The 2025 Canadian Election

The Canadian election is on April 28th and like all the others is the most important to date.  Elections are great opportunities to make improvements, but I am skeptical.  There are always emotional elements that seem to overwhelm important issues.  Those with big money have a way to appealing to our baser needs.  To top it off, the reality afterwards never matches the will of the people, including those who elected not to vote.

Would you like your vote to really count?  After you take time from something you enjoy or have to do and get in a line.  The candidate who gets the most votes in your riding is the only one that gets to vote in the legislature.  Every other vote doesn't advance a candidate even if they all add up to more than the winner.  Another wasted vote is the extra ones that put the winner on top.  That is why some people indulge in strategic voting.

I line up with the Greens and sympathize with the progressive parties.  It seems that the conservatives are mostly against climate change and in general seem to have less respect for civil rights.  I do respect their concern for financing as the government paying avoidable interest hurts us.  But not all government programs are bad for the budget   Health care is a prime example.  An ounce (gram) of prevention is worth a pound (kilogram) of cure.  

How about you?  Do you favor the NDP or the Liberals (against the Conservatives).  Depending on your riding you could vote for your preferred party or choose a second or even third choice for your best chance to stop the Conservatives.  Maybe you prefer the Conservatives, but you could also find yourself trying to stop the dreaded opposition depending on your riding.

Climate change is guaranteed to get worse even if government policies change as it will take time to readjust from more than a century of abuse.  Wealthy investors want to protect their investments and have more convincing resources than the rest of us.  Alberta relies a lot on fossil fuels and has the legislature to support them.

Most people think that somehow the Covid 19 pandemic is behind us.  Unfortunately the impact is still with us.  Inflation has been very definitely aggravated by it.  Consumers tend to look at current prices and get upset when they are up.  Certainly there might have been different choices made, but supplies were cut and consumer and work patterns changed.  Compared to other nations Canada wasn't so far behind.  More of us survived than in many more reckless nations.  Someone who supported the Convoy protest, like Poilievre love to point out inflation as though there was no connection to forces outside government forces.

 The fear against Conservatives leaves the progressives split.  In many elections the progressive parties (Liberals, NDP, Green) do collect more votes, but are often losers.  Bloc Quebecois are unique in that they want to be free of English Canada, but are now concerned about American influence.  I believe they could be a coalition partner with a progressive party

Don Trump is a critical election issue all by himself.  As soon as he was officially president he started making offensive statements.  He referred to Governor Justin Trudeau and Canada as the 51st state.  Since then he has become even more aggressive.   On the economic front he is promising heavy tariffs against Canada and other countries claiming to want businesses to relocate to America.  Our two economies are very integrated that optimizes both nations, although Trump insists America has been subsidizing Canada. He has shown favors to Putin from whom he has probably picked up a plan to expand America.  He feels that the Panama Canal should belong to America even suggesting military action may be necessary.   Greenland needs to be turned over as a security tool.  Mexico is also being treated very roughly.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/03/why-isnt-trump-in-prison.html

Scary for me is Trump plans to dismantle the Department of Education and turn it over to the states, some of whom have racist tendencies.  Canada also has our provinces responsible for education. 

Taxation is always an issue.  The poorer citizens need more money to survive.  The wealthy resent sharing their wealth with ordinary people.  Governments (those that get elected) try to spread the wealth around with a variety of programs, but they have to get the money from somewhere.  Unfortunately as there is much resistance to taxes they end up borrowing money and in turn paying interest.  A progressive tax system should help, but the top end is the most resistant and has developed all sorts of wrinkles that cut their contribution.  Somehow they have to figure out a fair system benefits everyone, even themselves.

The dilemma of many voters is that their riding has a history and maybe even current polling suggesting a party they want to avoid.  The closest they can get to that is to vote for an opposition party that has the best chance to upsetting the hated one.  This works against all parties in particular ridings.  Sometimes their vote does make a difference, but not always. and not their preferred candidate.

There is a better system adopted by much of the world.  Proportional representation allows your preferred vote to make a difference.  It encourages all politicians to be politer to their opponents because there is a good chance they will have to work with them.  More people are willing to make the effort to vote and even to study the issues.  More views are considered before policies locked in.

To understand how unjustly voting is distorted under our First Past the Post system check out the recent Ontario provincial election...http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/03/ontario-voters-were-cheated-again.html

Don't be fooled by ranked balloting.  Only one candidate is elected per riding and although you may have contributed to the winner it is not necessarily your first choice that would better reflect your preferences.. 

Should you get a chance to talk to a candidate ask them what they think of proportional representation.  Tell your friends and neighbors.  Candidates want to know how they can get more votes.

Who Saw the Peacock Dance in the Jungle? an enjoyable Japanese series

 

"Who Saw the Peacock Dance in the Jungle?" is a well constructed mystery series.  Like the best it is layered with interesting complications.

We first meet a daughter, Kamugi and her father,  Haruo having a traditional Japanese meal at a favored vendor.  Before too long there is a house fire and the father, a former police officer dies.  It takes awhile before we learn that the fire might have been deliberately set.  This is our first acquaintance with an annoying journalist Kamii.

Before too long we learn that Kamugi is not the natural daughter of Haruo.  Haruo's former police partner Akazawa is involved and decides an investigation is  not needed, but again more characters get involved.  We learn the Akazawa and his wife, Kyoko were the ones who delivered the infant Komugi to Haruo and his wife.  Kamugi is directed to a lawyer, Matsukaze who is mystified as to why he was selected.   There is lots more going back to a grisly mass murder several years before with false accusations and we learn there are others with vested interests.  Endless surprises.

It takes a lot of talented people to put together such an enjoyable series.  Here are a few.

Takahiro Aoyama was the director.  He has 13 directing credits including "Light of My Lion" (2024).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/12/light-of-my-lion.html

Rito Asami wrote the original maga  (a sort of Japanese comic strip) and has done two others.

Tomako Kanazawa was one of the script writers.  He has 13 writing credits.

Alisa Okahazama composed the music.  She has 18 music credits.

Junichi Nakaura was a cinematographer.  He has 7 cinematography credits and 3 for the camera and electrical department including "First Love" (2022).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/12/first-love.html

Seiji Harimoto was an editor.  He has 12 editor credits including "Light of My Lion" (2024). 

Suzu Hirose played Komugi.  She started out as a model and has been a popular commercial actress.  She has 47 acting credits and 3 for soundtrack including "Our Little Sister" (2015) and "The Third Murder" (2017).  

Ken'ichi Matsuyama plays Matsukaze, the helpful lawyer.  He has  95 acting credits including "Norwegian Wood" (2010) and "Japan Sinks:  People of Hope" (2021).  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/12/japan-sinks-people-of-hope-emigration.html 

 Lily Frank played Haruo who we see in several flashbacks.  He has 108 acting credits and 2 for directing including "Like Father, Like Son" (2011), "Our Little Sister" (2014), "Shoplifters" (2018), "Cottontail" (2021),  "Call Me Chihiro" (2024) and "The Parades" (2024).   See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/03/the-parades-japanese-fantasy-film-on.html

Takahiro Fujimoto played Akazawa, the former police partner.  He was a medley swimmer who competed in two Olympics.  He has 31 acting credits including "Jin" (2009).

Naomi Nishida played Kyoko, the wife of Akazawa.  She is a likeable quiet individual, but is hiding more than the others.  Was a fashion model. She has 177 acting credits.

Hayuto Isomura played Kamii the annoying and clever journalist.  Just started Japanese dubbing for foreign films.  He has 61 acting credits and 2 for directing.  

You can enjoy this series subtitled on Netflix.

As usual I have bolded the first mention of films I have seen.  They are not necessarily a recommendation, but generally I found them worthy of my time and if you follow the links you should be able to determine if any film is worth following up.

Jeffrey Toobin's "The Pardon"

 Donald Trump has brought pardons into our awareness.  A presidential  pardon is unique in that the president doesn't need Congressional approval and there is no expiry date.

The focus of "The Pardon" (2024) is on the pardon to Richard Nixon.  There are some similarities, but significant contrasts comparing the situation with regard to Donald Trump.

Pardons all have a political element.

Nixon seemed to feel that the promise of a pardon would encourage witnesses not to testify against him. 

Other political events opened up an opportunity to declare a new vice president.  Gerald Ford did not aspire to the responsibility.  He wasn't selected for his ties to Nixon, but also as they thought he was clean and could be manipulated.

Ford traveled around the United States, but avoided learning any more than necessary.   However as legal affairs moved forward he was let in what was expected.    Before too long Nixon did resign and  Ford was made president. 

Nixon wanted a pardon, but not directly.  Ford wanted Nixon to admit involvement and tried to word his proclamation and Nixon's acceptance speech to in effect be an admission of guilt.  Nixon bent very little in that regard.  Having resigned he was eligible for a pension.

Ford wrestled with the notion.  He knew Nixon was guilty and the court proceedings were progressing slowly.  He was honestly concerned about the effect of dragging on Nixon's legal battles.  The trick was to get Nixon to admit guilt.  Not quite done, but pardon announced.

The initial response was negative, from both political parties, the press and the public.  They knew Nixon was guilty.  It doomed his election chances.

Attitudes mellowed a bit years later.  Ted Kennedy had strongly criticized the Nixon pardon, but came to believe it was in the best national interest, even presenting Ford with the Profiles in Courage Award (in honor of brother John F. Kennedy's book) in 2001.  Bob Woodward, the top Watergate journalist also mellowed his attitude.  Jeffrey Toobin did not modify his opinion feeling Nixon was guilty and his fate should have had more impact on the public.

Toobin notes pardons from subsequent presidents.   George H.W. Bush pardoned some men who had been involved with the Iran-Contra case, that may well have impacted an election.  Jimmy Carter pardoned the draft dodgers which wasn't appreciated by many.  Surprising to me was that 50, 000 of those pardoned elected not to leave their adopted homes.

The book came out after Trump's 2020 election victory, but before he took office. Unlike other presidents Trump  developed his own procedures for his own personal needs.  During the Mueller Investigation Trump hinted there would be pardons for Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort so they would keep secrets.  He did in fact pardon those who were convicted.  He also pardoned Joe Arpaio, a prominent racist and Charles Kushner, the father to Jared Kushner.  Some of those pardoned went on to commit more crimes.

At the end of his first term on January 6, 2021 Trump encouraged his supporters to help overturn what he declared an unfair election. People died and many have been convicted.  One of Trump's first acts of his second term was a blanket pardon on the rioters from January 6th. 

In summary, pardons can be positive as when a past injustice can be rectified.  On the other hand pardons are easily abused.  Toobin has written an excellent book

Canada Reads

For book lovers, "Canada Reads" is wonderful entertainment.  The 2025 version just finished.  It really is a successful promotional contest helping more readers discover Canadian books.  This is the 24th edition of the contest.  Having read many of the winners as well as a few of the others I look forward to each years' contest. 

 It is the discussion that makes it so worthwhile.  You will come to appreciate the merits of each selection.  The five champions criticize each other and respond in a respectful, polite and intelligent manner.  The show presents a few outside comments including the authors and families.  One interesting inclusion was a library watch party indicating there is a lot of anticipation.

Below are the five nominated selections four of which were eliminated over a four day period  until the winner is declared.

"Watch For Her" (2022) by Samantha M. Bailey is a mystery.  Two women misunderstand one another tragically.  I found this very compelling putting other books and movies aside to find out what happens next.  It was the first eliminated--first thriller type    Maggie MacNeil an Olympic gold medal swimmer was the champion.

 

 

 

"Jennie's Boy" (2022) by Wayne Johnston is in effect an autobiography of his childhood in small town Newfoundland, Goulds.  He was very sickly and coughed so much it interfered with family activities.  They were very poor and his father drank too much.  Although educated his father was a poor manager of the money.  The dialogue from a sick youngster to the grownups in his life was interesting. 

Linwood Barclay, a prolific author of fiction was the champion.  Linwood thinks authors will get better- over time.  He has been nominated for literary awards himself, but never won.

2nd book eliminated

"Etta and Otto and Russell and James" (2015) by Emma Hooper is a story of relationships over several years.  Etta and Otto marry and Russell was a lifelong friend.   James was a talking coyote.  Otto had gone overseas to fight in he war while Russell stayed back and comforted Etta.  Etta who had never gone outside the Prairies took it in her elderly head to get to the Atlantic Ocean.  One form of dementia.  Different time lines.

Michelle Morgan, the champion is known for acting in popular CBC series, "Heartland" and has also been a director and producer.

Third eliminated-after a tied vote broken.

"Dandelion" (2022) by Jaies Chai Yun Liew is about the daughter of a Chinese immigrant (from Brunei) who goes to seek her mother who had abandoned the family a decade or so previously.  She married a Ukrainian and had a baby girl.  In reality the author was a lawyer working on immigration issues and lived in Ottawa. 

Said D'Homa was a neuro scientist who made a big switch to being a noted pastry chef.  As an immigrant himself he explained some of the issues involved.  As a pastry chef he pointed out that food is a way of communicating.

 

"A Two Spirit Journey" by Ma-nee Chacaby, assisted by Mary Louise Plummer was autobiographical of an Ojibwa woman who was visually impaired, alcoholic and later opened up as a lesbian.  She didn't learn English until age 20. As it happened I was able to read the four eliminated books, but am still waiting for this one.

Shayla Stonechild, an indigenous model, actress and health advocate was the champion.  Every book had its merits, but Shayla had done her research and articulated beautifully.   I look forward to reading the book.  After winner declared, the viewers were treated to a congratulation clip from the author.

 

 I enjoyed the discussions,  The drop outs were gracious and observant.    Lots of points were made about human relations and writing styles.  Each book was unique and each champion came from different perspectives.

 The current episodes are available using your Google.

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/10/canada-reads.html 

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/09/the-book-of-negroes.html 

 http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/11/two-trees-make-forest-canada-reads.html

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/11/two-trees-make-forest-canada-reads.html 

 http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/09/ducks-my-first-graphic-novel.html

http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/hotline-canada-reads-nomination.html

The Revenge of the Tipping Point

 Malcolm Gladwell is unique.  He finds connections that escape the rest of us.  The truth is that existence is full of connections that we take for granted, ignore or most often don't know.  

 In the year 2000 he wrote "The Tipping Point" which rocketed him to fame.  A few other books got my attention. "The Revenge of the Tipping Point" elaborates further on how things work.

Tipping point is the point where some idea barely noticed rapidly gains popularity.  He helps us better understand the process

Epidemics love monocultures, that is cultures with few or any variations.  One example was cheetahs who eventually were almost reduced to only one female meaning that each subsequent generation had the same set of genes.  This resulted in extreme difficulties for breeding.   In their efforts to breed cheetahs they brought them into close contact with one another and somehow one caught a fatal disease common only with domestic cats.  It created a deadly epidemic spurred on by the common gene pool. 

 Another example was provided by a high school district that was noted for high marks and stellar achievements.  The students  were clean cut and studious, but through freaky events one student committed suicide.  It wasn't too long before suicides became a regular ocurence.  

The concept of super spreaders was displayed with Covid epidemic.  Coughing and sneezing were considered  prime causes, but delving into it further and learned that merely talking could spread it.  Furthermore they learned that rare humans could be what might be called super spreaders.  

The Holocaust provided a surprising example of an initially slow moving trend that reached epidemic proportions.  The survivors of the Holocaust were embarrassed and wanted to forget it.  A group of 3 living in Los Angeles wanted to forget their time in concentration camps and decided to put their mementos into a museum., known as the "Martyrs Memorial Museum".  It turned out to be more popular than anticipated, but it was another twenty two years before anyone else was willing to open a similar museum.   In 1984 four museums opened and afterwards a series of what were now known as Holocaust Museums opened.   Gladwell identifies two tv executives who decided it was time to present a mini series on the Holocaust.  Prior to that there had been a few references in historical literature.  The idea became acceptable, even urgent for some people.

Gay marriage is an example of how quickly a tipping point can be reached when the Overstory changes.  Gladwell credits television with softening up general attitudes.  Although there were references to gay character they were generally off to the side.  Will & Grace won over a good segment of the population.  Once the overstory was changed legislators found it much easier to make for more tolerant laws and authorize gay marriage.  It all happened in about a ten year period.

Harvard athletic scholarships  According to Gladwell, universities were aware of a tipping point and had decided they wanted to avoid minorities reaching it.  The net result is that athletes with lower academic credentials are favored over minorities who also have lower academic credentials.  

The opioids crisis is at the beginning and then apparently not mentioned until near the end.  But actually some of the forces that helped bring about the crisis are explored in a seemingly random way.  It all makes sense in the end.

Many of Gladwell's conclusions are reached by taking thought from different scientific studies.  The problem is that scientists are so specialized and are often unaware of relevant other specialties.  We might think of Gladwell as a generalist.  He does look at problems and approaches them from a wider perspective.  Specialists are definitely important, but the world needs intelligent generalists as much.

You have to read the book to really appreciate his method of connecting different topics to make a point stronger.

A previous blog  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/talking-to-strangers.html

Why Isn't Trump in Prison?

There isn't going to be any new information on Donald Trump that hasn't already been aired--there are no secrets, although a lot of details that have been overlooked or forgotten.  

Before and during his first presidential time he very loudly proclaimed he had nothing to do with Russia and has since made fun of the Mueller Report.  He actually had a history with Russia.  He visited Moscow and had planned to build a Trump Tower there.  He did in fact take one of his beauty pageants to Russia.  When he had financial problems leading to bankruptcy with casinos it has been speculated that he laundered money for the Russian mob--in any case he did get back on his feet.   We don't know, but Putin and those before him have a reputation for seeking compromising material on foreigners who might have influence.

Not sure how well they might have succeeded, but on television with Putin beside him in Helsinki he proclaimed that he felt Putin told the truth against 16 American federal agencies who felt otherwise.  More recently he blamed Ukraine for attacking Russia and that Zelensky was a dictator.  With his Vice President he demanded an apology.  He agreed with Russia that Ukraine should not join NATO.  Ignoring an agreement when Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal.  Recently while Ukraine is being bombed the U.S. cut off intelligence that could have allowed some lives to be saved. Again we are left with the notion that Trump admires Putin; he is stupid or there really is some sort of hold on him.  More perspective on Russian connections:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/house-of-trump-house-of-putin.html

The Mueller Report has been dismissed by Trump supporters.   Much of it had been redacted, but nonetheless there were convictions with some of the guilty parties exiled in Russia.  Read more...http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/07/the-mueller-report-and-american-voter.html

Further Trump has indicated he thinks NATO is not a good deal for America.  The trans Atlantic alliance has worked well as a deterrent and has been called to action a number of times.  I don't quarrel that other members do not all have 2% of their budget on defense.  The truth is that most of them spend more money on different priorities like health and education.

How does one define treason?  At what point is it considered punishable by prison?  

What many people consider criminal occurred on January 6, 2021.  There was a riot in which some were injured and some died directly and indirectly.  Why?  A little speculation, but is obvious that Trump did not accept the voter's verdict.  Not necessarily unusual or unjustified, but there is a system of courts that determine the truth.  Again he didn't like the result and encouraged people to come to Washington to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country".  He tried to get the Vice-President to refuse to verify Joe Biden's election ignoring advice from many experts that it would be unconstitutional.  

The House of Representatives was able to put together a hearing which is not by itself constitutionally binding.  Cleverly the only witnesses were Republicans, many of whom were close to the President during the events of January 6th.  To outsiders this was impressively damning evidence.  The catch was that it was not legally binding.  It should have been brought to the proper courts, but for various reasons it kept getting delayed along with another damning accusation regarding government archives.  Some of us would think this would be among the very highest priorities, but the case NEVER made it to where it could be finally decided.  See more... http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/10/january-6th-hearings.html

Trump is a rich, powerful man with a lot of experience being sued.  Occasionally he has paid a fine, one of the most spectacular ones over the Trump College where he paid $25 million before the 2016 election.  He found delaying was the most reliable way and he hired lawyers skilled at it.  A study on how he got away with avoiding legal problems check  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/08/untouchable-how-they-get-away-with-it.html

How did he get elected.  Partly by appealing to prejudice, but that is not necessarily his fault--he just took advantage and admittedly fanned it.  Many extreme right wingers thought he had the necessary appeal so the legislature could favor the wealthy more than the constitution currently allows

Perhaps I really do have Trump Derangement Syndrome   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2025/02/is-trump-derangement-syndrome-valid.html

Instead of praising him for all the good things he has done his supporters should reflect on what non-indictable decisions he has made that have harmed all the citizens.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/10/the-non-indictable-sins-of-trump.htm   

There is much more anti-Trump material in my posts and I wonder what I would do if he finally disappears.

At a Loss for Words

Words are critical and how they are used is meaningful.  Carol Off laments how some important words have been transformed.  Un-fortunately the transformation are impacting our lives.  Words have become weapons.

The first word is Freedom.  One example was how the Freedom Convoy defined freedom as not obeying government protocols for masks, distancing and vaccinations.  The author suggests that your freedom ends near the tip of my nose.  I would go further and suggest your freedom should be restricted to not harming me.  The point is that one person's freedom should be balanced against other people, but so many view personal restrictions as a lack of freedom.  One conclusion is that freedom needs to be more inclusive.  

The second word is Democracy.  At one time kings made the decisions.  A few centuries ago only white men who owned property could vote.  Over time and with a great deal of effort men without property (renters), women, people of different racial minorities were allowed to vote.  The voting age has gradually been lowered.  Some jurisdictions make it easy for eligible voters to actually vote while others make it difficult.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrestled with the notion that democracy and equality were difficult to balance.  The author noted that the United Empire Loyalists were not in favor of democracy.  Early suffragettes wanted to exclude Asians and indigenous.  

Project 2025 is the product of key backers for Donald Trump.  If he goes the plan will likely go forward as long as nobody stops them. 

The third word is Truth.  Misinformation is prolific.  The media tries to convey true facts but much of their "freedom" is restricted by corporations.  Those with vested interests have command of our personal data and have targeted people who can be easily persuaded of their truths.  Prejudices have long been a tool of politicians, but now they can be used in a nuanced and more effective manner.

The fourth word is Woke.  This is a relatively new word, now used to mock people who have different family values.  Newt Gingrich is credited with using words to attack rivals, regardless of reality..  Black Lives Matter has been used to make whites feel uncomfortable in fact to make them feel guilty.  

Ron De Santis uses "woke" to characterize progressive thinkers as unworthy to discuss or debate.  Others think the world needs to wake up before it is too late. 

The fifth word is Choice.  It refers mainly to the abortion issue.  The laws were all set by males.  At one time it was noted that deaths related to (illegal) abortions were the leading cause of deaths for women of child bearing years.  It took a number of champions including Dr. Morton Shulman and Dr. Henry Morgentaler among many others.  Pierre Trudeau is famous for "There is no place for the state in the nation's bedrooms", but nevertheless did not change abortion laws.  After much effort American politicians forced the reversal of their abortion laws despite most of the public supporting them.  

Margaret Atwood famous for  "The Handmaid's Tale" asked "If you are going to ban abortion what are the alternatives.  What are you proposing?  Are you going to take care of all these children?". 

The final word is Taxes, an offensive word to some.  Most politicians prefer to talk about reducing taxes, but in fact a lot of problems would be resolved with higher taxes, especially from the wealthy.  It seems that one of the underlying strategies appealing to prejudices is a strategy to distract voters from efforts to reduce taxes.  It is more than just money, but a resentment from wealthy people that lesser people should share in their hard earned money.  One new idea for me comes from Carol Off is that workers are subsidized by government programs.  The worker is more pleased with working conditions and have more money to spend.

The years 1945-1980 were ones with the closest equality.  There have always been those manipulating to get a bigger share of the wealth.  Ronald Reagan, famously said "the government is the problem".  He brought forth much lower taxes for the top income groups:  from 90% to 28% and did much more to increase the equality gap. 

The Koch brothers were confronted some legal response to environmental abuses.   They also resented their tax rates and started behind the scenes efforts to change the laws.  They spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars.  They found ways to legally increase donations to groups who fought their battles.  Some money was given to the "spontaneous" Tea Party and to Rush Limbaugh among many others. Much money was funneled to compliant politicians.

Here in Canada Stephen Harper was in the battle to lower taxes and de-regulate annoying environmental laws.  He was stopped by the courts at one time, but continued his efforts.  Since then the equality gap has widened.

 Some earlier thought on taxes:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/06/the-role-of-taxes.html 

 There is much more than I can convey in a blog post.  I have skimmed over many points and left out many relevant points.  Carol Off has much more to say and is worth the effort.