Brigitte Pellerin

Brigitte Pellerin
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Politics
  • Updated Weekly

Social critic, dans les deux langues officielles. brigittepellerin.substack.com

  1. 6d ago

    Hill life with Stuart Benson: First week back!

    Your essential link to C-38, C-39 and the page that includes articles by the person whose identity no one can confirm. Support my work, subscribe! Transcript Brigitte Pellerin (00:05): I’m joined by Stuart Benson, who’s a reporter at the Hill Times and writes the Party Central column — and who always takes good pictures of me, if of nobody else. How are you, Stuart? Welcome. Stuart Benson (00:17): Good, how are you? I was just going to say — it’s been a wild week. Brigitte Pellerin (00:23): Yes. The first week back of Parliament. That’s the reason I wanted to have you here, because you have a special eye. You see things and pay attention to things the other guys tend to ignore, because they’re busy with the main stories. I like that you see some of the other stuff that’s happening. So tell us: what have we missed on Parliament Hill this week that was in the margins of the bigger stories? Stuart Benson (00:49): Well, I guess the one thing — if you’re just a regular political watcher, you may not realize that this week is sort of like Parliament’s frosh week. The parties. There are so many. I can give you a quick rundown. (01:11) Monday was a little quieter, because I think it was the Prime Minister of Norway — Prime Minister Støre. I always hesitate, because I don’t want to say president when it’s a prime minister, or vice versa. Brigitte Pellerin (01:25): I know exactly. That’s embarrassing. Stuart Benson (01:28): It was his last day, so it was a bit quieter in terms of parties. But Tuesday you had the big one — the Housewarming, hosted by Politico and Earnscliffe Strategies, which is a big lobbying group. That usually gets hundreds of parliamentarians. A little quieter this year, because it was a midnight sitting on day two. Brigitte Pellerin (01:51): That’s awful. Stuart Benson (01:52): Well — this is a little more why I love Parliament. It was a midnight sitting on Bill C-38, which, if you don’t know, was the gas tax holiday. That’s been a Conservative suggestion for a long time, to give the Conservatives credit. So the Liberals, once again — Let me find the exact name of it. Yes: Minister Champagne introduces legislation to extend the federal fuel excise tax relief for Canadians. Brigitte Pellerin (02:17): I can link to it in the notes so people can read it if they want. Stuart Benson (02:22): This was announced before Labour Day, because that’s when the excise tax reduction — about ten cents per litre — was supposed to be removed. And obviously most people didn’t notice it, because as soon as they took it off, the Strait of Hormuz shut down and gas jumped by something like fifty cents. So all you saw was your gas going up by forty cents. Brigitte Pellerin (02:47): It got lost. Right. Stuart Benson (02:50): So they’ve extended it, and this was the bill to make it happen. Brigitte Pellerin (02:54): But don’t they all agree on this? So you’re staying up until midnight to watch people not disagree. Stuart Benson (03:03): In fairness, it was so they could get it through — it still has to go through all the processes. But when you’d tune in, as I was going to the parties to see if there were any major updates, half the time they’re just debating whatever they could think of to fill the time, because they had the time to argue. (03:28) So while that was happening, there was the Housewarming, and then there was the Speaker’s garden party at the Speaker’s farm. Because we all know the prime minister has asbestos-and-rat-infested 24 Sussex, and currently lives at Rideau Cottage. Poilievre lives at Stornoway, the official opposition residence. But the Speaker also has a gorgeous farm property. It’s called the Farm, up in — Kingsmere? No. It’s near Chelsea, but I think it’s Kingsmere, Quebec. Brigitte Pellerin (03:45): Wakefield — yes. That’s possible. I’ve been to it, but I couldn’t tell you. Stuart Benson (03:59): It’s gorgeous. So this was sort of an off-the-record, confidential kind of thing. The Speaker has his own brand of whiskey — scotch — and four different tall boys. Brigitte Pellerin (04:12): Okay. Are we taxpayers paying for this, or — sometimes it’s okay, I guess. Stuart Benson (04:19): Well, they’re basically gift-shop attraction stuff. You can go and get — if you want to pay for it — fifty dollars, probably, for 750 millilitres of Speaker’s scotch or whiskey. Brigitte Pellerin (04:36): And why not? Stuart Benson (04:37): I like the tall boys. The tall boys are kind of funny, because there’s a brown ale called the Mace, a blonde ale called the Sword, the Grotesque IPA, and the Tricorn Rattler. Brigitte Pellerin (04:50): I like that. I would start with the Rattler, personally. (04:54) And it’s good that people know this, because official residences are not just a castle you get to spend time in and lounge about because you’re an important person. They’re also places where official business is conducted — official receptions and all that kind of thing. Stuart Benson (05:07): Yes. And if you recall, that was the whole kerfuffle two or three years ago, when they were updating the official residence in New York for the consul general and there was a big hoopla. These are event spaces as well as residences. (05:32) But this was out on the lawn, with fire pits. Very, very nice. I got to hang out with a lot of diplomats and journalists — Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc, and a handful of NDP. I mean, there’s only a handful of them, but they’re out as well. Brigitte Pellerin (05:53): That’s it. They’re all there. It’s a full hand. Stuart Benson (05:57): And then there’s a bunch of other stuff. There was Torynado, a Conservative staffer party, last night. Women on the Hill, which is an event for women — which I got taken to task for, because over the past few years I’ve been writing my column admonishing the men on the Hill for their low attendance rate. And I was told to stop doing that. They said: stop trying to encourage more men to show up. We want to keep it to a minimum. You’re fine, you’re fine — because you’re going to write about it and take photos — but we don’t want that many guys here. And I said, I get it. You want this to be ladies’ night. That’s fair. Brigitte Pellerin (06:42): But they trust you. They welcome you into their safe space. That’s good for you. Stuart Benson (06:48): Yes — because they know Party Central’s an ally. (06:57) Other than that, the rest of the week — I think they’re still debating C-39, this big giant omnibus bill the Liberals brought in, which is sort of the sequel to C-5. Brigitte Pellerin (07:16): When they put disparate things all in one bill, and then you have to make sure you don’t just gloss over it because it’s big and there are consequential things buried in the margins. That’s a sneaky thing to do. I don’t like it. Stuart Benson (07:28): It was about two hundred pages. And because they do it like that, it’s harder to vote against any of it — simply because if you agree with most of it but there’s one part that’s really egregious, you can’t break it up. You have to vote for all of it or against all of it. Which puts people in a corner. Brigitte Pellerin (07:56): And then there are repercussions either way. Why did you vote for this thing you didn’t want? Or why didn’t you vote for these things you wanted? The Hill can be complicated sometimes. It would be easier if we had smaller bills. That’s been one of my little campaigns over the years, but nobody cares. They like it to work this way. (08:12) Tell me — there are two big stories on the Hill that some people may have missed, because they’re not just political stories. Well, there’s Mark Carney speaking with the New York Times. That’s big and political. And he said things in that interview he had not said before. Why don’t you catch us up? Stuart Benson (08:34): The one that’s captured the most attention is what people are calling Carney’s Red Dawn scenario — that the Canadian military has apparently war-gamed or hypothesized around what we would do in the potential scenario where the US invades. Someone had a good quote from the story, so I wanted to read it — but the tweet has been deleted. It was basically that we’d be using tactics they imagined would be similar to the Mujahideen and the Taliban. Ambush-style tactics, irregular military, civilian militias. As much as we respect the brave men and women in the Canadian military — Brigitte Pellerin (09:47): We’re just not the same size. Stuart Benson (09:50): They’ve got a lot more toys than we do. Brigitte Pellerin (09:54): That’s right. And they have long-range missiles. They could do this with buttons from anywhere they want. They don’t have to get close. Stuart Benson (10:00): So we’d have to get a little creative. That was the message. (10:20) And as fantastical as all of that is, there’s this other part where it fits a pattern. Carney sat down for an hour-long interview with a bunch of different New York Times journalists — and absolutely no shade to Matina Stevis-Gridneff, who is the Ottawa bureau chief at the New York Times. Brigitte Pellerin (10:27): The bureau chief, right. She’s great. Stuart Benson (10:33): Because I saw some people say he’s going there because he’ll get softball questions — and I’m like, it’s still the New York Times. It’s still Matina. Give her a follow. She’s the Ottawa reporter and she knows her stuff. Brigitte Pellerin (10:47): And she knows Canada very well. She’s really done her homework. Stuart Benson (10:54): For all the complaints — the main point being, why aren’t you saying this to Canadian media? Why didn’t you sit down for an hour-long interview with the whole editorial team at the Globe and Mail, or the National Post, or the Toronto Star? Hill Times — PMO, you have my email. We

    Hill life with Stuart Benson: First week back!

  2. Sep 20

    All hail the chief facilities officer

    Howard Polskin is the President and Chief Curator of TheRighting.com. Sign up for his free daily newsletter to get a quick scan of stories not to be missed from right-wing media without having to swim through right-wing media sludge. Help support my work by becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Week in Right-Wing Media: AI Turns Partisan, a Fever-Dream Movie, and the Kennedy Center Brigitte Pellerin (00:03): Hi everyone. I’m joined by Howard Polskin of The Righting. You’re the president and chief curator — I like to call you that — of this really incredibly useful website, where you go every day and dive deep into the swamps of the extreme right media. And you come up with — and it’s free, by the way; you can subscribe to the email. I like it. It takes me about two minutes to read every day, and I have a good sense of what’s going on over there without having to get my feet wet. So welcome, Howard. Good to have you again. Howard Polskin (00:40): It’s good to be back. Thank you for having me. Brigitte Pellerin (00:44): Since we last spoke a few weeks ago — what’s been going on? I think AI has been a big topic on the right, as it has on the left. People are talking about it a lot. What are they saying? Howard Polskin (00:56): AI has become a huge partisan issue. Mainly the right and Republicans are saying: what’s the problem? No doomsday here. We need to hit the gas pedal on developing more powerful AI systems. It’s just fear-mongering about all these doomsday scenarios. And Democrats are saying: whoa, pump the brakes. This could destroy humanity. In a way, I understand where the right is coming from — because if you pump the brakes, what you let happen is China going ahead of us. So there are some national security concerns. But nobody is thinking about this in a more rational way. It’s very quickly turned into a partisan issue. And consumers are left to scratch their heads and go: I don’t know. Do we worry about this? What do we do about it? (01:50) And another aspect of this that’s come to the forefront is the growth of all these data centres in the United States, where — nobody wants it in their backyard. They make Amazon warehouses look like little shacks. So that’s another issue. But if you’re pro-business and pro-growth, you’ll be in favour of that. Brigitte Pellerin (02:43): There are so many layers in this debate. Because the people in charge of those companies themselves — Dario Amodei, of the people who make Claude, sorry, Anthropic — came out saying: please regulate us. Which is kind of weird. And then you have people like Ted Cruz, who’s not the most MAGA of the MAGA types but is still on that side, saying that if we’re going to have killer robots that will kill humanity, he wants them to be American killer robots, not Chinese killer robots. And I’m like: how about no killer robots? I don’t really care what flag they carry. Howard Polskin (03:18): The reason there’s a call for regulation — at least as interpreted by the right — is that it enables the companies already in the lead to have almost a monopoly. That’s what the right is saying, because it makes it harder for new companies to enter the field. So there’s already this monopoly, and that’s the so-called logic behind it. I don’t know enough to argue pro or con, but that is the reason for it. Brigitte Pellerin (04:00): And these are the political arguments, more than — like you, I’m not a specialist in the science behind AI. I don’t get that. But I follow the politics pretty closely. And here’s where it intersects with data centres: a lot of them are in areas that are Republican or MAGA. That’s where they’re building these things. Howard Polskin (04:21): Rural areas. Rural areas, yeah. Brigitte Pellerin (04:31): And the people who are affected see them, hear the humming, the buzzing noise. In some places electricity rates have gone up. Now, these may be old technologies — I don’t know. There are people saying we can do data centres better. But that’s easy to say if you’re in New York City, or in a city where there won’t be a data centre because there just isn’t the space. It’s a lot harder to swallow when you’re in those rural areas and it’s right across the road from you. And Donald Trump telling those people worried about data centres — I’m paraphrasing, because I forget the exact quote — that it’s fine if they want to stay backwards and not be with the cool guys. Only those people are against data centres; the people who get it are in favour. I don’t know that insulting his base like that is a good idea, but I guess that’s par for the course with this president. Howard Polskin (05:19): That’s what he’s been doing the last six months. That’s also why his poll numbers are so poor. He keeps insulting the base. He’s tied himself to the midterms — he’s made himself the face of them. If you vote for a Republican candidate, it’s really a vote for him. He’s said that. He’s saying nonsense. I would hope voters will wise up. (05:49) But I’ve always said: just when you think voters can’t go there, they go there. They do the irrational thing. And even though all the polls suggest the midterms are going to be a big victory for Democrats, I always say — do not underestimate Donald Trump. Especially in the midterms, because the Republicans have a huge financial advantage, with hundreds of millions of dollars more to spend on the races than the Democrats do. I think that money will be used to turn out more independent voters, undecided voters. That could be a problem for the Democrats. Brigitte Pellerin (06:40): I heard a political analyst — I’m sorry, I forget their name, and it’s someone I trust, so that’s too bad, because I can’t give them credit — who ran through the numbers and said Republicans nationally have a financial advantage of almost a billion dollars. We’re getting into that eight, nine hundred million dollar advantage, once you start counting what Elon Musk is going to spend, and the super PACs, and all that. They have a ton of money to spend. Howard Polskin (06:58): Yes, exactly. Brigitte Pellerin (07:12): Anyway, we’ll see where that goes. You’ve been streaming a movie recently. I did not know this movie was happening, so tell us about it — set on a campus, with students taken hostage by ideologues. What is that? Howard Polskin (07:29): This movie is called Run, Fight, Hide: Infidels. It’s the new feature film from the right-wing, very conservative Daily Wire, co-founded by superstar podcaster Ben Shapiro, a prolific commentator on the right. (07:52) They’ve made a few films. They make documentaries. They’re very successful in their podcasting efforts. This film dropped on September sixteenth. It’s available on the Daily Wire’s platform for a few bucks. Brigitte Pellerin (08:07): We’re recording on the eighteenth. Howard Polskin (08:21): It’s about a group of Islamic terrorists who invade a woke college campus in Virginia, at the fictitious Lawton University, where the campus is already almost paralyzed by a group of woke protesters who have taken over the quad — led by a woman with purple hair, with an effeminate sidekick. Who is later revealed, surprise surprise, to be gay. One of the stars is Jonathan Majors, who was in the Marvel cinematic universe. He was basically kicked out of that universe. He had an alleged domestic assault violation, so he was dropped. I don’t think it was ever proven, but that was enough to say adios. He’s in just a few scenes, but it’s really to attract audiences. (09:48) And the film shows a few students on campus taking control and beating the bad guys. After — I don’t think I’m giving too much away — almost anyone who was overtly woke in the film gets killed violently. So it’s a right-wing fever dream. Brigitte Pellerin (10:04): That seems like an incel’s wet dream, almost. And also — infidels? Are we still using these words? Howard Polskin (10:15): Yes. It’s really offensive. It’s the wrong film at the wrong time. We’re at war with a Middle Eastern country. This is not the film people should be seeing. It will appeal to the MAGA base, and to teenage boys who have grown up with violent video games. That’s who it will appeal to. Beyond that — not much. Brigitte Pellerin (10:44): Do you think he’d want to screen this? Howard Polskin (10:47): If Trump had his ballroom, I am almost a hundred percent sure he would have screened it in the new ballroom for all his MAGA buddies. That’s for sure. Brigitte Pellerin (11:01): Or the Kennedy Center, maybe. Howard Polskin (11:05): Or the Kennedy Center, that’s right. But part of me thinks: is it too toxic even for Trump to touch? Would Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State, say don’t do it — you’ll inflame the Arab world if you do that. Do not screen this movie. So far the reviews have been almost uniformly negative. It’s been condemned for being anti-Islamic. Let’s see whether it quietly fades into the distance, or whether there’s more uproar about it. (11:42) Right now I don’t even know if you could go to a movie theatre and see it. It makes me wonder what theatre would want to show it — and I could see, justifiably, protests outside. Maybe in deep MAGA country people would be receptive to it. But it ain’t playing in New York City, that’s for sure, where I live. Brigitte Pellerin (12:10): In addition to everything else you’ve told me about it — it sounds stupid. The plot. Why take over a campus? Howard Polskin (12:22): When you think about it, it’s really diehard. Terrorists take over a building or this or that. The police can’t do anything. A few insiders have to take things into their own hands. They’re not especially well trained, but they’re highly motivated. There’s a love interest — one of them is fighting because his girl

    All hail the chief facilities officer

  3. Sep 7

    Ask the columnist: Quebec elections

    Question from Mike who’s asking, you know, what’s gonna happen with the Quebec election on October 5th. And the quick answer: a mess. It doesn’t look at the moment like any party can get a majority. You need 64 seats, and the closest party to get to that, if you look at all the polling aggregators as we record this around Labour Day, is the Parti Québécois with maybe 50. You’re looking at maybe two dozen for the Liberal Party of Quebec, mostly in Montreal. You’re looking at 25-27 maybe or so for that CAQ now led by Christine Fréchette, the new premier. You’re looking at maybe 10 or 12 conservatives, probably mostly in the Quebec City area, and then maybe eight-ish Québec Solidaire MNAs. So nobody will have a majority, it’s gonna be very difficult to govern because all these parties have their strengths in different regions of Quebec. And there will be a lot of talk about whether or not we should go into a referendum or not. And we’re gonna waste a lot of time doing this. I am not sure how governable the province will be after the election. It’s gonna be really interesting to see to see what happens after October 5th. Send me your questions. Get full access to Bench Presse by Brigitte Pellerin at brigittepellerin.substack.com/subscribe

    Ask the columnist: Quebec elections

  4. Aug 29

    “It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters”

    Howard Polskin is the President and Chief Curator of TheRighting.com. Sign up for his free daily newsletter to get a quick scan of stories not to be missed from right-wing media without having to swim through right-wing media sludge. Here are the links to the stories Howard picked for you this week: Canadian Trade War Welcome to Lake America, Where Canada’s Free Ride Ends source: PJ Media Canada spent years learning which American objections could be delayed, negotiated, challenged, or simply survived. Canada’s Mark Carney is discovering that the old song doesn’t play in Washington anymore. He wanted the big-boy jeans, so now he gets the bill. It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters source: Townhall By Kurt Schlichter: It’s about time to be done with the country that is touted as America’s best buddy but is actually tied for its most annoying next-door neighbor. They cry that America is being mean because it’s looking out for its own interests. Anti-Woman What the Hell Is Wrong with Women? source: Townhall By Kurt Schlichter: From bizarre social media imbroglios, like a mom demanding all the other moms stop sending Oreos to school because her kid isn’t allowed to have Oreos, to the morally bankrupt embrace of a psychotic killer who strangled her three little kids, there’s clearly something wrong in Chicksville. And it’s about time we say so. Why Are Liberal White Women So Angry? source: American Thinker The left told them that only anger against perceived injustices creates meaning and happiness, and they’ll destroy everything in their paths to achieve those goals. Michigan Dem candidate Abdul El-Sayed No Daylight Between El-Sayed and Hasan Piker source: National Review El-Sayed spent months campaigning with the antisemitic online personality when his views were well known. El-Sayed’s Train Wreck Appearance with Fox’s Jesse Watters May Sink His Chances source: RedState El-Sayed had the nerve to compare ICE to “tyranny” that we threw off 250 years ago, insulting all the hard-working federal agents and the job they do to protect us. That’s turning reality on its head, where enforcing the law is somehow “tyranny.” War with Iran Trump Is Winning the Iran War. Stay the Course source: NY Post Oil is now flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning Tehran’s gambit of closing it has failed. And the neighbors that Iran has been attacking have had enough: Its largest trading partner, the United Arab Emirates, last week cut off all transactions including financial ones. The Stalemate Increasingly Suits Trump Over Iran source: Washington Examiner Inflation is soaring, goods shortages are growing, and the regime fears a boiling point of new public protests. Operation Economic Outcast Is a Recipe for Success Against Iran source: NY Post Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday launched what he called Operation Economic Outcast — a global campaign to shut down every last source of financial oxygen feeding a fractured rump regime in Tehran that’s already circling the economic drain. Transcript of the episode: Brigitte Pellerin (00:03): I’m joined today by Howard Polskin, who’s the president and chief curator of The Righting — a website that aggregates news from right-wing sources and summarizes it for you, so you don’t have to read it. They also do some original reporting on right-wing media. Howard, it’s a pleasure to have you. How did you wind up in this position? Basically you’re swimming in the sludge all the time so we don’t have to — so thank you for that. But how did you get there? Howard Polskin (00:35): It’s a tough job. Someone’s gotta do it. It was November 2016, the day after Trump got elected president. And I thought I was a smart guy — I read the New York Times, I read the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine. And I thought, how the hell did this happen? So I started going to right-wing media outlets I’d never been to before. Foxnews.com. Nationalreview.com. More far-right places like the Gateway Pundit, InfoWars. And it was a revelation to me. It was a whole other world. A whole other way of thinking. And all of a sudden it dawned on me how America could have made this decision — what I considered this awful decision. And I thought, well, there’s got to be someone who puts all these headlines together so I don’t have to spend hours every morning going through it. And no one was doing it. That’s when I thought: I guess this falls to me. It was really my “what did you do in the war, daddy?” moment. Sitting on the sidelines and rubbing my hands in concern wasn’t cutting it. I wanted to do something. So this is what I did. Brigitte Pellerin (01:57): So I guess the way to look at it is: if we had generally been more aware of what was happening in right-wing and extreme-right media before Trump got elected, we would have seen it coming earlier. And the job you’re doing now — one of the reasons I wanted to have you on this podcast, and I’m hoping regularly — is to give my audience a sense of it. Not to say, can you believe the crazy stuff these people are talking about. That’s not the spirit. I want to help folks know what’s out there that matters, what could bubble up to the surface and become policy before it happens, so that at least we’re not surprised when it does. That’s the spirit in which I want to do this with you. Howard Polskin (02:50): I’m with you a hundred percent. And frankly, I’ve run out of adjectives to describe Donald Trump. Brigitte Pellerin (02:58): The dictionary is tired. This week it’s fortuitous that a lot of the stories you’ve been swimming through are about us — about Canada. You’re based in New York City. And I must warn you: in Canada right now, we’re not happy. The mood is not friendly. Howard Polskin (03:16): I don’t blame you. I do not blame you. I have relatives in Canada — I met my wife in Toronto — so I have a lot of friends and family there. I’m like: will you still see me at Christmas? Come on. Brigitte Pellerin (03:29): So what have they been saying about us this week? Howard Polskin (03:35): Not good. I think the way right-wing media portrays Canada is as a bunch of freeloaders, based on trade. First of all, I’ve spent more time in the last eighteen months trying to understand tariffs and trade agreements than I ever wanted to. I don’t want to immerse myself in this, but I force myself to. And basically it comes down to — the way I read it — there’s a trade imbalance with Canada. And it feels like, well, we can work that out. Canada has been such an amazing partner for America. We’re fortunate to have such a progressive, powerful nation on our northern border. I love Canadians. I embrace Canada. So to see this trade war taking place, and the insults flying from the Oval Office, is quite alarming to me. And now some of the right-wing media are reflecting what’s coming out of Trump’s mouth. For instance, I saw just today, in an outlet called PJ Media, they wrote: welcome to Lake America, where Canada’s free ride ends. Come on. That is so deeply insulting. No one, in all the decades, has accused Canada of having a free ride. And yes, I get that there are trade imbalances — but it’s nothing that can’t get worked out. That’s business. That’s the way business operates. The peace and the cooperation that has existed between both countries has helped both countries. And it’s been good for the Western world as well. So it’s really baffling to me. (05:20) And there’s another headline I want to point to that’s just as insulting to Canada and Canadians. It’s from Townhall, a right-wing outlet, and the headline is: it’s always cute when Canada thinks it matters. Wow. That doesn’t fly. Now, are these outlets trying to be funny, or cute? Some of it. But a lot of it is that they’re taking their cues from President Trump. He sets the tone. He gives the okay — the gloves are off. And then the insults start flying. Brigitte Pellerin (06:23): I’m going to put you on the spot a little bit. Do you remember when Donald Trump started talking about Canada as the fifty-first state? Certainly in Canada we noticed. I’m not sure the right-wing media noticed quite as much as we did here, because we felt very much threatened. What did they say back then? Howard Polskin (06:36): Oh, they did notice. They were in favour of Alberta becoming the fifty-first state. It was: we’ll just take Alberta and the oil, and you guys can have everything else. Brigitte Pellerin (06:43): Because of the oil, obviously. Howard Polskin (06:53): It feels like a very aggressive posture. And that’s no way to treat — that’s like looking at your neighbour and saying, I like your SUV, I think I’ll take that. Brigitte Pellerin (06:53): Classy. Very classy. I feel so loved right now. This is great. (07:11) Also — aren’t these people Christians? Isn’t there something in the Ten Commandments about not coveting thy neighbour’s ass? It’s in the Bible, right? So don’t touch my stuff. It’s mine. Howard Polskin (07:16): Yes. I mean — be glad that your friendly neighbour has energy sources of its own, and is solvent, and has an educated population. That is a blessing for America. Brigitte Pellerin (07:40): It’s easy to defend, because we’re not dangerous. I remember Jon Stewart talking about this at the time, saying: what is he doing, attacking the labradoodle of allies? Canada. We’re just the labradoodle of allies. It’s a little bit insulting, but cute — so we’ll take it over what the right-wing media is saying. (07:55) The other thing that’s happened this week is that they’re not very keen on women these days in the right-wing media sphere. There’s one story in particular — I’m sorry, I forget her name — the story of the woman in Massachusetts accused of strangling her three children to death. The defence said it

    “It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters”

  5. Aug 18

    Politics, but for smart people: Federalist Trump Card

    You can always count on a Quebec politician to tell you the open, honest, unvarnished truth right to your face, and with that accent you like so much. Tuesday morning, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon made it official: a Parti Québécois government will not hold a referendum on Quebec’s future as long as Donald Trump is in the White House. Formally, that means no referendum before January 20, 2029. Or later, depending on how unconstitutional 45-47 wants to be. The leader of the PQ says he doesn’t want the question “hijacked by the ups and downs of American politics,” and he’d rather fight an election on health care and housing than on redundant, sterile fear-mongering. Or words to that effect. Yes, he still promises a referendum in the first mandate. But I don’t believe it. He just managed to get rid of that nasty albatross on his shoulders and give Quebecers permission to vote for his party without having to worry about yet another goddamn referendum. The appetite is real. The PQ has been sitting on top of the polls for the better part of two years and is still there. François Legault’s CAQ had collapsed so thoroughly that some polls had it approaching irrelevance; he left, Christine Fréchette took over, and the party has climbed back out of the sub-basement, which is a real recovery but not enough to win, especially with roughly three voters in five telling pollsters they’re dissatisfied with her government. The Liberals and Conservatives can’t get their s**t together so they don’t matter. So there’s an enormous constituency out there that wants what the PQ is offering, a change after nearly a decade of the CAQ that feels like a generation. People want a slightly more progressive shade of government, a younger leader, fresh energy, but they do not want the one thing the PQ has always insisted comes attached. That’s been St-Pierre Plamondon’s trap from the beginning, and it isn’t of his making. He’s not crazy; he can see the opening in front of him. But the party’s pur et dur wing (small, loud, permanently unsatisfied) has spent decades devouring any leader insufficiently committed to the project. He needed a way to set the referendum aside without saying the words that would get him eaten. Enter Donald Trump, who has solved a problem for Quebec sovereigntists that Quebec sovereigntists could not solve for themselves. And here’s where it gets funny. Look at the actual argument. Not “Quebecers aren’t ready,” which would be an admission. Not “the polls are bad,” which would be weak. The argument is that Canada is under sustained assault from a hostile American president who likes nothing better than to see us divided, and that this is no time to hand him that gift. The best tool Quebec separatists have found for managing Donald Trump is Canadian unity. It is so nakedly pragmatic it’s almost worthy of Jean Chrétien. Say it in your head with the accent: as long as that guy is in the White House, there is no way Quebec should even be thinking about talking about a referendum. The old man would approve, and he’d enjoy watching a PQ leader get there. Now, my prediction, offered freely and on the record so you can mock me later. The referendum isn’t coming back after Trump either. Not because January 2029 is far away, though it is. And not because St-Pierre Plamondon is insincere; I think he means it. It’s because of what he just did to his own argument. Once you have told an electorate that national solidarity is a real thing with real value, that there are moments when we’re all in the same boat and the boat matters, you cannot easily un-tell them. Every month between now and 2029 in which Quebec and the rest of Canada get shoved together by an unfriendly neighbour is a month in which the emotional case for leaving gets quieter. Trump is doing to Quebec separatism what decades of federal “charm” offensives never managed: making Canada feel less like a cage and more like a raft. Add a generation that has never once been asked to care about this, a hard core that ages a little more every year, and a leader who will have spent his entire first mandate governing rather than campaigning for a country, and the window doesn’t reopen on schedule. Separation just quietly stops being on the agenda. Merci, Donald. Not the way you meant it. Get full access to Bench Presse by Brigitte Pellerin at brigittepellerin.substack.com/subscribe

    Politics, but for smart people: Federalist Trump Card

  6. Aug 16

    Politics, but for smart people: We are failing those aboard USS Lincoln

    Details about the story on the USS Abraham Lincoln are available through this New York Times story (follow the links to the trade publications for more information.) I may not look like much. I’m 55 years old, a woman, a journalist, a professional loudmouth. But I like to think I’m tough. Three black belts in karate. Two-time world champion in fighting, won in my late forties, not that long ago. I train every day. When I play Ultimate, I can more or less keep up with people half my age. For my demographic, I’ll take my chances against most comers. I have never been within a country mile of military tough. And I know this precisely, because I have the swamp to prove it. More than two decades years ago, back when embedding reporters with units was new again, some unit leaders wanted their people to get used to having journalists underfoot. And, crucially, to get used to not letting us get killed. So I went out on exercises with Canadian Forces units, with some American soldiers mixed in when we were in Fort Drum. My job was to jog behind, keep up, and not die. The biggest threat to my life during those exercises was boredom, and I was only carrying maybe 20 per cent of what they were carrying. No weapon. No ammunition. No specialized kit. Fatigues, boots, a Kevlar vest that is a sweaty delight in summer, a helmet that weighed roughly seven thousand pounds, and my meal pouches, which were disgusting, but that’s a separate issue. And they still had to assign some poor soul the job of making sure the journalist didn’t get left behind in a bog somewhere and eaten by bears. So here is what I know in my body, not just in my head: anyone who makes it through basic training, onto active duty, onto a deployment — I don’t care which branch of which country’s forces — is one tough cookie. Hats off. And I say the next part with all the love I have: these people are a little perverse about it. The worse it sucks, the better they like it. The grub was garbage, the weather tried to kill us, everything hurt, and they’ll tell you the story grinning, because the suffering is the point, and the getting-through-it-anyway is the identity. Nobody in that culture volunteers to be seen as fragile. The pride runs the other way. Which is why the reports coming off the USS Abraham Lincoln should stop you cold. Reports. With an ‘s.’ From the families of active-duty Navy sailors and United States Marines, describing shipmates in mental health crisis to the point of going over the side. The Military Times and Navy Times have reported multiple attempted jumps; Stars and Stripes reported thwarted attempts; CNN reported that a sailor went overboard on August 3 and was pulled from the water within the hour and treated as a mental health episode. One wife told reporters her husband texted that he hoped he wouldn’t wake up. We won’t know the full extent for a long time — operational security is real, and you can’t narrate a warship’s daily life to the enemy. But we know enough. When people whose entire professional culture is built on refusing to complain start telling their mothers and wives that they think about the water, something has gone badly wrong. Here are the facts. The Lincoln is an aircraft carrier with roughly 5,000 sailors and Marines aboard. It left San Diego on November 21 for a Pacific deployment. It was rerouted to the Middle East in January, ahead of the war, and has been in the area ever since — including weeks of continuous combat operations. It was originally supposed to come home in May. It has now been at sea more than 265 days, a record-setting deployment, with the USS George Washington only now steaming out to relieve it. That part, they signed up for. Nobody joins a carrier crew expecting the schedule to hold in wartime. That’s the job, and they were probably gung-ho about it. This is the part I want you to hold onto, because it’s the most underreported detail in the whole story: those people have set foot on land for a total of two days since November. One stop in Guam in December, where many of them weren’t allowed off the ship. One resupply stop in Oman in July, where the ones who could disembark were confined to a secure compound inside the port. That’s it. Navy ships on deployment normally get a port call every 30 to 45 days. Not as a luxury — as maintenance, for the ship and for the humans on it. Fresh food comes aboard. People walk on something that doesn’t move. They see a thing that isn’t grey. They get drunk somewhere and b***h, then come back restored. In wartime you get less of that, and everyone understands it. But there is an enormous difference between “less” and “two days in nine months.” Add it up: almost no shore time, water problems, food rationing, mouldy showers, broken plumbing, laundry down for over a week, care packages lost in transit for months, and difficulty getting phone and email time. Then leave the return date blank. Then leave it blank some more. And into all of that walks the President of the United States, who was asked at Joint Base Andrews on Friday whether the families of those sailors were worried. “No, they’re not,” he said. Asked whether the deployment had gone on too long: “No, no, no. Not nearly long enough.” This from the man whose Vietnam service disappeared in 1968 behind a diagnosis of bone spurs, allegedly supplied by a Queens podiatrist whose office was in a building owned by Fred Trump. The doctor’s daughters later told the New York Times it was family lore that the diagnosis had been done as a favour to their father’s landlord. Trump later called the problem “minor” and couldn’t remember which foot had kept him out of uniform. And this is the man assessing other people’s stamina. Then came the rest of them. The Defence Secretary said conditions had been “completely misrepresented,” without specifying a single thing that was misrepresented. The acting Navy Secretary said the media were “trying to paint our warriors as victims.” So let me be clear about who is calling these people weak here, because it is not the press. We are not the ones telling Marines to man up. We are not the ones suggesting that a sailor who breaks after nine months without touching dry land is a whiner who’s letting the team down. We’re the ones reporting that they are being overworked by people who won’t admit it. You are the ones who decided that acknowledging the cost would be an insult to their honour, a very convenient thing to believe when you’re the one who set the schedule. You’re causing the harm, denying the harm, and then blaming the people who noticed. Why don’t you just f**k all the way off. These are the toughest people any of us know. They serve regardless of how stupid the war is. They will absorb an astonishing amount of misery and make a joke of it afterward. So when they get to the point of thinking about going over the side, understand what that means. We failed them. Not the other way around. Get full access to Bench Presse by Brigitte Pellerin at brigittepellerin.substack.com/subscribe

  7. Aug 10

    Politics, but for smart people: Out-Trumping Trump

    There is no shortage of experts on international relations, negotiation theory and the history of the Middle East explaining just how much of a pickle Donald Trump is in with Iran. But you don’t need any of that expertise to see it. You just need eyes, positioned roughly in front of the eye sockets, pointed at what’s happening. I couldn’t tell you what the latest version of the deal is. I’m not sure anyone can; it changes by the week. What I can tell you is what the Iranian regime will do with it, whatever it turns out to be: yank it out from under Trump’s feet. They will move the goalposts, pocket one concession after another, and stretch this thing out precisely as long as it can be made to last. They are going to out-Trump Trump. Consider the record. In April, the president said he expected “to be bombing” if negotiators couldn’t reach a deal, then extended the ceasefire that same day. In May, he warned Iran the clock was ticking and there wouldn’t be anything left of them, then held off, the next day, at the request of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In June, he announced the US military would be hitting Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and cancelled the strikes hours later because the “final points” of an agreement had supposedly been approved. On August 1, he was “locked and loaded” and promising military terror at levels never seen before. It is now August 10. The strait is still closed. The Americans are “semi-negotiating,” in the president’s own words, through intermediaries, in a process Tehran won’t even dignify with the word negotiations. Every threat gets a deadline. Every deadline gets extended. Every extension gets read, correctly, in Tehran as proof that the threats are negotiable. And so the regime keeps asking for a little more, and waiting a little longer. This isn’t the first time this country’s regime is taking its sweet time torturing and humiliating an American president. In November 1979, students invaded the American embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage. Fifty-two Americans were held for 444 days. They were released right after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. [Note: I made a mistake in the video above. They were released the day of Reagan’s inauguration, not the next day.] That was not a coincidence. It was a message. Nobody seriously debates today that the hostage crisis helped Reagan defeat Carter. And it is essentially the same regime now. Different people; same kind of people. They are not our friends. They are nobody’s friends, really, and emphatically not the Iranian people’s. They don’t give a s**t about their own citizens. Which means the usual civilized-world levers don’t work. You cannot threaten people who have already decided they have nothing to lose. They are, at this moment, the honey badgers of international politics. Meanwhile, the American position is weaker than the volume suggests. Militarily, the shine is off the threats. You can only announce doomsday so many times before people check their watches. And there are reports the US is burning through its long-range munitions faster than it can replace them. Diplomatically, it’s worse. There is not one friendly country on the face of the earth rushing to America’s defence here, because the consensus outside Washington is brutally simple: they created this mess, they can fix it. The Iranians look at all of this and draw the obvious conclusion. Stretch it out. Wait. So here is my bet, and it turns out I’m not the only one making it: this crisis will not be resolved, or even seriously on its way to being resolved, until Donald Trump leaves office. Whenever, and however, that happens. The regime that extracted 444 days from Jimmy Carter has every incentive to extract years from this president, and no incentive whatsoever to hand him a win. The near-term bill comes due in November, at the midterms, and it will be steep. Maybe there’s a lesson in all this for future leaders, though I suspect most people learned it a long time ago: don’t ever start a war you don’t know for sure you can win. Otherwise you’re going to get your ass handed to you in front of everyone. Get full access to Bench Presse by Brigitte Pellerin at brigittepellerin.substack.com/subscribe

  8. Aug 5

    Politics, but for smart people: Voting like we mean it

    Tuesday night’s Democratic primaries in Michigan were interesting to watch. Not that I stayed up. But by morning we knew that, by a slim margin, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed had won the Democratic nomination for Senate against Haley Stevens, a sitting representative and a more, shall we say, mainstream Democratic politician. (Though “mainstream” in Michigan can mean something rather different than it would in, say, New Hampshire.) It was a race a lot of people were watching, because El-Sayed is the more progressive candidate. Some people call him a socialist. I don’t know him and I won’t put words in his mouth, but it’s fair to say he sits well to Stevens’s left. Some expected a sweeping victory for him; in the end it was tighter than that. But a win is a win, and he’ll now face Mike Rogers, the Republican, who won his nomination against essentially nobody, because that’s how the Republican Party works these days. If you’re not endorsed by Donald Trump, you might as well not exist. Here’s what I found especially interesting about this race, and how I’m thinking about its implications for November and beyond. I have to say up front that some of this may be wishful thinking on my part, so apply as much salt as you think is necessary. I’ve been listening to a lot of interviews from Michigan: voters, volunteers on both campaigns, journalists who’ve been on the ground for days and sometimes weeks. And what appears to be happening is two things. Well: two and a half. One: there is a huge amount of opposition to politics as usual. And this isn’t just true of this particular cycle, I’d say it’s been true since Bernie Sanders almost won that nomination. Remember that year? People are sick and tired of politics as usual, especially on the Democratic side, because the candidates endorsed and pushed by the party’s executive keep being the candidates the rank and file never especially wanted. Think of Hillary Clinton, who was not exactly beloved by her own party’s base. Think of Kamala Harris last presidential election. If the party executive had allowed people to compete against Joe Biden, and made him leave a race he was far too old for, maybe Harris would still have won the nomination, but there would have been a real competition. The rank and file wanted one. People are sick and tired of being told how to vote. So they go for people like El-Sayed. They went for Graham Platner in Maine, whose candidacy, we should be clear, ended in July after a former partner accused him of sexual assault, an allegation he denies but which cost him his endorsements and, within days, his place in the race. Before those credible allegations came out, though, the energy around his campaign was exactly this story: people defending his candidacy by saying, we are sick and tired of polished candidates, and we want some real people. You see it, to a lesser extent, with James Talarico in Texas. You see it with Jon Ossoff in Georgia. You even saw it in Jasmine Crockett’s campaign in Texas (she lost to Talarico); she’s exactly that very outspoken, plain-spoken kind of politician: almost a normal person’s idea of what a politician should sound like. I like that this seems to be happening. Again, possibly wishful thinking. But I think it’s high time. People are so sick and tired of that other kind of politics that they’re almost at the point of throwing up. They’ve had it. Two: there is a lot of anger at Republicans. You hear this when you take the time to listen to local media interviewing regular people on the ground. Anger at Republicans for not standing up to Donald Trump. For letting him run roughshod over institutions. The ICE business is not going well, to put it gently. The Epstein files are still not sorted out. Pick your file. For the midterms, at least, I think there’s a huge appetite for saying: out with the Republicans, everywhere we can reach them, because they should have stood up to him and they didn’t. What that means for 2028, I don’t know. But this November? The appetite is there. And two and a half: strategic voting is falling out of fashion. When you pick a primary candidate, you’re not just asking who best represents your views and priorities. At the back of your mind there’s always that other question: who is liable to do better in the general? We do this in Canada too. People really want to vote NDP, but don’t want the Conservatives to win my riding, so they’ll hold their nose and vote Liberal. Strategic voting. And this time around, I keep hearing people on the ground say some version of: I did that before, and I wound up with a result I didn’t like; a person representing me in Congress who did not have my priorities in mind or my best interests at heart. This time? Screw it. I’m voting with my heart. I’m voting for someone I actually want. Maybe that’s wishful thinking too. We’ll find out in November, and we’ll find out as the other primaries keep coming. But if I’m right about this, I will be very happy, because we have had way too much of politics as puppet show, administered by party executives. The Republicans have their own version, of course, which is simpler: Donald Trump decides everything. But the Democrats have been guilty, over many, many years, of arranging things, of guiding the rank and file toward voting the way the executive wants. And people have had enough of it. It’s time we got to a politics that is not just for the people but by them, with politicians who look and feel and sound like normal people. Frankly, we couldn’t do worse than what the Democratic Party has been doing for the last couple of cycles. They gave us Donald Trump by not being able to get their s**t together and offer candidates that real people on the ground actually wanted to vote for. I hope that what we’re seeing in Michigan, in Texas, in Maine, is an early sign of better things to come for representative politics. I really, really hope I’m right. I’ll be watching for more of those candidates winning primaries, and, ideally, elections, come November. Get full access to Bench Presse by Brigitte Pellerin at brigittepellerin.substack.com/subscribe

    Politics, but for smart people: Voting like we mean it
See All (66)

About

Social critic, dans les deux langues officielles. brigittepellerin.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Brigitte Pellerin
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    66
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Brigitte Pellerin
  • Show Website
    Brigitte Pellerin