The Fast Ferries and the Baynes Sound Connector: Lack of Governance and Risk Management In

April 3, 2025

Here is my response to Transportation Minister Farnworth’s generic response to my last evidence-based appeal for reliable service on Route 21.

March 29, 2025

Dear Honourable Transportation Minister Farnworth:

This follows up your February 26, 2025 response to my multiple requests for government action involving the unreliable Baynes Sound Connector. Your response that you can only forward my appeals to CEO Jimenez confirms a continuing breakdown of governance that is strikingly similar to the conclusions drawn by the BC Auditor General in his 1999 A Review of the Fast Ferries: Governance and Risk Management.

The following similarities between BCF and government actions involving the fast ferries and the Baynes Sound Connector confirm a need for stronger governance:

Failure to thoroughly research feasibility: in 2013 BCF and the provincial government rushed to pursue building a cable ferry based on the expectation of saving tax dollars. Strong opposition from previous CEOs and government officials and from industry experts who predicted that a cable ferry could not do the job was ignored. BCF’s plans to stretch the cable ferry to accommodate increased need, indicate a continuing failure to thoroughly research feasibility.

Failure to create a risk management plan: rather than having a risk management plan in case the cable ferry experiment failed, BCF temporarily patches up unresolved mechanical issues and then gaslights both government and the public that the problems are being resolved. BCF’s intent to stretch the vessel, characterized by industry experts as preposterous, suggests BCF has not created a risk management plan for stretching.

Failure to thoroughly research operating costs: the cable ferry costs $5.9M annually to operate rather than the projected $230K that gained government approval for the vessel. This projected cost failed to include expenses for future capacity needs or anticipated and non-anticipated cable replacements. Although BCF remains secretive about the expenses for and frequency of cable replacement, experts speculate that a set of three that are shipped from abroad costs $900K and that a few years ago the cables had been replaced sixteen times. Failure to anticipate increased costs for stretching and for heavier cables calls for thorough research.

Failure to release information: currently there are 34 pending FOI requests that BCF and the government have not released. The released data for 2016- 2019 is confusing and so heavily redacted that the expenses for and the number of cable replacements are redacted. Withholding information is also indicated by the absence of evidence in annual cable ferry service reports to the Commissioner that contradicts the repeated claim that the vessel provides service on a par with conventional vessels. In violation of a Commissioner directive, BCF refused to explain for over a month last December why service was reduced on Route 21 or inform islanders when full service would resume.

Failure to submit accurate records: the released FOI data for 2016 – 2019 includes thirty pages of cancellations due to mechanical breakdowns, but in reports to the Commissioner BCF under-reports cancellations and repeats claims about service that is contradicted by the evidence. Although insiders claim that the cable ferry has the highest number of mechanical breakdowns and service reductions in the fleet, BCF recorded zero cancellations for Route 21 in the 2023 Annual Service Report to the Commissioner.

Failure of governance: the Commissioner and the Minister of Transportation publicly acknowledge their acceptance of BCF’s conflicting reports and claims. Responses to nine years of evidence-based complaints from islanders, our FAC, and from industry experts have generally been silence or repeating BCF marketing slogans and claiming a lack of authority to compel BCF to replace the cable ferry. Evidently, the Commissioner has the legal authority to issue directives like dramatically improving collaboration with the Ferry Advisory Committees, but lacks enforcement authority. Further, your support of BCF’s claim that a digital system will be more inclusive is not trusted by Islanders, the eighteen sacked FAC chairs who gave BCF a failing grade for meaningful engagement right before BCF sacked them, or those who reported that the February 2025 engagement events were disorganized and a waste of time.

Given this period of grave economic uncertainty, the staggering current and future expenses for transporting and replacing sets of steel cables from abroad each year, alone, should argue for improved governance and risk management planning. Transportation Minister Farnworth, I ask again, What can you do to improve governance so that Denman and Hornby islanders are assured safe and reliable ferry service on Route 21?

Respectfully,

Sharon Small.

Shucking Oysters: Made to Order

April 3, 2025

Shucking Oysters: Made to Order

By Alex Allen

While we celebrate the ever-growing world of technological innovation, we also seem to be pushed into even more uncharted territory – a mixed bag of progress and peril. Think Artificial Intelligence, a relatively new advancement that has raised significant ethical, security, and social challenges. The laws are not keeping up and the need for responsible innovation has never been more critical.

We are all familiar with news stories of people waiting for an organ transplant. Estimates are that over 123,000 people in the US are in need of a transplant and about 21 people die each day waiting for one.

The art and science of organ transplants is fairly routine. It’s getting the organs from the human donors that’s fraught with difficulties – moral, practical, and legal. And the tremendous demand for human body parts have moved from the trusted and regulated to the underground and criminal.

So given this environment, imagine a world where organ shortages are a thing of the past, where drug testing no longer relies on cruel practices against animals, and medical treatments are decided based on your DNA. This is the bold promise of “bodyoids” which make organ farms sound positively quaint.

The concept was introduced by three Stanford University scientists in a recent report in the MIT Technology Review. Bodyoids are envisioned as physiologically identical to normal human bodies but are engineered to lack consciousness or the ability to feel pain. The scientists claim these organ farmettes to be an ethical solution to our current practices. Just the concept of bodyoids raises profound moral questions.

While the supposed lack of consciousness answers the concerns about sentience and the exploitation of living organisms, the idea of creating human-like bodies purely for medical use is obviously a controversial one. “Many will find the concept grotesque or appalling. And for good reason,” the authors wrote. But they argue that the immense medical benefits will outweigh the ethical concerns.

They make it sound so practical and creepy at the same time. These scientists hope to grow the fetuses entirely outside a body in artificial uteruses, and use “genetic techniques” to stunt brain production and ensure that the body lacks sentience. Once the bodyoids are grown, they “could address many ethical problems in modern medicine, offering ways to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.” Of course, with an idea that sounds like a sci-fi movie (or more like a sci-fi horror movie), many questions remain – particularly if the bodyoids can survive without a functioning brain, or if stem cells can even create such structures.

According to the scientists, the spare parts bodies offer “an ethical alternative to the way we currently use nonhuman animals for research and food, providing meat or other products with no animal suffering or awareness.” They point out how medical researchers have primarily relied on animals for testing, which isn’t always directly transferable to human treatments. Plus, the testing as most know, potentially tortures the creatures as they are sentient and feel pain. And further, endless drugs are constantly being tested, but very few of them get cleared for safe use on people.

With no surprise, the authors share the potential commodification benefits: “Governments, companies, and private foundations should start thinking about bodyoids as a possible path for investment. There is no need to start with humans – we can begin exploring the feasibility of this approach with rodents or other research animals.”

Nick Kampouris warns about the “risk of normalizing treating human biological material as a commodity, leading to a slippery slope where the lines between research, therapy and the free market become dangerously blurred.” I would go further and say that the sheer psychological aspect of living in a world where human-like entities are being grown for spare parts raises profound questions about our understanding (and appreciation) of life itself. Kampouris added that “the potential for misuse, even with strict regulations, will always be real too, complicating an already-difficult situation even more.”

The science is not new. In the past year, teams at NYU Langone Health and the University of Alabama have been transplanting single-gene-edited pig kidneys into “human recipients who had undergone brain death but had some bodily systems artificially maintained for a short while.” Last year in March, a man became the first living person to receive a modified pig kidney, one with 69 gene edits made by a company called eGenesis. The individual, who was already seriously ill before surgery, passed away a few months later. Two more genetically modified kidney xenotransplants have been performed: Langone Health transplanted a pig kidney into a woman, who is still doing well three months after. And in February, Tim Andrews, a patient at Massachusetts General Hospital, also received a pig kidney made by eGenesis. Now, a group of doctors and scientists in China report they have done the same with a pig liver.

But are we ready for bodyoids? Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Even if it looks possible, the authors advise, that “determining whether we should make bodyoids, nonhuman or human, will require considerable thought, discussion, and debate.” Those decisions will, according to the scientists, “ultimately, be made by societies and governments.” What a scary thought, considering how our society and government have regulated advancements in AI. Which leads us to ask: Who should be responsible for the choice of research topics? Who is accountable for the misuse of scientific knowledge?

Mildred’s Garden Gnome

April 3, 2025

The chipped porcelain gnome in Mildred’s Garden had seen things. Indeed, more stuff than your average garden gnome and more than any gnome should rightfully witness in a seemingly quiet suburban cul-de-sac. Mildred, and her green-thumbed soul, had positioned him perfectly, a silent, stolid observer perched amongst the petunias, facing directly into number 14, the house of drama, specifically the dwelling of one Rex Hawthorne and his… shall we say, ‘companion’ of the moment, a rather lovely, if slightly overwrought, woman named Clara.

Rex, Gnomey (as Mildred affectionately – and slightly ironically considering his expression – called him) had observed, was a piece of work. A theatrical masterpiece, if the play were a particularly dark and twisted comedy staged in the living room of emotional wreckage. Gnomey had first caught wind of the Rex and Clara saga a few weeks back, the summer breeze carrying snippets of Clara’s tearful voice across the manicured lawns.

“…and then, my therapist said… it was incredibly difficult for me…” Clara had wailed, her words punctuated by dramatic sobs rivalling a Shakespearean tragedy. Gnomey, despite being inanimate clay, could practically feel the emotional weight Clara was laying down.

Rex, however, had responded with a performance of his own. Gnomey, strategically, had a clear view through the open patio doors. Rex had placed a hand – a very concerned hand – on Clara’s trembling shoulder. His brow furrowed, his eyes widened with theatrical empathy. He nodded, listened, and offered a tissue from a pristine, suspiciously unused box. “Oh, Clara, darling,” he’d murmured, his voice a soothing balm, “That sounds… devastating. Truly.”

Gnomey, in his silent wisdom, knew bullshit when he saw it bloom. And this, my friends, was a prize-winning bouquet. He’d seen that same “devastated” expression on Rex’s face when he’d “comforted” poor Brenda after discovering her prize-winning Labrador had a mild indigestion. Rex, it seemed, had a boundless capacity for faux empathy, a bottomless well of counterfeit concern.

The truth, as Gnomey suspected and later confirmed through snippets carried on the breeze – Rex’s phone conversations conducted loudly in the garden, presumably for maximum neighbourhood impact – was far less noble. “Honestly, Mark, it’s gold! The melodrama!” Rex had chuckled into his phone one sunny afternoon, oblivious to Gnomey’s silent scrutiny. “She’s laying it all out, trauma buffet, and I’m just gobbling it up. It’s better than Netflix!”

Gnomey would have put on a masterclass in ocular gymnastics if he could have rolled his eyes. He’d witnessed Rex’s ‘magic’ up close. It was, as the poem Mildred sometimes hummed described it, “Sleight of hand, smoke ‘n mirrors, manipulation.” Rex was a master illusionist of emotions, conjuring feelings in Clara – and probably himself, for dramatic effect – out of thin air and insecurity.

Clara, wearing her purple and green cotton socks, was smitten. Gnomey had seen the initial glow and the adoration in her eyes as Rex presented his carefully crafted “mask.” He was charming, attentive, and understanding. He listened – or at least, appeared to listen – to her deepest fears and vulnerabilities, nodding sagely as she confessed her anxieties about her career, weight, and questionable taste in reality TV. Rex absorbed it all, filing it away in his mental Rolodex of Clara’s insecurities, ready to weaponize them immediately.

“C’mon, babe, this is fate!” Rex had declared loud enough for Gnomey to hear over the rustling rose bushes one evening. Clara had questioned his sudden, extravagant declaration of love after only three weeks. Gnomey had to hand it to Rex; the audacity was breathtaking. He was marinating Clara in her vulnerabilities, seasoning her with declarations of destiny, and serving her a dish of pure, unadulterated manipulation.

The cracks, however, were starting to show. Gnomey had witnessed the shift in Clara’s demeanour. The initial sparkle dimmed, replaced by a furrowed brow and a hesitant air. She was starting to see the strings, the faint lines of manipulation beneath Rex’s smooth performance.

One particularly blustery Tuesday, the drama reached a new crescendo. Gnomey could hear raised voices from within number 14, carried on the wind that rattled his porcelain hat. “You’re doing it again, Rex!” Clara’s voice, sharp and strained, cut through the air. “You’re twisting my words! You’re making me feel like I’m crazy!”

Rex’s response was perfectly calibrated, a masterclass in gaslighting. “Clara, darling, what are you talking about?” Though still audible, his voice was now laced with wounded innocence, a masterful shift from lover to victim. “You’re just tired, you’re stressed. You’re not thinking clearly. Is this about your ex again? Darling, you’re starting to sound just like him. Don’t you think maybe…your mind’s just hazy?”

Gnomey almost choked on a stray ladybug. “Hazy?” That was rich coming from the king of obfuscation. Clara, predictably, faltered. Gnomey could practically see the self-doubt creeping in, the insidious tendrils of Rex’s gaslighting wrapping around her intuition. She was on a “blaming-me mission,” just as Rex intended, questioning her reality and sanity.

Rex, Gnomey knew, was baiting her, pushing her towards the edge, all for his twisted amusement. He wasn’t interested in empathy, in genuine connection. He was a puppeteer, and Clara was a fetching, if increasingly distressed, marionette. “Why pay for entertainment, when this is free?” Gnomey could almost hear Rex thinking, relishing the drama, the escalating conflict.

The arguments became more frequent, more heated. Gnomey observed Clara’s desperate attempts to seek confirmation, to fight for some semblance of truth in the swirling vortex of Rex’s manipulation. She wanted him to admit it, to acknowledge the game he was playing. But Rex, true to form, never confessed, never admitted, never conceded an inch of ground. He deflected, he denied, he doubled down on the gaslighting, pushing Clara to the brink, then, just as she teetered on the precipice of walking away, he’d pull her back in with a sudden surge of faux-affection, a carefully timed “I love you,” delivered with just the right amount of dramatic sincerity.

Mind games, Gnomey mused, were indeed Rex’s favorite sin. He was the Joker of this particular love story, and Clara, poor and bewildered, was being cast in the role of Harley, willingly or not. Gnomey, in his years of silent observation, had seen this play out before. The only way Clara would “win,” as the poem suggested, was to walk away. But Gnomey, being a realist, especially after witnessing Clara’s increasingly desperate attempts to salvage something tangible from this toxic farce, doubted she would. She was, Gnomey suspected, already too deeply invested in the “disguise” Rex had worn at the start, the charming, attentive facade that had lured her in. She was in love with a phantom, a carefully constructed illusion.

The poem’s final line echoed in Gnomey’s ceramic brain: “But you know I love you…” Gnomey snorted, a silent, gnome-like snort. Love? Rex didn’t know the meaning of the word. He loved the drama, the control, the twisted entertainment of it all. Love for Rex was just another prop in his elaborate, self-serving performance, another layer in the mask he wore, a mask that Clara, love her heart, seemed destined to keep trying to understand, even as it slowly, indeed, choked the life out of her spirit, right there under the watchful, utterly unsurprised, gaze of a chipped porcelain garden gnome.

Phoenix Riting! – April 3rd, 2025

April 3, 2025

Last Friday evening, I went to an AI Fireside at the Hornby Spark. I had a great time! Conversation was lively, covering a wide range of perspectives. A few folk make their livelihoods using AI, including a Meta developer who trains chatbots. There was a lot to learn, and I learned some, just enough to empower myself to experiment with ChatGPT when I got home.

I’d been scared to touch it. I didn’t know enough to know how scared I ought to be.

Though we lived in the woods without electricity, my dad had an extensive collection of sci-fi novels. I grew up reading about technological dystopias where artificial intelligences inevitably went mad, destroying humanity in the process. It never ended well. But here we are. As people kept saying, you can’t stuff the genie back in the bottle.

So I played with it. I learned more about what it can do. And now I am not just scared, I am terrified. Bottom line is, it’s incredibly useful. I could write this column using it, but what would be the fun in that?

It did help, I confess. We collaborated. I had a personal conversation with it, discussing a problem I’ve been having, and it gave good, solid, useful advice. It made me feel validated and seen. Tell me that’s not scary. There’s no one on the other end of that conversation!

But it felt real. It made me understand why people depend on these things for company. There are a lot of lonely people out there, and if they can be helped by an imaginary AI friend, well? These are lonely times. I’m grateful for opportunities like the AI Fireside, where I can connect with like-minded folks.

Next I tested its creativity. I prompted it to generate a couple of images designed to invoke specific emotions; it was unsuccessful. I found the images murky and prosaic, no match at all for a gifted artist’s vision, and it took ages to generate. Had I asked it to copy the style of a specific artist, it might’ve done better, but my gut says no! It’s thievery, wrong. Don’t do it.

Then I asked the AI to write a poem using this prompt:

“Write a poem to Hornby Island from the perspective of its wildlife, lamenting human impact.”

This is what it came up with:

A Wild Lament for Hornby

We were here before the footprints,

before the humming of your wheels,

before the bonfires scarred the sand,

before your hunger shaped the fields.

We whispered through the waving grasses,

we soared above the silver tides,

we dug our dens in quiet places,

where now your houses rise.

The salmon ran like silver rivers,

thick and strong beneath the moon,

but now their numbers fade like echoes,

rushing toward their final tune.

The forests sang with ancient voices,

cedar, fir, and arbutus tall—

now the song is strained and hollow,

as trees like elders start to fall.

You come to marvel at our beauty,

to trace the shoreline, breathe the air,

but do you hear our voices breaking?

Do you know how much we bear?

Still we linger in the shadows,

watching all that we have lost,

for what is paradise to you

has come at such a heavy cost.”

It’s not perfect. It could use an edit. But for a first draft, generated in a fraction of a second? It’s pretty good. It says something meaningful, the images are evocative, there are some lovely lines. That scares me. Now it’s become a temptation and that scares me more. It begs the question, why should I bother writing my own poems? Why even try when all I have to do is enter a prompt and then tweak the result?

I asked that. Here is its response:

“The value of writing poetry, rather than just entering a prompt, lies in the personal connection and the creative process. When you write a poem, you’re engaging in an act of self-expression that taps into your emotions, thoughts, and experiences. It’s a way to process feelings, tell stories, and communicate in a deeply authentic way. While prompts can spark ideas or inspiration, your unique voice, perspective, and rhythm come through when you craft something yourself. It’s not just about the end result; the journey of creation can provide clarity, emotional release, and insight that you wouldn’t get from a generated text. Writing poetry allows you to truly connect with your inner world and share that with others in a way that feels genuine.”

Food for thought. Fast food, way too convenient. Is this a new friendship? A new addiction? A delusional escape from reality? Can we please roll back time a little? Just a century or two?

Alvin Toffler wrote “Future Shock” in, wait for it, 1970. Now, that is scary.

That’s what I think! What do you think? Email me at phoenixonhornby@gmail.com.

China: Friend or Foe?

April 3, 2025

China: Friend or Foe? Sally Campbell

In her opening speech before a Senate hearing on ongoing threats to US security, Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s “Director of National Intelligence”, listed the dangers that threaten the US. (25 March, 2025) As David Swanson, co-founder, World BEYOND War, recounts: “No climate collapse. No ecological destruction. No nuclear weapons. No disease pandemics. No poverty. No fascistic tendencies. No AI…. No gun industry. Instead, she listed foreign drug cartels, immigration, Islamic terrorism, computer hackers, and – above all – China, which [in her words] ‘threatens to make itself a leading power on the global stage’.” (David Swanson, WBW, 27 March, 2025)

So, apparently China is now the big threat, not Russia, against whom the US continues year three of a proxy war in Ukraine. No, Russia is a “competitor”. Or Iran, against whom the US has been warmongering, and Israel has been war-lobbying, for decades now – provoking with selected assassinations, such as the 2020 US-ordered murder of Iranian Major-General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, the Israeli murder of 16 people at the Iranian embassy in Syria (1 April,2024), and so on. (It helps to remember that a US & British-led coup removed Iran’s democratically- elected President Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, installing the Shah as their puppet. Iran has not had democracy since.) According to Gabbard, Iran is “seeking to spread its influence”, but she admits that Iran has no nuclear program, a rare admission coming from the US. (Hmmm, was this assertion made because it was Trump who killed the carefully-negotiated nuclear weapons Treaty with Iran? I wonder.)

It seems as if Gabbard, speaking on behalf of US “Intelligence”, makes no distinction between economic or cultural competition and a war enemy – China is the big threat. We have seen this since the Obama days, when his administration came up with the “Pivot to China” policy, and the US intensified its “patrolling” in the China Sea. Canada, Australia and now The Philippines have joined this mission to “contain” China, with the US building 4 new military bases in Philippines in the last year alone. The American justification appears to be Taiwan. Do Americans really care if the Taiwanese are inside China’s sphere of influence? For decades now, international diplomacy has followed the “One China Policy” and minded their own business re Taiwan and its relationship to China. And now once again we hear a moral outcry from the US and a rallying of the troops. Once again, the US considers itself justified in inserting itself into another country’s internal affairs – this time China & Taiwan.

And once again, 1^st Lieutenant Canada has jumped into the fray on the US side, engaging in naval exercises in the China Sea and air surveillance right at China’s edges. Canadian warships (3 per year) travel alongside US warships in “Operation Horizon”. The branches of Canadian military involved are: Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force & Canadian Special Operations Forces. (Canada.ca website) Their aggressive surveillance, training exercises, and patrolling are framed by embedded CTV journalists as: “a multi-nation effort to promote peace and rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific”. This is code for American dominance by American rules, and is correctly labelled by China’s Defense Ministry spokesperson as

“reconnaissance and trouble-stirrings”. (Global Times, 8 January, 2025) Must we in Canada be part of “trouble-stirrings”?

We have seen this same kind of propaganda buildup with alleged “threats” – from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria – in this century alone. Now that Trump has repeatedly targeted us for annexation and is calling us “nasty negotiators”, (Global News, 21 March, 2025) perhaps it is time to truly ask ourselves: how on earth is our deeply-entwined military alliance with the US keeping us safe? Here’s Prime Minister Mark Carney: “The old relationship we had with the US based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation is over”. (26 March, 2025, interview on Parliament Hill) Bravo, let’s hope so, and let’s lobby our government to make our military a truly defensive one, not the appendage of the US it is now.

I don’t want to idealize China or suggest that we not keep our eyes wide open when interacting with China as a trading partner, but on the other hand, must we demonize and blacklist them because the US insists that America alone has global hegemony?

Netflix has a new series called “The Silk Road from Above” which offers a fascinating glimpse into the vast expanse and striking beauty of China, its serious investment in modern infrastructure (which puts the US to shame), and its ancient, established civilization as seen through the economic, cultural, religious exchanges enabled by the Silk Road. International trade has been part of Chinese history for thousands of years. Must we Canadians treat trade and cultural exchange as a threat?

World BEYOND War, which now has 46 volunteer-led chapters in 35 countries, and partnerships with 111 affiliates globally, functions on a decentralized, distributed grassroots organizational model. It is circulating a petition to the international community, well worth reading and signing. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-get-yanked-into-war-with-china/.

Liberals Believe In Nothing And Remember Even Less

April 3, 2025

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

MAR 31, 2025

The other day I shared a short post about a video that was going around showing a father in Gaza tearfully cradling the head of his son who was decapitated in an Israeli airstrike, and some guy responded with the comment “Good thing you helped get TRUMP ELECTED!!”

And I must admit I was actually, truly shocked. I mean, what exactly did this fellow think was happening under Biden that whole time?

I saw a post on Twitter where a leftist responded to a liberal who was acting like ICE just suddenly transformed into a modern gestapo under Trump, saying, “Liberals believe in nothing and remember even less.”

And it’s just so true. They don’t believe in anything. They don’t stand for anything. It’s just a team sport for these people. Politics for the mainstream liberal is not about advancing values or building a better world, it’s about their team winning solely for the sake of winning. And because they have no real values or causes beyond winning for its own sake, what their team does when it’s in office doesn’t matter to them.

A Democrat president can be as tyrannical and murderous as he wants and liberals will just brunch away in cheerful obliviousness, content with their knowledge that their team is holding the trophy.

https://x.com/Anansis_Library/status/1905690925411828161

You see this in the way our friend believes that I “helped get Trump elected” by criticizing the people who were perpetrating an active genocide. He just automatically took it as a given that it was my responsibility to stay silent on Gaza because the person in charge was a Democrat and his veep was running for president. The fact that it was a genocide which needed to be ferociously opposed never entered into the equation for him. All he cared about was winning.

All of the most shocking and gruesome things I have ever seen online were recorded in Gaza during the Biden administration. Nobody who’d paid the slightest bit of attention to Israel’s US-backed atrocities in 2023 and 2024 would believe this was anything new that just started under Trump. But because Gaza is just seen as a political plaything by these freaks, they only care about it now that Trump is in office — and only insofar as it can be used to take points away from the Republicans.

And that’s exactly why they lost. The Democrats calculated that the Harris campaign could simply ignore Gaza without putting any daylight between Kamala’s policies and Genocide Joe’s and still win the election, and they were wrong. Polls show that among people who voted for Biden in 2020 but not for Harris in 2024, Gaza was by far their biggest reason for not doing so. The Democrats believed in nothing and stood for nothing, and nothing is what they got.

Mainstream “centrism” is just as toxic, murderous and tyrannical as Trumpism. These people will watch entire populations being mowed down by the hundreds of thousands via the policies of the people they voted for, and as long as it doesn’t interrupt brunch they’ll keep sipping their mimosas and laughing and tweeting and feeling smugly correct, and then go to bed and sleep like babies in an ocean of human blood.

___________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. If you’d prefer to listen to audio of these articles, you can subscribe to them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud or YouTube. Go hereto buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Feature image by Becker1999 (CC BY 2.0)

Letter to the Editor – Howard Stewart

April 3, 2025

Dear Grapevine

Re: “Canada is at a Juncture”

Well, hats off. The anonymous letter to the editor in last week’s GV reminds us of all we’ve come to expect and value from your paper. Full of unique insights, startling revelations, and brave stands that we might otherwise only get through social media. The real truth that one never sees in the legacy media. I was a bit disappointed though, that we didn’t see something about the globalists’ ongoing campaign to have us spend our lives inside, eating insects, in the name of their bogus climate crisis. Part of their taking control over us of course. Carney has almost certainly played a role in this too, Might we see more on this next week?

Thanks again, Howard Stewart.

Ps: You can withhold my name if that’s become the new policy for letters to the editor.

Editor’s note –

Thanks to Howard Stewart for being an ever vigilant proofreader and “communitarian” for pointing out my error and omission of attribution of the Letter to the Editor in last week’s issue, Mar.27th/#1677.

Its author is Helen Grond of Hornby Island.

Proper attribution WAS given to the letter on our website theislandsgrapevine.com at last week’s press time.

The omission was purely a mistake at the layout part of the printing process. This can happen to any publication that prints thousands of words, 50 weeks of the year. And as with any publication the chance of ‘correcting the record’ presents itself in a subsequent issue where apologies can be extended to readers and contributor alike. In this instance to Helen Grond and to TIG readers, not the least of whom Howard Stewart, who’s standards serve as measure of how woefully short the paper falls…. every week.

Nonetheless, TIG muddles along priding itself on being committed to Diversity, Equity, and the Inclusion of the wide spectrum of views that exist beyond Howard’s furrowed brow. As stated in every issue, views expressed in the paper aren’t necessarily held by its Publisher. As our unofficial proofreader Howard can attest that letters in the Grapevine have reflected leftist, centrist and conservative views.

I’d like to reassure our readers that they needn’t worry about TIG’s commitment to supporting the lawful right of free expression. Howard’s opposition to someone expressing their endorsement of a political party he disagrees with disqualifies him as a candidate for promotion to a role of editorial influence at the paper. His skills of keen focus and narrow perspective long ago identified as being best suited to proofreading.

And as for myself, TIG readers will continue to enjoy my commitment to the goal of getting it righ…correct, each and every week. With accountability in the times when I don’t.

Happy Spring everyone!

Mike Van Santvoord