Dispatch from the Front Lines: Signs in windows, or something
On a confusing Carney position. A pathetic little parade for Putin. On not proving the separatists right. And why we still won't take federal subsidies.
Hey, folks. Hope you’re having a great weekend. And, of course, Happy Mothers’ Day, to everyone observing. A special note of thanks to all the Line readers out there who are also, or have ever been, a mom. It’s tough work. Thank you for it.
If you haven’t yet, please check out the latest episode of The Line Podcast. It was a fun one!
Also, be sure to check out last week’s On The Line. Jen interviewed author and journalist John Fraser on his new book about Canada’s governors general — which was pretty incredible timing. Louise Arbour was announced as the next GG just a few hours later!
So. Yeah. A funny thing happened. The Line recently concluded its annual fundraiser. That’s when we spend a week bombarding you with (polite!) requests for money. Our plan was to not do it again for a year. We don’t want to burn you guys out! And, well, we’re going to stick to that, but we will make a very small exception here, just long enough to remind you all that one of the reasons that we rely on you for your generous donations is because we do not accept, have never sought, and will never seek, any federal subsidies.
We really mean that. And this is, alas, an increasingly rare position. Just a few days ago, in a note to subscribers, the publisher of The Hub announced that that outlet would accept some federal media subsidies. This was a surprise, seeing as how, almost exactly two years ago, The Hub declared, “Our view is that the government subsidy regime … risks freezing into place all of the bad decisions and wrong assumptions that the market has rejected over the past decade or longer. … less than 40 percent of English-speaking Canadians currently tell pollsters that they trust the news media. It’s hard to see how causing the industry to become dependent on government will do anything but hasten a further decline. People will understandably come to question whether the news stories that we’re seeing (or not seeing) are motivated by the industry’s growing reliance on the state to finance its day-to-day operations.”
The Hub continued: “Those receiving government subsidies, in other words, may be trading off their short-term interests for the rest of us — for the future of journalism itself.”
Powerful words! We agreed with all that then, and we still agree. The Hub has changed their minds. This is okay, apparently, because the funds The Hub will accept won’t be used to fund operations, and will instead go into a reserve fund.
If that’s what they need to tell themselves, who are we to judge? We’ll limit ourselves to this comment only: a bribe doesn’t stop being a bribe because you stick it into your savings account. The problem isn’t the end use, it’s the acceptance in the first place. And we think they’re more than smart enough to know that.
We bring this up today to simply remind our readers that The Line has sworn off all of these subsidies on both ethical and business grounds. We believe, as The Hub once claimed to, that the subsidies are bad for business. We also think they inevitably and unavoidably damage the credibility of the outlets that accept them.
So we haven’t, and we won’t. But that leaves us at a permanent disadvantage. We don’t have the luxury of a taxpayer-funded reserve fund. We have to just run our business as efficiently as we can, and count on you, our readers, to give us voluntarily what we refuse to take from you via state power.
Please contribute to our reserve fund. And remember that, even if you don’t, we respect you and your choices enough to not find a way to get your cash anyway.
And now, on with the dispatch.
In general, The Line has been quite open-minded toward Prime Minister Mark Carney and his time so far in office. That’s not to say we’ve been won over or thoroughly impressed. Neither is true. But we have done our best to operate from a position of good faith. We do believe, based both on his public statements and some private conversations we’ve had with senior Liberals, that this government is a very different animal than the previous one, that this prime minister “gets it” much more than his predecessor, and that there is a sincere effort underway in the PMO to begin some very difficult and overdue structural reforms that this country badly needs.
So we are doing our best to strike the balance between an open mind toward progress while still insisting on some level of actual achievement. And we have to confess that the prime minister’s latest comments have left us simply baffled and frustrated.
The comments came at an event just a few days ago. A series of senior Liberals and other progressive figures from around the world had gathered for the Global Progress Action Summit. When addressing the ongoing trade negotiations with the United States — to the extent they’re actually happening — the prime minister said that Canada is open to deeper economic integration with the United States, and has made those proposals. There is very much an interest in Canada, the prime minister said, in a sector-specific Fortress North America strategy.
Oh?
Remember that whole speech about the sign in the window? Is this sign in the window? Is it a different sign? Did we swap one sign for another? Or maybe are we talking about different windows entirely now? Which may or may not have signs?
We’re honestly having a hard time keeping up.
This government and prime minister have gone out of their way at every opportunity to stress the urgent need for Canadian strategic and economic autonomy. We are skeptical they will ever be able to pull it off to the extent they would like, but we have not objected to the notion of it. To pursue strategic autonomy while also making entire sections of our economy even more integrated with the Americans as some kind of trade-deal sweetener is incoherent. What is the point of achieving strategic autonomy for some sectors of our economy when giving the Americans increased leverage over others?
We cannot be half-pregnant, as the saying goes, and we cannot pursue a strategy of rapid diversification and de-risking and deeper American integration at the same time. The Line has a preference between which option we would choose, but in any case, we really need to pick one of them. Pursuing both at the same time makes absolutely no sense, either as a national policy or as a political strategy for the Liberals.
In general, we think the prime minister has been clear-eyed and fair in his statements on this. It’s disappointing, confusing, and not a little bit worrying to see this statement. We simply cannot figure out how it fits in with the rest of everything he’s been saying.
And now we’re wondering which part is the bullshit and which part is the plan.
Recent events at home and in the Middle East have consumed a lot of our attention, but we continue to watch the war in Ukraine with fascination and growing satisfaction. Though we are certainly alarmed and worried about what rapidly evolving drone-based weapons could (will) mean for humanity, right now, Ukraine is using them to excellent effect. The use of cheap, disposable drones in defensive battles almost totally negated Russia’s advantages in manpower and firepower. The drone is, for Ukraine, what the machine gun was for all sides during the First World War — an insurmountable (for now) weapon for the defender. Russian advances have ground to a halt in the face of swarms of Ukrainian drones that can knock out long-range weapons, vehicles and even individual soldiers with ease. Ukraine is also using its increasingly sophisticated domestically produced drones in deep long-range strikes inside Russia and has made a particular effort, and a notably successful one, to go after Russian energy infrastructure. These strikes are not only wreaking havoc with Russia’s economy, but are also humiliating Vladimir Putin.
Speaking of which! The Line was positively tickled pink to see Ukraine humiliate Russia on the occasion of the annual Victory Day parade in Moscow. The parade, typically a huge display of Russian military might, is traditionally viewed by Putin, invited guests and military leadership from the Kremlin. Huge formations of troops, fleets of tanks and jets, nuclear missile launchers … the parades would have it all.
This year’s affair, as covered by the New York Times, was almost token. Few troops, fewer guests, little equipment. Russia simply can’t whip up much military might for a proper parade anymore. And even more delightful was the fact that the parade was only made possible by Putin begging and pleading for a brief ceasefire with Ukraine, so that he could be confident that Moscow would not be bombed during the party. If that the pause not been granted, the parade would have been a juicy target. We laughed when we saw Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelenskyy’s cheeky social media post. The former comedian still has some of the old timing. He issued a permit allowing Russia to proceed with the parade.
Frankly, we’d probably have sent in a swarm of drones anyway. Putin and his thugs deserve no better. But perhaps Ukraine decided that letting Putin embarrass himself with this humiliating little performance was enough reason to refrain from trying to take him out.
And hey, based on increasing reports of growing unrest in Moscow, including concern by Putin and his security services that he is at high risk of assassination, perhaps the Ukrainians are simply happy to bide their time. Good things come to those who wait, isn’t that the old saying?
A short note in conclusion — The Line doesn’t have much more to say about the appointment of Louise Arbour, retired supreme court judge and, now, Canada’s incoming governor general. Our views were adequately expressed in the column Matt Gurney wrote about it last week. We’ll let the points made therein stand.
But. Ahem. The Line was amused and somewhat horrified by one particular kind of response to Gurney’s column. A great many readers wrote in across various platforms to insist that Carney had no choice but to pick someone like Arbour, on the grounds that finding someone like her wouldn’t be realistic if the pool was limited to Albertans.
… really? Are we sure that’s the argument we want to be making? That the province roaring toward a secession vote this fall just can’t be expected to provide someone worth of serving as Canada’s governor general, because, well, they aren’t fancy enough? Can’t represent the country well enough? Don’t speak French well enough? (Indeed, we checked Stat Can … rate of bilingualism in Alberta is generally comparable to all the other Anglo-majority provinces, with the exception of thoroughly bilingual New Brunswick, which is an outlier.)
The people making these arguments could not be handing the separatists better ammunition. We’d ask them to stop. The Line would also like to note, for the record, that we have no doubt whatsoever that any number of Albertans would be capable of serving as governor general, and would fulfill the duties of said role with honour, integrity and totally sufficient ability, and would bring credit to the country and the province in the process. We would like to invite the rest of the country to loudly agree with us on that point. Quickly, please.
And as for all other matters surrounding the unfolding voter list issue in Alberta, The Line will have more on that front shortly.
Thanks again, everyone. Enjoy the weekend. And help keep The Line strong, because it’s not easy being one of the only games in town that isn’t being propped up by money confiscated from the citizens.
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.
You are finding the government's behaviour baffling because you are making the assumption of good faith. Abandon that, and it will be far less confusing.
Time for a Kuhnian paradigm shift in the Canadian media, I think.
Slava Ukraini!