucially, though, this outcome isn’t inevitable. Whether such a narrative takes hold is a choice that is very much in the hands of mainstream elite actors. Those who have a privileged access to shaping public discourse, such as journalists, politicians and experts will therefore play a key role.
Instead of giving pride of place to Le Pen and the far right in a tempting sensationalising coverage, the mainstream media must turn to serious analysis. This would involve removing the focus from individuals and putting it on the wider issues at hand. That would lessen the potential for a narrative of victimisation to take hold.
Beyond providing an accurate picture of the case itself, good coverage should predominantly focus on politics rather than on the spectacle the RN will inevitably try to construct as a diversion tactic. This would mean engaging seriously with what the RN actually proposes as a model of society: one that is not against the “elite” and for the people, but merely in favour of a different elite taking control at the head of a top-down authoritarian state.
This would then allow voters to understand that the far right is not on their side, but on the side of power, wealth and hierarchies. Those who oppose such a takeover could go some way to fix the damage that has been done with carelessly associating these parties with “populism”
.
Finally, good coverage would also mean shifting the agenda away from the far right and its pet issues. Had politicians – left, right and centre – not continuously used the far right as a diversion from their own failures to tackle the many crises their countries face, the far right would not be as powerful as it seems.
As opinion polls show, when people are asked what are their biggest concerns personally, issues core to the far right such as immigration are low
. Instead, it is issues that would require radical measures to tackle economic and social insecurity which are prioritised.
The far right offers nothing to address these – only division to make citizens powerless to fight back. Now that Le Pen is out of the picture, it is a good time to shift the agenda back to democracy and hope.
For 25 hours and five minutes, Senator Cory Booker stood on the Senate floor to give what is now the longest speech in the history of that body. He didn’t eat, he didn’t use the bathroom, he just kept on talking. When it was over, he had surpassed the record set in 1957 by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina that was intended to thwart efforts to pass civil rights legislation
Senator Booker’s goal was to get something going
amongst those who are looking for leadership, looking for a way to challenge the shockingly anti-democratic measures taken by President Trump in his first two months in office. The list is well known: the deportation of international students; threats to institutions of higher learning; threats to private law firms; shutting down entire federal agencies; firing thousands of federal workers; tariffs on foreign goods based on bogus claims; and executive orders on any number of initiatives that by-pass legislative authority, and on and on.
Without majorities in the House and Senate, without conventional legislative tools, Democrats everywhere have been wondering what can be done. Certainly AOC and Bernie Sanders have been doing their part, but beyond that that there is little sense that other elected Democrats have much understanding of or taste for the fight ahead.
Enter Senator Booker.
Who knows ultimately what impact his speech will have, but coming on the same day that Democrats cut the margin of victory in half in two deep red Florida congressional districts in special elections and Democrats won a hotly contested Wisconsin Supreme Court
seat we can only wonder if a tide is turning.
I think we know by now that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is not the guy to show the way in the Senate and beyond, and though it’s too early to say that Senator Booker is the guy, he has certainly put himself in the mix. He also has done no damage to any presidential aspirations he may have in 2028.
Many of the headlines today about Booker’s speech hit on the same theme which is in effect that it may have been a stunt but it was a pretty effective stunt. Why is that, we may ask? Perhaps precisely because he showed what has been so lacking in the opposition: passion, stamina, and focus. He gave so many what they have been looking for.
No single speech is going to be the answer, but let it begin here.
When Republican Michael Waltz became President Donald Trump’s national security advisor, he vacated his Florida congressional district seat, which set in motion a special election to fill it. That election takes place Tuesday, April 1st
.
It is probably true that few people believed the Republicans would have a difficult time holding the seat given the fact that in November Walz won by an impressive 33 points and Trump beat Vice President Harris in the district by 30 points. But all of that was before Trump decided to take a torch to American Democracy as we know it. Now voters in this very red district will have a chance to weigh in on how they feel about what the president has done so far on important issues like Elon Musk’s DOGE efforts, tariffs on imports, and immigration policy, to name a few of the hot-button items defining his presidency to date.
The race is between Republican state Senator Randy Fine
and Democrat Josh Weil
. There have been a few polls and amazingly this one appears to be competitive, with one survey showing the Trump-endorsed Fine with a 4-point lead and another actually putting Weil ahead by a few points. Both of these polls are within the margin of error, but given the political leanings of the district, this is quite something. Add to this that the Democrat Weil has significantly out-raised his Republican opponent by more than 10 times.
Another indicator of how much trouble the Republicans may be in is that some members of the Florida GOP establishment are already calling this race “candidate-specific” meaning that if Fine underperforms, it’s on him and not President Trump or the party. Throwing shade on your own candidate in the days leading up to the election is definitely not a good look.
The Republicans may well hold this seat given the history, but even if they do, the margin will matter. Similarly, Matt Gaetz’s seat in the Florida 1st Congressional District is up for grabs and while no one is suggesting the Democrats have a real shot there, the margin of victory will matter there too.
When the dust settles, spinners will spin, but if the Democrat’s significantly over-perform, you have got to believe that vulnerable Republican members of the House and the Senate will notice and will perhaps be a little less likely to rubber stamp Trump’s agenda. We all know how well the threat of a primary challenge has been used to keep congressional Republicans in line but if they start to feel like winning their party’s nomination is a short-term victory on the way to ultimate defeat, some things could start to change.
Hard to believe, but the mid-terms are not that far away.
Prisoners stand in a cell as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26, 2025. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
A federal appeals court
on March 26, 2025, upheld a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants, including alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua
, to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.
The court was skeptical
of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act
to defend the deportations. The act, passed in 1798, gives the president the power to detain and remove people from the United States in times of war.
Those who are challenging Trump’s actions in court say the administration has violated constitutional principles
of due process. That’s because it gave the migrants no opportunity to refute the government’s claims that they were gang members.
But what is due process? And how does the government balance this important right against national security?
As a constitutional law professor
who studies government institutions, I recognize the delicate balance government must strike in protecting civil rights and liberties while allowing presidential administrations to preserve national security and foreign policy interests.
Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution’s framers left it to the courts to determine this balance.
Due process explained
The phrase “due process of law
” goes back to at least 1215. That’s when England’s Magna Carta
established the principle that government is not above the law.
This principle guided the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment
and 14th Amendment
, for example, prohibit federal and state governments from depriving people of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Government officials see the limits of their power from one lens. People affected by the exercise of that power view it differently.
To combat this problem, the Constitution’s framers placed the judiciary in charge of determining what due process means and when people’s due process rights have been violated.
Court decisions on the issue traditionally weigh the government’s interests in taking specific actions against claims that those actions violate people’s civil rights and liberties.
Even when the law authorizes the president to detain people, historically the Supreme Court has held
that those people should receive notice of the reason for their detention, and they should have a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s claims.
One of the important considerations in legal analysis
of the procedures the government must follow when depriving people of their liberty is the risk that the government will make a mistake in its decision-making.
For example, some representatives of the deported Venezuelan migrants argue that they have been falsely accused of having ties to Tren de Aragua based on their country
of origin and tattoos. They claim that without more investigation, including an opportunity for the migrants to present their evidence refuting the government’s claims, there is a large risk that government will mistakenly deport people.
When can the president avoid due process?
In some cases, the president can skirt traditional due process considerations in pursuit of broader policy concerns.
As put by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in his initial order
blocking the deportations, the president’s action in this area implicate “a host of complicated legal issues, including fundamental and sensitive questions about the often-circumscribed extent of judicial power in matters of foreign policy and national security.”
Before Trump took executive action using the Alien Enemies Act, the measure had only been used three times
– all during times of war.
The act was part of a series of four laws passed in 1798 known as the Alien and Sedition Acts
. These laws, among other things, gave the president the power to deport any noncitizen thought to be dangerous.
A woman holds a sign during a rally on March 18, 2025, in Caracas, Venezuela, to protest the deportation from the U.S. of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, who were transferred to an El Salvador prison. AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos
President Thomas Jefferson allowed most of the acts
to expire. But Jefferson and subsequent presidents kept in place
the provisions that empowered the president to detain or deport noncitizens in times of war, “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by foreign powers.
Today, the law authorizes the president
to apprehend and remove people over the age of 14 that the administration determines to be “alien enemies.” However, it places procedural requirements on the president.
Notably, the president’s ability to act requires a declared war against or an “invasion or predatory excursion” by a foreign nation. In such an event, the president must issue a proclamation saying he plans on using the act against perceived enemies.
To justify the Venezuelan deportations, Trump issued a proclamation
on March 15 claiming Tren de Aragua is perpetrating and threatening an invasion against the U.S.
But the act also says people considered alien enemies must be given reasonable time to settle their affairs and voluntarily depart from the country. And it gives the courts power to regulate whether such persons even fall within the definition of “alien enemies.”
The Venezuelan migrants claim Trump has violated these parts of the act.
The current fight
This is where things become complicated.
All parties in the case acknowledge
that the Alien Enemies Act grants the president authority to act. However, the argument is whether the government has given people the opportunity to challenge the government’s decision to classify them as “alien enemies.”
His administration argues that it doesn’t have to tell migrants it considers them alien enemies
. And the administration says it’s not required to give them time to ask the courts to step in before they are deported.
In a March 24 hearing on the issue, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Patricia A. Millet noted
that during World War II, even the “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.”
The dispute has prompted international questions
about the legality of the U.S. government’s deportation procedures and its treatment of the migrants.
And Democratic members of Congress have called for an investigation
into the administration’s deportation practices.
The case will most likely head to the Supreme Court to determine what due process means and when the president can act in the name of national security to limit people’s due process rights. That’s just as the framers of the Constitution intended.
President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new tariff plan on April 2, 2025, to reshape U.S. trade and boost domestic industry.
Framing the announcement as “Liberation Day
,” he proposed a 10% tariff on essentially all imports, with steeper rates for major trade partners, including 34% on Chinese goods and 20% on those from the European Union. Starting April 3, a 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts
will take effect – a move that he says will revive U.S. manufacturing and reset America’s trade agenda.
But the fanfare surrounding the announcement masks a much larger gamble. What’s really at stake is trust – America’s long-standing reputation
as a stable and predictable destination for global investment. And once that trust is lost, it’s incredibly hard to win back.
The strategy is presented
as a robust defense of American manufacturing and the middle class. But foreign direct investment
– when overseas companies build factories or expand operations in the U.S. – depends on more than just opportunity. It depends on certainty.
If global investors start to worry that U.S. trade policy can shift abruptly, they may relocate their capital
elsewhere. As such, the administration’s aggressive approach to tariffs risks undermining the very confidence that has long made the U.S. a top destination for global capital.
Auto tariffs as a case in point
Nowhere is this risk more visible than in the auto industry.
In 2023 alone, the United States attracted over US$148 billion
in foreign direct investment, with nearly $42.9 billion tied to manufacturing, including in the automotive sector. Over the past few decades, major global automakers such as Toyota, BMW and Hyundai have established expansive plants in states including Alabama
, Ohio
and Kentucky
.
These facilities – many of which have seen significant reinvestment and expansion in recent years, especially in response to the shift toward electric vehicles – employ thousands
of Americans and contribute significantly to local economies.
Trump’s tariff push aims to get automakers to manufacture more vehicles on U.S. soil to overcome rising import costs. It’s a strategy with precedent. During his first term, the threat of auto tariffs, alongside existing plans, helped spur Toyota’s $1.6 billion
investment in a North Carolina plant and Volkswagen’s expansion of its operations in Tennessee
. It’s not far-fetched to imagine Honda or Mercedes following suit with new factories in Indiana or Texas.
But here’s the catch: “Made in the USA” doesn’t always mean “made for less.” American auto plants often face productivity and efficiency gaps
compared with foreign competitors. Labor costs are higher
. Assembly lines move more slowly, partly due to stricter labor protections
, less automation and aging infrastructure
. And U.S. automakers such as Ford and GM still depend heavily on global supply chains. Even for vehicles assembled in America, about 40% of the parts
, such as engines from Canada and wiring harnesses from Mexico, are imported.
When those parts are taxed, production costs go up. Moody’s estimates that pickups such as the Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado could cost $2,000 to $3,000
more as a result. Goldman Sachs projects price hikes of up to $15,000
, depending on the vehicle. Automakers then face a dilemma: raise prices and risk losing customers or absorb the costs and cut into their margins.
A ripple effect across the economy
Tariffs may protect one industry, but their ripple effects reach much further. They raise costs for other sectors that rely on imported inputs, slow down production by making supply chains more expensive and less efficient, squeeze profit margins, and leave businesses and consumers with harder choices
.
Factories represent billion-dollar investments that take years to recoup their costs. Mixed signals, such as the president calling tariffs “permanent
” one moment and negotiable the next, create a climate of uncertainty. That makes companies more hesitant to build, hire and expand.
And investors are watching closely. If building in the U.S. becomes more expensive and less predictable, is it still a smart long-term bet? When a company is deciding where to build its next battery plant or chip facility, volatility in U.S. policy can be a deal breaker.
The consequences could surface soon. Goldman Sachs has already lowered its 2025 U.S. GDP growth forecast to 1.7%
, down from an earlier 2.2%, citing the administration’s trade policy risks. Consumers, still grappling
with inflation and high interest rates, may begin to delay big-ticket purchases, especially as tariffs push prices even higher.
The international fallout
America’s trading partners aren’t standing still. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says his country “will fight back
– with purpose and with force.” The European Union is exploring duties on American tech firms
. Japan, a longtime ally, is signaling unease
. If these countries redirect investment to other countries, the U.S. could lose its competitive edge for years to come.
And while roughly 1 million Americans
work in the auto manufacturing industry, more than 150 million
make up the total American labor force. When tariffs drive up input costs, it can trigger a chain reaction, hurting retailers, stalling service-sector jobs and slowing overall economic growth.
Consumers will feel it too. Higher prices mean lower sales, reduced tax revenues and shrinking profits. All of that weakens the economy at a time when household budgets are already strained.
Lessons from history
The U.S. has seen how trade policy can shape investment decisions – just in reverse. In the 1980s, Japanese automakers
responded to U.S. import quotas not by withdrawing but by building plants in the United States. That response was possible because policies were clear and negotiated, not abrupt or adversarial.
Today, the story is different. Volatile, unilateral tariffs don’t build trust – they erode it. And when trust erodes, so does investment.
Yes, a factory in Indiana or Kentucky might reopen. Yet if that comes at the cost of deterring billions of dollars in long-term investment, is it worth it?
So while the president may celebrate April 2 as Liberation Day, markets may come to see it as the tipping point – when global confidence in the U.S. economy began to falter in earnest.
If the fear and censorship coming out of the White House reminds you of the 1950s “red scare
,” there’s a probable reason: “political hitman
” Roy Cohn.
Cohn is best known now for the lessons he taught Trump, but even before that he was an outsized figure running through US politics and culture… Throughout his life, he bullied people and tried to bully facts…
He was barely into his 20s when, as an assistant prosecutor in 1951, he helped engineer the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as Soviet spies, and acknowledged using illicit, back-channel conversations with the judge to get the death penalty. Soon after, he became notorious as chief counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy’s committee rooting out Communists and supposed Communists from the government…
In October 1973, the US Department of Justice had sued Donald Trump, 27, and his father for discriminating against black renters. In a happenstance meeting, Trump asked Cohn what to do.
According to the Washington Post, Cohn told Trump this
: “My view is tell them to go to hell and fight the thing in court.”
Like many (most?) of Trump’s lawsuits, this one ended in a draw.
A federal judge dismissed the countersuit. And two years later, after a string of theatrics and unfounded allegations by Cohn — including the claim that a Jewish prosecutor had used Nazi Gestapo tactics — Donald and Fred Trump settled the case without admitting guilt.
Thus began one of the most influential relationships in Trump’s life and the start of his notoriously litigious behavior
. That behavior exudes power and seeds fear that you might be his next target.
Trump prized Cohn’s reputation for aggression. According to a New York Times profile a quarter-century ago, when frustrated by an adversary, Trump would pull out a photograph of Cohn and ask, “Would you rather deal with him?” Trump remained friends with him even after the lawyer was disbarred in New York for ethical lapses…
Cohn himself once said he was “not only Donald’s lawyer but also one of his close friends.” Roger Stone, a political operative who met Trump through Cohn, said their association was grounded in business, but he also described the lawyer as “like a cultural guide to Manhattan” for Trump into the worlds of celebrity and power. “Roy was more than his personal lawyer,” Stone told The Post. “And, of course, Trump was a trophy client for Roy.”
One hallmark of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Cohn’s “red scare” was also fomenting fear.
McCarthy launched a series of sensational hearings about the communist threat in the United States, calling on scores of professors, Hollywood writers, government employees and others to answer questions about their alleged ties to the party. Blacklists were created and careers ruined.
Law firms. Documented and undocumented immigrants. Universities. Greenland and Canada. Foreign visitors. Federal employees. Independent agencies. Former allies like Ukraine. Judges.
In the couple of months since his second term began, President Trump’s attacks on the Canadian economy and sovereignty have given rise to a fair bit of anger from Canadians. Yes, we are nice, but we have our limits. Trump’s tariffs, and promises of more, despite having signed onto a new free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico near the end of his first term, and his threats to make Canada the 51st state, have enraged Canadians to the point that these issues are top of mind for nearly everyone here.
The response is taking several forms. Certainly the Canadian government has been clear it will retaliate with tariffs of its own and has signalled a willingness to pursue other economic measures such as export taxes on energy to the the U.S. Canadian politicians from all parties have loudly rejected challenges to our sovereignty.
The people of Canada have also signalled what they think as they cancel trips to the United States either as a political statement or because they have concerns about how non-citizens might be treated. The New York Times has reported
that Canadian airlines are “eliminating tens of thousands of seats to the United States this April, a peak period when Canadians travel to warmer destinations.” There is considerable community effort to encourage Canadians to avoid buying goods made in America, and all sorts of social media activity encouraging Canadians to keep their “elbows up,” a hockey reference essentially calling on Canadians to remain strong in the face of threats made by Trump and his administration.
For many of us, the single most interesting development is what it has done to our electoral politics. Prior to the beginning of Trump’s second term, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, was trailing his main opponent Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party by as much as 25 points in the polls. Trudeau stepped down and Mark Carney, former head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, was chosen as new leader of the Liberal Party, becoming prime minister in the process. Whether or not Trudeau would have been able to close the gap with Poilievre in the face of Trump’s aggressive actions is a moot point as his leadership had become untenable.
Mark Carney has closed the gap and more, erasing Poilievre’s lead in the polls, going ahead by 5 points according to an aggregation of polls. This change is based on the simple fact that Canadians have decided Carney is in the best position stand to to Trump.
“Mark Carney is thought to be the best federal party leader to help Canada navigate challenges associated with the Donald Trump Presidency, performing well ahead of Justin Trudeau on the same measures. By contrast, Pierre Poilievre is the candidate chosen by Canadians as most likely to roll over and accept whatever President Trump demands…”
If you have any doubt how serious Canada is about the threat Donald Trump poses, know that a more than 30 point swing in the polls has taken place based upon the belief that the incumbent Liberal Party and it’s leader will do a better job on this one question. The general election will take place on April 28th.
Earlier this week, Carney had a phone call with Trump which was characterized by both parties as positive. According to reports, Trump signalled more respect for Canadian sovereignty in discussions with Carney and may even have suggested that new world-wide tariffs to be announced on Wednesday will not fall as heavily on Canada as previously thought. Perhaps a good signal but we also know things can change in an instant.
It should be noted that all of the above is within the realm of fairly normal politics. There is much unpleasantness, but these things can, let us hope, be managed. The other side is what might happen if Donald Trump decides he no longer wishes to play by the rules of the game either at home or abroad. What can we possibly say about this very real possibility other than a call to work together to make it unbearably costly for him to go that route? Canadians have so far refused to capitulate and been clear that it will respond to Trump’s bullying in any and all ways proportionate to the challenge.
“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who acts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”
With the appropriate adjustment to the world of international relations, Canada never considered obeying in advance and it may have caught Trump by surprise.
Growing up in the United States as I did, I can say that most Americans know very little about Canada but they are learning, especially the president and those around him.
Once again, this piece is dedicated to my beloved Grandfather, Justo Rodríguez Gómez de la Torre (Papá Justito), and my dear Grandmother, Julia Correa de Rodríguez.
“One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it’s worth watching” ~ Unknown Source
I squeezed the seven decades I had lived at the time into seven days.
At the conclusion, I expressed my hope to be around for one more day to, among other, “see my grandson grow up and to see him start a family of his own — perhaps even long enough to cherish a great-grandchild.”
At age 85, my wishes have been more than answered. I have been given not one, but one day and a half more to treasure my family, to see our young grandson become a fine young man, to enjoy one more sunset.
Not wanting to push my luck, I now ask Him for just a couple more hours to perhaps still “cherish [that] great-grandchild.”
These are my first Seven Days:
At age 70, days pass like minutes, years go by like days.
If I could compress the seven decades I have lived into seven days, this is what that week in my life would look like.
Exactly one week ago, I was born in a small town in Ecuador. From what I remember from the first day of my life, it was carefree, full of love, full of fun. I especially remember my Grandfather, the kindest person I ever knew. I was very close to him. His name was Justo Rodríguez. I called him “Papá Justito.” I still see his kind, smiling face.
That first day went by much too quickly and when I was only 10 I left my native country to join my parents in the Netherlands Antilles. Sadly, my grandparents stayed behind. I was too excited to realize how much I loved them, especially my grandfather. I was too young to fathom how much he loved me, how terribly he would miss me or to contemplate that I might never see him again.
The next day would be a busy and eventful one. My father retired and we left our little paradise in the Antilles to live in the Netherlands where my siblings and I were educated.
That very same afternoon, we emigrated to the United Sates where I joined the military and became a U.S. citizen. A few hours later, I met my future wife while spending a couple of hours on a military assignment in England.
Head-over-heels in love, we were married early in the morning of the third day of my life. A couple of hours later we became the proud parents of a lovely baby boy. Almost at the same instant, my Grandfather in Ecuador passed away. I spent the rest of that hectic and consequential day advancing my military career, nurturing my new young family.
The next day would be another long and busy one. While serving my newly adopted country overseas, we were blessed with a beautiful baby daughter. I stayed very busy taking care of a growing family and working late into the night, forging ahead with my career and my education. At day’s end, I retired from the military and went on to work for a defense contractor where I was even more intent on succeeding professionally, and financially.
As to the fifth day of my life, now out of uniform and in a business suit, I only remember a whirlwind of airplane rides to far-away cities and lands, a blur of dinner meetings and presentations, trying to get new business for my company, trying to “get ahead.” It was a day so busy and “important” that I failed to appreciate the gorgeous sunset or to notice that the days were beginning to grow shorter. But also, a night that turned tragic when I received the shattering news that my Mother had been taken away from us under horrific circumstances.
I stayed busy for at least part of the next day, the sixth day, until I suddenly realized that my wife’s hair was turning silver; that my little boy was now a fine young man whom I had hardly gotten to know. A day when, just as suddenly, another fine young man asked for the hand of my little girl. That same day, I retired from my second career and gave my daughter away in marriage. That evening, for the first time, I enjoyed a glorious sunset and finally realized what is truly important in life.
On the morning of the seventh and most recent day, I became the grandfather to a precious boy. A boy who has been a bright light in my life as the days grow even shorter and darker. It has been a day full of the special, priceless joys that only a grandchild can bring to a grandparent. It was also a day when my grandson turned ten, exactly the same age I was when I left my Grandfather behind in Ecuador, never to see him again.
I now know how much my Grandfather must have loved me, how much he must have suffered when I left him, how much he must have missed not seeing me grow up…
It is now the end of “my week,” a week that has gone by much too swiftly. It seems inconceivable that only a week ago I cried “Hello” and that today it is almost time to whisper “Goodbye,” as the days, the hours, the minutes are forebodingly turning so very, very short.
I hope to be around for one more day to see my grandson grow up and to see him start a family of his own — perhaps even long enough to cherish a great-grandchild.
If that’s out of the question, I ask to have a few more hours to help guide my grandson through his adolescence, to hold him and comfort him when he has problems, to see him graduate from high school and on his way to college.
If that’s not possible either, I pray to be given a few more minutes to tell my grandson and all my family how much I love them, to tell them how precious every fleeting second of every day of our lives is, and to thank Him for seven short but exhilarating and unforgettable days — more than I deserve.
