Debacle describes it: a sudden and ignominious failure, The synonyms herald the disintegration, the catastrophe, disintegration, mess, wreck, ruin; downfall, collapse, defeat, rout, the foul-up, pig’s ear, car crash. Terrible news has been confirmed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did not just put his food in his mouth, his statements clearly indicate that Canada is going to the dogs too.
First let us discuss what the PM said and then we shall discuss the meaning of the two idioms.
During an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins at the G7 summit, Prime Minister Carney was asked about the recent tentative peace deal between the U.S. and Iran to end their military conflict. He stated that the war was “worth it” specifically because the new agreement stipulates that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon Carney clarified his stance to reporters, noting that keeping a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s hands was “why this all started” and that achieving a framework where that threat is permanently off the table justified the conflict.
What is going on? Gemini to the rescue.
Me: Oh my goodness, my country of origin is in big trouble. Did he really say this and has there been any backlash? He flip/flopped before – at first supporting the US and then turned himself about quickly, way back in the beginning of the Iran war.
Gemini: There has been significant and immediate backlash, both at home and internationally. Many share your exact outrage, feeling that his remarks were incredibly callous given the immense human cost of the conflict.
The criticism has focused on several key areas. The human and humanitarian cost. Critics, humanitarian groups, and everyday citizens are pointing directly to what you just highlighted: the civilian casualties, the bombing of infrastructure (including a girls’ school in Iran), and the sheer devastation left in the wake of the strikes. For many, calling a war that caused such profound suffering “worth it” is politically and morally indefensible. There was definite political flip-flopping. People have not forgotten the inconsistent messaging you mentioned. When the conflict began on February 28, Carney’s government initially rushed out a statement supporting the U.S. and Israeli action. Just four days later, after realizing Canada had been left entirely in the dark, he backtracked, expressing “regret” and publicly noting that the unilateral strikes appeared to violate international law. To see him pivot back to declaring the war a success has left critics calling him hypocritical and transactional.
Me: And it is not at all clear that this agreement is leading to peace – in fact it seems not to, as a matter of fact.
Gemini: Foreign policy experts and opposition figures are pointing out that Carney is celebrating far too early. The agreement signed at the G7 is not a final, ironclad peace treaty—it is essentially a 60-day framework to negotiate a permanent deal. Skeptics argue that declaring the immense loss of life “worth it” for a preliminary Memorandum of Understanding, where complex verification and enforcement measures are far from settled, is reckless and naive. The comment has left a very sour taste in the mouths of many Canadians who expect their leadership to prioritize international law and human life over political messaging.
Me: Any speculation as to what motivated the man to put his foot firmly in his mouth and where does that saying come from??
Gemini: Political analysts have a few theories about what motivated Prime Minister Carney to double down on such a controversial stance, while linguists have a much clearer answer on where that classic phrase comes from. First what might have motivated this colossal blunder. Speculation from political insiders suggests Carney’s comments were driven by a mix of international posturing and a desperate attempt to spin Canada’s chaotic foreign policy as a win. He is chasing a legacy win. Carney has been eager to position Canada as a major player on the world stage. By framing the G7 tentative deal as a historic victory that “took nuclear weapons off the table,” analysts think he was trying to claim a piece of the credit for the peace framework, even if it meant glossing over the devastation of the war itself. Also justifying Canada’s economic strain. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz during the conflict triggered a massive global energy crisis that hit Canadian consumers hard. By loudly proclaiming the conflict was “worth it,” Carney may have been trying to justify the severe economic pain and skyrocketing fuel prices his own citizens endured over the last few months. Then there is his perhaps, over-enthusiasm on live tv. Some simply chalk it up to a classic media miscalculation. Sitting down with a sharp interviewer like Kaitlan Collins on global television, Carney likely wanted to sound firm, decisive, and aligned with Washington. Instead, he walked right into a phrasing trap that came off as completely tone-deaf to the public.
Me: Please do lets go to the linguists clear answer. Where does “foot in mouth” come from? The phrase “to put your foot in your mouth” has a fascinating, multi-layered evolution that dates back over two centuries. First, the original ‘to put your foot in it.” Long before the mouth was involved, the common British idiom was simply “to put your foot in it.” First appearing in print around the late 1700s, this phrase meant to make a major blunder or get yourself into a messy difficulty. While the exact origin is slightly murky, language historians believe it came from a very literal, unpleasant mistake: accidentally stepping in mud, animal feces, or a puddle while walking. If you “put your foot in it,” you had made an embarrassing, messy error. By the late 19th century, the phrase evolved into the specific version we use today. The earliest recorded instance of “putting your foot in your mouth” appeared in American print in 1879. It is widely believed that people blended the old phrase (“putting your foot in it”) with the physical act of opening one’s mouth to speak. Essentially, if you put your foot in your mouth every time you opened it, it meant you couldn’t speak without making a massive, embarrassing blunder. Then it became a ‘medical pun. The phrase became even more popular in the mid-20th century as a play on words. People began diagnosing politicians and public figures with “foot-in-mouth disease,” a witty pun on “foot-and-mouth disease”—the highly contagious agricultural sickness that affects livestock like cows and sheep. In Carney’s case, it seems a severe bout of “foot-in-mouth disease” is exactly what the public is diagnosing him with this week.
Me: Well it seems my native land is going to the dogs. What does that expression mean?
Gemini: It is completely understandable to feel that way; watching a place you care about make decisions that feel unrecognizable can be incredibly disheartening. As for the expression “going to the dogs,” it means that a country, organization, or situation is rapidly deteriorating, losing its quality, or heading toward complete ruin. Like many of our best idioms, it has a very literal, centuries-old history rooted in everyday life. Here is where it comes from. I was initially scars from the table. The phrase dates back to at least the 1500s and 1600s. In those days, food safety and preservation didn’t exist in the way they do now. If food was fresh and wholesome, it was served to the family and guests. However, if meat or stew had gone completely stale, rotted, or become unfit for human consumption, it was thrown out into the yard for the scavenging street dogs. Therefore, if something was “going to the dogs,” it was deemed utterly worthless, corrupted, and ruined. However, some language historians point to an even older, legal origin from ancient Babylon and China. In those societies, someone who had committed a terrible crime or brought immense shame upon themselves was occasionally cast out of the city walls to live among the wild, dangerous packs of feral dogs. To “go to the dogs” meant a total fall from grace and a loss of civilized status.There was a later shift. By the 1800s, the phrase shifted from describing actual food or literal outcasts to a broader social metaphor. People began using it exactly the way you did today: to lament that politics, culture, or the state of the world was slipping from high standards into a messy, unvetted disaster.
Switching to Substance
Finding this SO depressing, looked around for some consolation, some hope. There is was! My Tatreez book. Decided I will excerpt portions, photograph the colorful pages. I will share the gift with others highlighting Palestinian resilience, identity, and cultural mastery. It will stop you and me.from the clamor of Trump and Carney and instead shines a light directly on the beauty, history, and profound accomplishments of the Palestinian people over generations .
This from the forward Embroidery from Palestine Omar Joseph Nasser-Khourty
“If you don’t down Palestine for its history, faith or politics, you will know It for its embroidery.
So I write this in honour of Samud – the rooted persistence and kist resonance As I write this the Gaza Genocide carried out by the Zionists, their allies, enablers and apologists has been raging on as intentional starvation rips through the flesh and spirit alike exposing the twisted nature of of colonial domination to all who can stomach to look. Horror beyond words, destruction beyond imagining, abomination beyond absolution. The foul rank of hypocrisy suffocating the senses and blinding th soul. It feels trite and irrelevant to write about the embroidery of our people, when we are on the brink of extermination. But if there is anything that Palestinian embroidery has shown me, it is the quiet, persistent and repetitive rituals of residence that endure.
So I write this in honour of Samud – the rooted persistence and just resilience of my people. In honour of those who know death, loss and starvation, in honor of those who died and so that we may leave, in honor of those yet to come out and lift up Palestine.”
Photographs will now follow.
