Morning Update: A very American Super Bowl
Good morning. Sunday's Super Bowl won't bring much of a reprieve from intrusive thoughts of U.S. tariffs – more on that below, along with the kids who beat their parents to retirement and a state of emergency in Santorini. But first:
I'm Cathal Kelly, The Globe and Mail's sports columnist. Sunday's Super Bowl will welcome U.S. President Donald Trump into the mainstream of American pop culture. The most important tastemaker in football – Taylor Swift's boyfriend and presumed proxy, Travis Kelce – has already endorsed him. He called Trump's attendance at the game 'a great honour.'
According to reports, Trump will be bringing back the tradition of doing a sit-down interview with the host broadcaster, Fox, in the run-up to the game.
If you were the sort who has been, for the past nine or so years, hoping Americans would sort out their differences, it looks as though they have. You happy now?
If you're Canadian, the Super Bowl has become something that's not good for you. Not because it's become politicized – it always has been. But because its current politics are aimed straight at our heads.
That's not to say you shouldn't watch the game. You should do whatever you like. Enjoy our total freedom of choice while we still have it.
At some point, every Canadian has to decide how far they are willing to compromise themselves. Do they support the interests and aims of this country and her people? Or are they going to watch the game?
One assumes that not every American supports the current U.S. administration's approach to international friendship – 'treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen'.
The same way that not every Canadian who's gone to an NHL or NBA game in the past few days has booed The Star-Spangled Banner.
But you should not watch thinking that it's harmless because it's sports. Sports is how they get their hooks into you. Sports is how they warp your mind so that you miss the big stuff.
The whiplash nature of the current U.S. news cycle – trade war today, luxury battlefield condos tomorrow – means America's already moved on. It's hard to fight someone who won't meet you outside in the parking lot. So whatever measures we take next are, for the time being, mostly to please ourselves.
It just seems that way.
It's one thing to boo an anthem. That's low stakes. But if this is a real patriotic throw down, Canadians are eventually going to have to sacrifice things. As in, oranges in January and our habit of passively absorbing American jingoism.
Have you ever thought about the fact that all the Captain America movies have been No. 1 hits in Canada, but the first Captain Canuck movie has yet to be made?
More than any other event, the Super Bowl is America's most shameless celebration of itself. It was designed that way.
During the Red Scare 50s, the NFL was looking for a way to differentiate itself from its competitors. It settled on kitsch. It made the anthem standard. It asked the military to supply flyovers. It made the flag the foundation of the league's visual aesthetic.
At Super Bowl 4 in 1970, they restaged the Battle of New Orleans from the War of 1812, including cannon fire and (pretend) mass casualties. Our side lost again.
'We have become the winter version of the Fourth of July celebration,' NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue said 34 years ago. After the first and second Gulf Wars, 9/11 and Afghanistan, that is even more true today.
History has become fraught and statues have tumbled, but football remains untouchable in the United States.
My prediction? Kansas City by three points.
Out of the dozens of commercials that will air during the Super Bowl this Sunday night – from a fun spot for Michelob Ultra featuring Willem Dafoe and Catherine O'Hara as pickleball hustlers, to an ad for Hellmann's that revisits the iconic deli scene from When Harry Met Sally – one starring Cher may have special significance these days.
Marketers spend kings' ransoms for the privilege, this year paying a reported US$8-million for 30 seconds of airtime.
And if millions watch and share the ads online before and after the broadcast (including Canadians, who aren't actually shown the American spots on the CTV or TSN broadcast) – well, that's part of what the brands are buying.
Canadian restaurant and bar owners are rethinking their menus in light of a possible trade war with the United States – bourbon-based cocktails are out, and hyperlocal martinis with gin and mustard seed are in. Read more here about the cross-country recipe switch-ups.
At home: Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson says Canada should discuss new east-west oil pipeline in the wake of U.S. protectionism
Abroad: Greece declares a state of emergency on Santorini after a series of earthquakes prompted more than 10,000 to evacuate
Speak out: Rogers has filed a response to the Competition Bureau saying it hasn't misled customers about unlimited data plans
Defence up: Defence Minister Bill Blair says a missile-defence system that covers all of North America 'makes sense.'
Love deep: How deep is your love for these love songs? Vote for the best one in The Globe's Valentine's Day bracket.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
18 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: Most Canadians don't support taxpayer subsidies for LNG
Proponents often claim that Canada's LNG will reduce global warming by displacing coal in other countries. However, we have run out of time for a 'transition fuel' if we're to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. In this context, new LNG infrastructure isn't a climate solution, but rather a substitute for investment in clean energy. Luckily, the price of renewables has dropped dramatically, making this transition both feasible and affordable. LNG is also a bad economic bet. The International Energy Agency has projected that LNG capacity will exceed demand by the next decade, making new capital investments especially risky. This is presumably why private investors are wavering and looking to Canadian governments to subsidize their projects with public dollars. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. A recent poll found that 56 per cent of respondents, both in B.C. and nationally, oppose multibillion-dollar public subsidies for foreign-owned LNG projects. Only 18 per cent of Canadians, and 22 per cent of British Columbians, are supportive while the rest are unsure. In B.C., where most LNG projects are proposed and LNG Canada will soon come online, people have other priorities for their tax dollars. In fact, supporting oil-and-gas is at the bottom of a list led by health care, housing, education, renewable energy and transit. The lack of public support for subsidizing fossil fuels has been consistent for years. In 2018, two-thirds of Canadians opposed subsidizing oil-and-gas, 41 per cent strongly. More than half remained unsupportive, even after being told oil-and-gas subsidies would create jobs and economic growth. In 2021, 62 per cent of Canadians wanted the federal government to stop fossil fuel subsidies and there was mounting frustration that the government hadn't acted on a 2015 campaign promise to do so. In 2023, the majority of Canadians felt that oil companies, not taxpayers, should foot the bill for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Only 30 per cent of British Columbians supported subsidies for LNG. A 2023 poll found 96 per cent of Canadians felt the federal government should disclose subsidies for fossil fuels. That year, the government of Canada signed a joint ministerial statement at the UN climate talks that committed them to do just that by the end of 2024. There is still no inventory of fossil fuel subsidies in mid-2025, undermining Canadians' ability to understand where their tax dollars are going. Canada claims to be a global leader on climate change, yet we continuously fail to meet our climate targets. The main reason is that emissions growth from oil-and-gas production has offset progress in other areas. According to the UN Environment Programme , governments around the world, including Canada, are planning for continued fossil fuel production that will result in more than double the global emissions scientists advise are consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C. Canada, unfortunately, is one the biggest funders of the fossil fuel industry globally. That includes billions of taxpayer dollars that the federal and B.C. governments have already committed to LNG in the form of direct subsidies, lower tax and electricity rates, and public loans. Canadian taxpayers have been footing the bill for fossil fuel developments that threaten our own climate, health and economy. In this critical moment, Canada's leaders should instead use public funds to support projects that advance Canada's economy and safety, not only today but for decades to come. Kathryn Harrison is professor of political science at the University of B.C. Cara Pike is co-founder and senior adviser to at Carleton University in Ottawa.
CBC
19 minutes ago
- CBC
Pentagon deploys U.S. Marines to Los Angeles as California sues Trump administration
The Pentagon has formally deployed about 700 Marines to Los Angeles to help National Guard members respond to immigration protests, U.S. Northern Command announced Monday. This came as California officials filed a lawsuit Monday against U.S. President Donald Trump in response to the administration's extraordinary deployment of the U.S. National Guard to confront people who took to the streets in Los Angeles to protest Trump's immigration crackdown in the region. Attorney General Rob Bonta said the deployment "trampled" the state's sovereignty. He planned to seek a court order declaring that Trump's use of the Guard was unlawful and ask for a restraining order to halt the deployment. "Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the governor of that state is illegal and immoral," California's Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom told MSNBC on Sunday. Newsom accused Trump of trying to manufacture a crisis and violating California's state sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. Several times on X Sunday, he urged protesters to remain peaceful and told them not to "take the bait." He later warned what he called "bad actors" fuelling the flames that they would be held accountable by the state. The streets of the sprawling city of four million people were quiet Monday morning, but the smell of smoke hung in the air downtown, one day after crowds blocked a major freeway and set self-driving cars on fire as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The law enforcement presence was heavy, with police cars blocking the street in front of the federal detention facility that was a focus of the protests. While much of the city was spared from any violence during the demonstrations against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region, clashes swept through several downtown blocks and a handful of other places. Arrival of troops spurred anger and fear It could take days to clear debris from burned cars and to clean off or paint over graffiti sprayed on city hall and other buildings near the detention facility. Sunday was the third and most intense day of demonstrations, as the arrival of around 300 National Guard troops spurred anger and fear among many residents. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the Trump administration for inciting tension by sending in the National Guard, but also condemned protesters who became violent. "I don't want people to fall into the chaos that I believe is being created by the administration completely unnecessarily," Bass told a news conference on Sunday. Later that night, many protesters dispersed as evening fell and police declared an unlawful assembly, a precursor to officers moving in and arresting those who refuse to leave. Some of those who stayed threw objects at police from behind a makeshift barrier. Others hurled chunks of concrete, rocks, electric scooters and fireworks at California Highway Patrol officers and their vehicles parked on the closed southbound 101 Freeway. Officers ran under an overpass to take cover at one point. U.S. officials said about 1,000 National Guard members were in the city under federal orders by midday Monday. The full 2,000 members authorized by the president were expected to be on the ground by the end of the day. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the details of military operations. Trump accuses California officials of lying Trump said Monday that the city would have been "completely obliterated" if he had not deployed the National Guard. Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, the president accused Newsom and Bass of lying by saying Guard troops were not necessary. The National Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. However, Police Chief Jim McDonnell told a media briefing on Sunday night that the protests were getting out of control and that officers were "overwhelmed" by the remaining protesters. He said they included regular agitators who show up at demonstrations to cause trouble. Asked if the National Guard was needed, McDonnell said police would not "go to that right away," but added, "Looking at the violence tonight, I think we've got to make a reassessment."
Canada Standard
39 minutes ago
- Canada Standard
Australia stands firm on biosecurity in trade talks with US
SYDNEY, Australia: Australia will not ease its strict biosecurity rules during trade talks with the United States, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.. He spoke ahead of a possible meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 summit later this month. Since 2003, Australia has limited the entry of U.S. beef due to concerns about mad cow disease. However, Australia still exports about A$4 billion (US$2.6 billion) worth of beef each year to the U.S., its biggest market. "We will not change or compromise on biosecurity—period. It's simply not worth the risk," Albanese told ABC Radio. In April, Trump criticized Australian beef while announcing a 10 percent base tariff on all imports. While years of dry weather have reduced the number of cattle in the U.S. to the lowest since the 1950s, Australia has an abundant supply thanks to wet weather. This gives Australia an edge with lower prices, and leaner beef cuts that the U.S. lacks. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald on June 6 said that Australian officials were reviewing a U.S. request to allow beef from cattle raised in Mexico and Canada but processed in the U.S. Albanese firmly denied this, saying those products still pose risks to Australia's cattle industry. Australia is one of the few countries with which the U.S. usually has a trade surplus—a point Australian officials often raise when arguing against Trump's tariffs. In January, Australia posted a rare trade surplus with the U.S., driven by high gold exports amid global uncertainty. Albanese said he looked forward to meeting Trump in person, though no date was confirmed. "We've had three talks that were constructive, polite, and respectful. That's how I engage with people," he said. He added that Australia isn't the only one being treated unfairly and that U.S. trade policies affect many other countries.
