frenzy | Network

( Read more... )

Current Mood: enthralled

Mike Nelson on twitter

>>Erik the Red is smiling down from Heaven as Trump keeps mixing up Greenland and Iceland, happy to see his ruse finally worked<<

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/?post_type=issues&p=303216

By: Daniel Béland and Klaus Petersen.

Since the early January U.S. arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the Trump White House has doubled down on the idea that the United States should acquire Greenland, which has long been part of the Kingdom of Denmark but is moving gradually toward independence.

Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said the U.S. would like to purchase the island instead of invading it, other officials have stressed that the military option remains on the table.

Statements by U.S. President Donald Trump – including his recent threat to impose tariffs on European countries that oppose his bid to take over Greenland – and those of his allies are a source of disbelief and consternation in Denmark and other NATO countries.

As well, polls suggest the vast majority of Greenland residents are opposed to the idea of their island becoming part of the United States. There are two main reasons:

They already have self-government with the long-term goal of independence – something a U.S. annexation would likely destroy.
They would lose large benefits because Greenland’s social security system is modelled on the Danish welfare state, with universal access to a broad range of taxpayer-financed social services, including public health, housing and education. The U.S. social safety net is much less comprehensive.

The long road to independence

The path toward growing autonomy started with the 1979 Greenland Home Rule Act, through which Denmark granted Greenland control over a number of areas such as its educational system, labour market regulation, health care and social policy. In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government set out a path of gradually increasing autonomy toward a long-term goal of independence.

Even if that ultimate goal is in an undefined future, the agreement has started a political process and strengthened the institutional and political autonomy of Greenland.

With the exception of a few but important areas such as foreign policy, military defence, currency and constitutional affairs, the 2009 agreement grants Greenland much autonomy.

Arguably, it is exactly the trajectory of growing Greenlandic autonomy that has triggered renewed interest by the Trump administration in the Arctic island (Trump suggested buying Greenland back in 2016).

Nunavut, Greenland and the politics of resource revenues

Ottawa must heed Northern voices on Arctic strategy

In particular, Chinese investment in mining and infrastructure in Greenland over the last decades has attracted some positive response among Greenlandic elites and consequently scepticism in Washington and Copenhagen.

In 2015, as it planned the construction of three small airports, the Greenlandic government first turned to Chinese developers, but the Danish government intervened and secured the needed capital to avoid Chinese capital and control of key infrastructure in the Arctic.

The attraction of the U.S. remains extremely limited for Greenlanders – even as it is rumoured that the Trump government is planning to offer its citizens a sign-on fee within the range of US$10,000 to US$100,000 per person to secede from Denmark and join the United States.

In a recent joint statement, all Greenland political parties said they “don’t want to be Americans.”

Greenland’s social security system would be at risk

Another key factor that helps explain why Greenlanders overwhelmingly reject U.S. control but also why part of their local political elite has been reluctant to push for full independence from Denmark is the question of social security.

This is a huge issue for Greenland’s small population of about 56,000 people – 90 per cent of whom are Inuit, scattered over a vast territory that is about 50 times the size of mainland Denmark, a country of more than six million inhabitants.

For these geographical – and other – reasons, access to social services in Greenland is limited compared to mainland Denmark. Delivering highly specialized health services or educational programs in remote and isolated small villages is especially challenging.

Furthermore, Greenland has massive social problems related to child welfare, intra-family violence and related issues, which challenge Greenland’s social security system. This is – only partly – compensated by Greenlanders’ access to specialized universal health services and educational programs in mainland Denmark.

Yet, even if Greenland society is confronted with substantial social challenges, it is difficult to see the attraction of a U.S.-style, meager welfare system.

The issue is further compounded by the annual fiscal transfers from Denmark to Greenland. As Mikkel Runge Olesen from the Danish Institute for International Studies notes, the island “remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly (US)$600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defence, coast guard, and law enforcement.”

Like Canada’s three territories, especially Nunavut, Greenland relies extensively on these transfers because of its limited fiscal capacity and the sheer cost of delivering public services in highly remote and sparsely populated Arctic areas.

This makes the idea of U.S. annexation less appealing to Greenlanders and potentially to people living in Canada’s territories who, fortunately, do not face such an explicit threat yet.

A key problem with U.S. annexation

The Danish welfare state is considered one of the most generous in Europe. So why would many Greenlanders want to join the United States – a country characterized by a deeply flawed safety net, the lack of universal health care and higher levels of poverty and inequality than Denmark?

Greenlanders, especially those living in the most remote areas of the island, are far more likely to live in poverty than people living in mainland Denmark. This is partly due to colonial legacies, including forced displacements and assimilation policies similar to what the Inuit in Nunavut have also faced.

Yes, even though the Danish-controlled modernization of Greenland in the 20th century included paternalism, discrimination and in some cases mistreatment, there is no evidence that becoming a territory of the United States would improve the condition of Greenlanders.

As journalist Ryan Cooper puts it: “The idea that the Trump administration would do better is preposterous—witness the appalling mistreatment of the extant American colony of Puerto Rico, which has no votes in Congress and has still not recovered from Hurricane Maria in 2017.” Why would most Greenlanders want their island to be treated like Puerto Rico?

Lars Rasmussen, the Danish minister of foreign affairs, made the same argument last week on Fox News. “There is no way that the U.S. will pay for a Scandinavian welfare system in Greenland, honestly speaking.”

Greenland’s social programs, as well as the Danish fiscal transfers, reinforce attachment to Denmark – even among Greenland citizens who have legitimate grievances about the not-so-distant colonial past.

This is consistent with a broader worldwide process through which welfare states become instruments of objective, and symbolic, forms of fiscal and social solidarity that may help accommodate ethnic and territorial minorities and foster attachment to the central state.

This is clearly at play today in Greenland where its people strongly oppose annexation by a superpower that does not emphasize or exhibit this type of solidarity on its own territory or internationally.

By: Daniel Béland and Klaus Petersen  Since the early January U.S. arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the Trump White House has doubled down on the idea that the United States should acquire Greenland, which has long been part of the Kingdom of Denmark but is moving gradually toward independence.   Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said the U.S. would like to purchase the island instead of invading it, other officials have stressed that the military option <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74x4m71pmjo">remains on the table</a>.   Statements by U.S. President Donald Trump – including his recent threat to <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/denmark-greenland-trump-us-9.7049902">impose tariffs</a> on European countries that oppose his bid to take over Greenland – and those of his allies are a source of disbelief and consternation in Denmark and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07xkeee2k3o">other NATO countries</a>.   As well, polls suggest <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/28/85-of-greenlanders-do-not-want-to-join-us-says-new-poll">the vast majority</a> of Greenland residents are opposed to the idea of their island becoming part of the United States. There are two main reasons:   <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>They already have <a href="https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm/greenland/">self-government</a> with the long-term goal of independence – something a U.S. annexation would likely destroy.</li>   <li>They would lose large benefits because Greenland’s social security system is modelled on the Danish welfare state, with universal access to a broad range of taxpayer-financed social services, including public health, housing and education. The U.S. social safety net is much less comprehensive.</li> </ul>   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">The long road to independence</h2>   The path toward growing autonomy started with the 1979 <a href="https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2013/12/4/541d1d6c-e3e9-4b81-b844-d95679e2e304/publishable_en.pdf">Greenland Home Rule Act</a>, through which Denmark granted Greenland control over a number of areas such as its educational system, labour market regulation, health care and social policy. In 2009, the <a href="https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125366/3708_Greenland_Independence.pdf">Act on Greenland Self-Government</a> set out a path of gradually increasing autonomy toward a long-term goal of independence.   Even if that ultimate goal is in an undefined future, the agreement has started a political process and strengthened the institutional and political autonomy of Greenland.   With the exception of a few but important areas such as foreign policy, military defence, currency and constitutional affairs, the 2009 agreement grants Greenland much autonomy.   Arguably, it is exactly the trajectory of growing Greenlandic autonomy that has triggered renewed interest by the Trump administration in the Arctic island (Trump suggested buying Greenland back in 2016).   <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"> <a class="" href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2012/05/nunavut-greenland-and-the-politics-of-resource-revenues/">Nunavut, Greenland and the politics of resource revenues</a>   <a class="" href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/10/arctic-strategy-canada-northern-voices/">Ottawa must heed Northern voices on Arctic strategy</a> </blockquote>   In particular, Chinese investment in mining and infrastructure in Greenland over the last decades has attracted some positive response among Greenlandic elites and consequently scepticism in Washington and Copenhagen.   In 2015, as it planned the construction of three small airports, the Greenlandic government first turned to Chinese developers, but the Danish government intervened and secured the needed capital to avoid <a href="https://www.arctictoday.com/controversy-greenland-airports-shows-china-still-unwelcome-arctic/">Chinese capital and control</a> of key infrastructure in the Arctic.   The attraction of the U.S. remains extremely limited for Greenlanders – even as it is rumoured that the Trump government is planning to offer its citizens a sign-on fee within the range of <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/10000-to-100000-per-person-trump-planning-cash-offer-for-greenlanders-to-buy-island-for-the-us/ar-AA1TSDle?ocid=BingNewsSerp">US$10,000 to US$100,000</a> per person to secede from Denmark and join the United States.   In a recent joint statement, all Greenland political parties said they “don’t want to be Americans.”   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Greenland’s social security system would be at risk</h2>   Another key factor that helps explain why Greenlanders overwhelmingly reject U.S. control but also why part of their local political elite has been reluctant to push for full independence from Denmark is the question of social security.   This is a huge issue for Greenland’s small population of about 56,000 people – <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/02/1133382">90 per cent of whom are Inuit</a>, scattered over a vast territory that is about 50 times the size of mainland Denmark, a country of more than six million inhabitants.   For these geographical – and other – reasons, access to social services in Greenland is limited compared to mainland Denmark. Delivering highly specialized health services or educational programs in remote and isolated small villages is especially challenging.   Furthermore, Greenland has massive social problems related to child welfare, intra-family violence and related issues, which challenge Greenland’s social security system. This is – only partly – compensated by Greenlanders’ access to specialized universal health services and educational programs in mainland Denmark.   Yet, even if Greenland society is confronted with substantial social challenges, it is difficult to see the attraction of a U.S.-style, meager welfare system.   The issue is further compounded by the annual fiscal transfers from Denmark to Greenland. As <a href="https://www.diis.dk/en/research/why-is-greenland-part-of-the-kingdom-of-denmark-a-short-history">Mikkel Runge Olesen</a> from the Danish Institute for International Studies notes, the island “remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly (US)$600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defence, coast guard, and law enforcement.”   Like Canada’s three territories, <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2022/09/unique-challenges-of-canadas-north-require-unique-fiscal-arrangements/">especially Nunavut</a>, Greenland relies extensively on these transfers because of its limited fiscal capacity and the sheer cost of delivering public services in highly remote and sparsely populated Arctic areas.   This makes the idea of U.S. annexation less appealing to Greenlanders and potentially to people living in Canada’s territories who, fortunately, do not face such an explicit threat yet.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A key problem with U.S. annexation</h2>   The Danish welfare state is considered one of the <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/11/17/social-benefits-which-eu-countries-spend-the-most">most generous in Europe</a>. So why would many Greenlanders want to join the United States – a country characterized by a deeply flawed safety net, the lack of <a href="https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022#:~:text=In%202021%2C%208.6%20percent%20of,any%20form%20of%20health%20insurance.">universal health care</a> and higher levels of poverty and inequality than Denmark?   Greenlanders, especially those living in the most remote areas of the island, are far more likely to <a href="https://borgenproject.org/addressing-poverty-in-greenland/">live in poverty</a> than people living in mainland Denmark. This is partly due to colonial legacies, including <a href="https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/abuse-and-colony-era-still-marks-greenlanders#:~:text=There%20is%20little%20doubt%20that,poor%20living%20conditions%20and%20insecurity.">forced displacements and assimilation policies</a> similar to what the Inuit in Nunavut have also faced.   Yes, even though the Danish-controlled modernization of Greenland in the 20th century included paternalism, discrimination and in some cases mistreatment, there is no evidence that becoming a territory of the United States would improve the condition of Greenlanders.   As journalist Ryan Cooper <a href="https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2025/09/23/red-greenland/">puts it</a>: “The idea that the Trump administration would do better is preposterous—witness the appalling mistreatment of the extant American colony of Puerto Rico, which has no votes in Congress and has still not recovered from Hurricane Maria in 2017.” Why would most Greenlanders want their island to be treated like Puerto Rico?   Lars Rasmussen, the Danish minister of foreign affairs, made the same argument last week on Fox News. “There is no way that the U.S. will pay for a Scandinavian welfare system in Greenland, honestly speaking.”   Greenland’s social programs, as well as the Danish fiscal transfers, reinforce attachment to Denmark – even among Greenland citizens who have legitimate grievances about the not-so-distant colonial past.   This is consistent with a broader worldwide process through which welfare states become instruments of objective, and symbolic, forms of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/6828">fiscal and social solidarity</a> that may help accommodate ethnic and territorial minorities and foster attachment to the central state.   This is clearly at play today in Greenland where its people strongly oppose annexation by a superpower that does not emphasize or exhibit this type of solidarity on its own territory or <a href="https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/making-foreign-aid-work/what-do-trumps-proposed-foreign-aid-cuts-mean/">internationally</a>.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/?post_type=issues&p=303216

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/?post_type=issues&p=303209

By: John Walsh.

Recent CBC reporting that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are examining large-scale mobilization scenarios has drawn understandable attention. The prospect of dramatically expanding Canada’s reserve force in a national emergency appears, at first glance, to reflect a more dangerous international environment. That focus, however, misses the more consequential point.

What the mobilization planning described by CBC actually tests is not political intent or public willingness, but force-generation capacity: whether Canada could convert civilian availability into trained, sustained military capability on a timeline that would still be strategically advantageous. What it exposes is a limitation that receives far less public attention than recruiting campaigns or equipment procurement – the system’s capacity for turning recruits into trained, deployable personnel.

The figures being modelled help explain why this matters. Canada’s primary reserve currently numbers roughly 29,000 members. The CBC report shows that internal planning scenarios explore expansion toward 100,000, alongside a much larger supplementary reserve, under extreme conditions. While not formal policy, these figures are serious planning assumptions designed to reveal where existing systems would saturate under sustained pressure. They are intended to expose constraints before those constraints become operationally decisive.

Civilian enabling systems are key

Mobilization is often framed as a personnel problem. In practice, it is a logistics and systems problem. Force generation depends on moving large cohorts through a sequence of enabling functions – medical screening, security clearance, enrolment administration, basic preparation, training capacity, accommodation, and sustainment – without degrading standards or overwhelming the institutions responsible for delivery. When any one of these functions saturates, the entire force-generation process slows, regardless of recruitment success. This is why mobilization planning cannot be treated as a challenge for the CAF to solve alone.

Universities and force generation

No modern military is designed to scale rapidly without relying on civilian enabling systems. In a surge scenario, many of the binding constraints are not tactical or operational, but enabling: administrative capacity, instructional throughput, housing, and regional co-ordination. If these functions are not reinforced in advance, force generation stalls long before questions of combat capability arise. Canada already possesses a significant component of this enabling capacity, but it resides outside the defence establishment.

Canada’s universities are provincially governed institutions, but, taken together, they form nationally distributed civilian infrastructure that already performs many of the functions large-scale force generation would require. Each year, they manage high-volume intake, deliver standardized instruction, operate residential and food-service systems, maintain secure administrative processes, and co-ordinate complex operations across regions.

The argument here is not that universities should assume military roles. They should not. This is not a proposal to militarize campuses, outsource soldiering, or place universities within the chain of command. Nor is this to suggest that the federal government should intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Rather, the point here is that force generation depends on enabling functions that already exist within provincially governed systems. Universities in particular are uniquely well-positioned because they already concentrate large numbers of people within structured, administratively coherent environments that can be scaled.

Canada must be ready for Iran’s democratic turning point

How Mark Carney is turning military spending into a force for economic renewal

Ottawa does have a legitimate role in contracting and aligning this civilian capacity when national defence objectives are at stake. This enabling approach is well-precedented. Ottawa routinely funds provincially delivered systems – including health care, training, and infrastructure – when national priorities require co-ordinated capacity. Force generation is no different.

Critically, this approach can strengthen national readiness while also improving the utilization of existing university infrastructure, particularly during off-peak periods when capacity is available.

A contract-based, seasonal surge arrangement with clear boundaries

Universities would not be required to suspend core academic functions or absorb unfunded workload. Instead, it could be structured as a time-limited, contract-based surge arrangement, delivered largely in seasonal windows such as the summer months, with any incremental staffing and support funded explicitly through federal–provincial agreements.

In that form, Ottawa would be purchasing additional throughput, while universities would secure a revenue-positive use for summer capacity, when fixed costs persist even as demand and revenue soften.

Clear boundaries would be essential. Military training authority must remain exclusively with the CAF. No weapons training would occur on campus. Participation by institutions and individuals would be voluntary, governed through transparent agreements, and subject to civilian oversight. The objective is not to blur civil–military boundaries, but to reinforce the enabling layer on which force generation depends.

Three supporting roles for universities

Here are three areas where universities could play a concrete, bounded role in support of CAF readiness:

Pre-enrolment readiness and administrative throughput

Before formal military training begins, potential reservists must meet fitness thresholds, complete first-aid or emergency response certification, and navigate medical and security clearance documentation. These are enabling functions, not combat training. Universities already deliver fitness programming, first-aid certification, and large-scale intake administration. Supporting these functions through advanced federal-provincial agreements would reduce early attrition and administrative backlog without altering CAF standards, selection authority, or training control.

Defence-adjacent instruction that accelerates force integration

Contemporary operations rely heavily on logistics, supply-chain management, communications, cyber hygiene, language capability, and emergency administration. These are core sustainment and support functions. Universities already teach them at scale through applied programs. Aligning specific modules with CAF requirements would shorten time-to-usefulness for reservists and free military training establishments to focus on warfighting tasks that only they can perform.

Surge and sustainment infrastructure

Rapid force expansion would immediately stress accommodation, classroom space, simulation facilities, and regional co-ordination nodes. Universities already operate distributed residential and instructional infrastructure that functions, in practice, as surge capacity. Time-limited access agreements would allow Canada to draw on this infrastructure during periods of expansion rather than attempting emergency construction or ad hoc leasing under pressure.

If universities are not deliberately integrated, this enabling capacity must be created elsewhere. That would require building new facilities, expanding bases, hiring instructors, and scaling administrative systems during a crisis – a slow, expensive, and operationally risky approach. Contracting capacity that already exists is faster, cheaper, and more reliable.

The mobilization planning reported by CBC should therefore be understood as a signal about force-generation fragility, not force numbers. Canada cannot improvise enabling capacity at scale. It must be organized in advance.

Force generation is not only about how many people are willing to serve. It is about whether the systems that prepare, train, house, and sustain them can keep pace. On that front, Canada already owns part of the solution. The remaining question is whether it chooses to use that capacity deliberately.

By: John Walsh  Recent <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/army-mobilization-canada-troops-9.7009323">CBC reporting</a> that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are examining large-scale mobilization scenarios has drawn understandable attention. The prospect of dramatically expanding Canada’s reserve force in a national emergency appears, at first glance, to reflect a more dangerous international environment. That focus, however, misses the more consequential point.   What the mobilization planning described by CBC actually tests is not political intent or public willingness, but force-generation capacity: whether Canada could convert civilian availability into trained, sustained military capability on a timeline that would still be strategically advantageous. What it exposes is a limitation that receives far less public attention than recruiting campaigns or equipment procurement – the system’s capacity for turning recruits into trained, deployable personnel.   The figures being modelled help explain why this matters. Canada’s primary reserve currently numbers roughly <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/ombudsman-national-defence-forces/education-information/caf-members/reservist-information/reservists.html">29,000 members</a>. The CBC report shows that internal planning scenarios explore expansion toward 100,000, alongside a much larger supplementary reserve, under extreme conditions. While not formal policy, these figures are serious planning assumptions designed to reveal where existing systems would saturate under sustained pressure. They are intended to expose constraints before those constraints become operationally decisive.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Civilian enabling systems are key</h2>   Mobilization is often framed as a personnel problem. In practice, it is a logistics and systems problem. Force generation depends on moving large cohorts through a sequence of enabling functions – medical screening, security clearance, enrolment administration, basic preparation, training capacity, accommodation, and sustainment – without degrading standards or overwhelming the institutions responsible for delivery. When any one of these functions saturates, the entire force-generation process slows, regardless of recruitment success. This is why mobilization planning cannot be treated as a challenge for the CAF to solve alone.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Universities and force generation</h2>   No modern military is designed to scale rapidly without relying on civilian enabling systems. In a surge scenario, many of the binding constraints are not tactical or operational, but enabling: administrative capacity, instructional throughput, housing, and regional co-ordination. If these functions are not reinforced in advance, force generation stalls long before questions of combat capability arise. Canada already possesses a significant component of this enabling capacity, but it resides outside the defence establishment.   Canada’s universities are provincially governed institutions, but, taken together, they form nationally distributed civilian infrastructure that already performs many of the functions large-scale force generation would require. Each year, they manage high-volume intake, deliver standardized instruction, operate residential and food-service systems, maintain secure administrative processes, and co-ordinate complex operations across regions.   The argument here is not that universities should assume military roles. They should not. This is not a proposal to militarize campuses, outsource soldiering, or place universities within the chain of command. Nor is this to suggest that the federal government should intrude on provincial jurisdiction. Rather, the point here is that force generation depends on enabling functions that already exist within provincially governed systems. Universities in particular are uniquely well-positioned because they already concentrate large numbers of people within structured, administratively coherent environments that can be scaled.   <blockquote class="wp-block-quote"> <a class="" href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2026/01/canada-iran-turning-point/">Canada must be ready for Iran’s democratic turning point</a>   <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/06/defence-spending-economy/">How Mark Carney is turning military spending into a force for economic renewal</a> </blockquote>   Ottawa does have a legitimate role in contracting and aligning this civilian capacity when national defence objectives are at stake. This enabling approach is well-precedented. Ottawa routinely funds provincially delivered systems – including health care, training, and infrastructure – when national priorities require co-ordinated capacity. Force generation is no different. Critically, this approach can strengthen national readiness while also improving the utilization of existing university infrastructure, particularly during off-peak periods when capacity is available.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">A contract-based, seasonal surge arrangement with clear boundaries</h2>   Universities would not be required to suspend core academic functions or absorb unfunded workload. Instead, it could be structured as a time-limited, contract-based surge arrangement, delivered largely in seasonal windows such as the summer months, with any incremental staffing and support funded explicitly through federal–provincial agreements.   In that form, Ottawa would be purchasing additional throughput, while universities would secure a revenue-positive use for summer capacity, when fixed costs persist even as demand and revenue soften.   Clear boundaries would be essential. Military training authority must remain exclusively with the CAF. No weapons training would occur on campus. Participation by institutions and individuals would be voluntary, governed through transparent agreements, and subject to civilian oversight. The objective is not to blur civil–military boundaries, but to reinforce the enabling layer on which force generation depends.   <h2 class="wp-block-heading">Three supporting roles for universities</h2>   Here are three areas where universities could play a concrete, bounded role in support of CAF readiness:   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Pre-enrolment readiness and administrative throughput</h4>   Before formal military training begins, potential reservists must meet fitness thresholds, complete first-aid or emergency response certification, and navigate medical and security clearance documentation. These are enabling functions, not combat training. Universities already deliver fitness programming, first-aid certification, and large-scale intake administration. Supporting these functions through advanced federal-provincial agreements would reduce early attrition and administrative backlog without altering CAF standards, selection authority, or training control.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Defence-adjacent instruction that accelerates force integration</h4>   Contemporary operations rely heavily on logistics, supply-chain management, communications, cyber hygiene, language capability, and emergency administration. These are core sustainment and support functions. Universities already teach them at scale through applied programs. Aligning specific modules with CAF requirements would shorten time-to-usefulness for reservists and free military training establishments to focus on warfighting tasks that only they can perform.   <h4 class="wp-block-heading">Surge and sustainment infrastructure</h4>   Rapid force expansion would immediately stress accommodation, classroom space, simulation facilities, and regional co-ordination nodes. Universities already operate distributed residential and instructional infrastructure that functions, in practice, as surge capacity. Time-limited access agreements would allow Canada to draw on this infrastructure during periods of expansion rather than attempting emergency construction or ad hoc leasing under pressure.   If universities are not deliberately integrated, this enabling capacity must be created elsewhere. That would require building new facilities, expanding bases, hiring instructors, and scaling administrative systems during a crisis – a slow, expensive, and operationally risky approach. Contracting capacity that already exists is faster, cheaper, and more reliable.   The mobilization planning reported by CBC should therefore be understood as a signal about force-generation fragility, not force numbers. Canada cannot improvise enabling capacity at scale. It must be organized in advance.   Force generation is not only about how many people are willing to serve. It is about whether the systems that prepare, train, house, and sustain them can keep pace. On that front, Canada already owns part of the solution. The remaining question is whether it chooses to use that capacity deliberately.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/?post_type=issues&p=303209

( Scans under the cut... )

Public

What's Up, Doc? (1972)

This is a 1970s attempt to recapture the energy of the screwball comedies of a third of century earlier – and on the whole it does it very well. A lot of that is down to Barbra Streisand, whose Judy Maxwell is magnetically watchable even when she's being impossibly annoying, which is much of the time. Ryan O'Neal as Dr Howard Bannister looks just enough like a younger Michael Caine to be mildly disconcerting, but he does well too. Not all the jokes land perfectly, but there are so many of them that you don't have to wait long for a better one. The plot is absurd, but it's meant to be so that's okay.

An absolutely fantastic car chase scene, like a cross between Bullitt and Wacky Races and one which instantly became a favourite. The weak link is Eunice Burns (Madeline Kahn), not because of her acting but because of the dated and embarrassing "hey, his actual fiancée is dowdy and whiny, isn't that amusing?" running joke; one late line about her in a courtroom scene is truly awful. Fortunately the rest is so enjoyable as to make this a largely thoroughly entertaining hour and a half. ★★★★

Current Mood: amused

snowflake_challenge dropped their eleventh challenge, and it's a call-back.

Challenge #11

Grant someone's wish from Challenge #5.

( Merrily a wassailing... )

Current Mood: nerdy
Current Music: ROZEN - Master vs Master

Title: House
Music: House - Charli XCX feat. John Cale
Fandom: The Black Phone (Movies - Derrickson)
Summary: ". . . other houses, the lights were dim, and with some houses they were almost out and I didn’t know the people who lived there. I’d get a feeling from these houses of stuff going on that wasn’t happy. I didn’t dwell on it, but I knew there were things going on behind those doors and windows." - David Lynch
Warnings: Canon-typical abuse and violence against children; suicide by hanging
Links: On AO3 | On Tumblr | On DW

bookclub_dw is currently voting for our February read. Voting will run through January 31, 2026. The poll can be found here: https://bookclub-dw.dreamwidth.org/1556.html

We are reading The Spellshop by Sarah Beth Durst as our book for January. Please join us if you would like participate in the discussion! The discussion post will go up on January 31, 2026.

Current Mood: recumbent

( You're about to view content that a community administrator has advised should be viewed with discretion. )

Last week I mentioned some art installations in Downtown Crossing.
https://lauradi7dw.dreamwidth.org/1018485.html

Here's a link to the locations
https://www.winteractive.org/

Last month I was rereading one of Alaric Albertsson's books( think it was 'To Walk a Pagan Path') and there was a chapter on creating a calendar meaningful to where you actually live...so I decided that this was going to be one of my projects for this yr.
It's pretty simple; just Journal what happens each month in the natural world around you. I live presently in E Tennessee and actually, the Solstices and Equinoxes pretty well "map" here in Loudon County but we can fine tune things.
This yr, of course, had to be anomalous;>! Normally, within a couple weeks of Winter Solstice we get temps in the high teens. This yr until last week it had actually got to 70F! Now, it's "seasonal" with today in the 40's.Due to the warmth my neighbor's early Daffs budded up and right now they don't look like they'd recover. Me? Mine are breaking ground and at least one Snowdrop has buds, though most are just breaking ground a well.
We've also got Canadian Geese, Ducks and at least one Heron here on the inlet....a BIT early.
Preliminary name for 1st month; "Frikkn Freezing Moon";>!
Cheers,
Pat

Current Mood: accomplished
Current Location: Lenoir City(Nevermore;>!)
Current Music: Skald Radio

Scourge of the Spaceways by John C. Wright

Starquest book 5. And it is seriously a running story. Spoilers ahead for the earlier volumes.

( Read more... )

A logitech vertical mouse.
The problem with this is that I'd have to sit at a desk for it to work, probably. The advantage of the touch pad on the laptop is that it's easy-ish to use while the laptop is on my lap.
https://www.logitech.com/en-us/shop/p/mx-vertical-ergonomic-mouse

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/democrats-successfully-strip-all

Image: no laser eyes this time, but this is a loon in the shape of the Rebel Alliance symbol from Star Wars.

So, let's see. Yesterday started out a little rough for me in part because I was feeling EXTRA anxious because helicopters were buzzing our neighborhood. So much information getting shared is people guessing at what's going on and people who seem to maybe be reporting on what's happening? But, it's often unclear where they are getting their information? So, it's very paranoid here.

What I heard was that ICE was back at the MidwayTarget just up the block from me, specifically targeting the protestors there. Target has been a target for resistance efforts because of the video that was widely circulated of Greg Bovino, the ICE commandant/literal SS officer cosplayer, stopping to take a piss flanked by his goons. Rumors have also circulated that Target is not what we are calling a "Fourth Amendment business." (For our international friends, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the US states that there must be probable/reasonable cause for search and seizure--including of our persons, our bodies--basically no one has the right to just snatch people out of homes or businesses.) So, here in the Twin Cities, if a business appears to cooperate with ICE, even to the point of not protecting their employees, people have been mad. And supposedly Target was compliant with ICE. So,the day before yesterday there was a big sit-in in Target. Yesterday, there was a group of people doing retail resistance? They would buy salt (or other metaphorically appropriate things) and then immediately return it, so that Target would have the hassle of all this merchandise to deal with and refunds to issue.

There was another rumor that ICE was at HarMar Mall in Roseville, which is literally a shopping mall? But, as someone who has taken the bus out in that direction, a lot of folks who might be targets of the gestapo do work in those retail stores.

What I should have done when the helicopters were circling was just get in my car and drive up to Target and see what I could see or head out to HarMar, but I was waiting for Mason to be up to find out what he wanted to do for lunch and whether or not he was going to his uncle Keven's to do some odd job work. Mason was justifiably cranky with me when he came down to find me in a state. As he pointed out, I can just go. He is an adult. Not only can he make himself lunch, he can figure out how to get to Keven's if need be.

But, having talked that through, Mason and I decided to drop by the folks I lovingly call the Food Communists and see if there was work to be done. Sure enough! We arrived in time to help load up one car that was delivering diapers. We packed several bags of groceries, helped load more stuff to go, and then spent the "downtime" making individual packs of various bulk food items, while chatting with neighbors--and one guy who and I am not kidding, came from the Gunflint Trail in Northern Minnesota order to help with the resistance. That is 288 miles from us, about a 5 hour drive (if you drive without stopping.) People in the UK? He basically came from another world. (And honestly? A few more miles and he would have been coming from Canada.)

Speaking of my non-Minnesotan and foreign friends, here's

naomikritzer 's write up of things to do for us if you are interested in helping the resistance: https://naomikritzer.com/2026/01/21/how-to-help-if-you-are-outside-minnesota/ Even if all you want is some links to reliable, detailed information about what is actually happening here, this is a good resource to start with!

My singing group was supposed to gather last night at 7:30 pm and I made an effort to join them, but I think I screwed up the where or the when because I wandered around in the place I thought they'd be and no one was around. To be fair to me (and them) it was supposed to be outside a church and there are a number of churches with similar names in the neighborhood and I suspect I just ended up at the wrong one. They sing every day, so I'll get other chances to join them.

I've been trying to also focus on feeding myself and my family, so yesterday I made a lovely mapo tofu for lunch and then we had bibbimap for dinner. Two rice meals, but both hearty, filling, and sustaining. I went this morning to get my blood drawn for all the various health checks, so I am remembering to take care of myself and my family. I've been joking that all of this stress has actually made me better about remembering to hydrate, so that's something.

And, with luck, I'll be running D&D this weekend. So, we can keep up our mental health!

Okay, everyone, stay strong!

In her video from yesterday, very serious American historian Heather Coz Richardson referred in passing to Trump as "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" among other things.

The situation is not amusing. I think AZ senator Gallego was correct when he said that Trump is literally insane, although I'm not a shrink and can't diagnose. But a sugar cereal reference made me smile.

They kept the slogan for decades, but this is the ad from the 1960s

Watch on YouTube

Also, when she is describing the formation of the EU, she says people might have wondered how the countries would get along when they all like different cheeses (joke, but there were serious concerns about disagreements).

( You're about to view content that the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. )

Current Mood: pleased

Profile

frenzy

January 2026

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

Page generated Jan. 24th, 2026 01:48 am

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Network

Beavis and Butthead #24

An ode to the ninth art

History humor

Why Greenland doesn’t want Trump’s America

The long road to independence

Greenland’s social security system would be at risk

A key problem with U.S. annexation

Universities can help solve the Canadian military’s mobilization problem

Civilian enabling systems are key

Universities and force generation

A contract-based, seasonal surge arrangement with clear boundaries

Three supporting roles for universities

Pre-enrolment readiness and administrative throughput

Defence-adjacent instruction that accelerates force integration

Surge and sustainment infrastructure

Amazing Spider-Man #20

Film post: What's Up, Doc? (1972)

Snowflake Challenge 02026 #11: Wish-Granting Engine

Vid: "House" [The Black Phone]

Book Club Voting and January Read

Dreamwidth Book Club

follow-up

2026 Project: Personal Calendar...

Scourge of the Spaceways

Scourge of the Spaceways

Considering a product

Good news among the other stuff

The Rebel Alliance

Boomer references

Edible Art

Profile

January 2026