Gambling in America goes beyond the pale

If you wanted yet more evidence that the United States is going off the rails, you need look no further than American gambling culture.

Gambling, including online gambling, in the US used to be pretty highly regulated. Sports betting was illegal until 2018, and betting on elections was off-limits until 2024. Now, though, gambling has become ingrained in American culture.

Most recently, in the morality-free milieu of Trump 2.0 and MAGA "philosophy", an even more problematic habit is taking hold: the so-called "prediction market", or betting on political or military actions. Under American law, it is still supposed to be illegal to bet on war, terrorism, assassination, or other illegal activities. But, of late, outfits like Kalshi and Polymarket have been taking bets on.when Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be "out", military action in Venezuela and Israel, when US ground forces will enter Iran, even the chances of a nuclear detonation.

Yes, it is all supposed to be illegal, but there has been an estimated $44 billion in prediction market trades over the last year or so. Polymarket alone has hosted an estimated $500 million in bets on the Iran war, which is now just two weeks old. There does not seem to be much enforcement of the legalities.

There has been an outcry, though, and some of the companies involved have said they will dial back that line of gambling. There is even discussion of whether such speculation should come under the oversight of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. But in a country where you can bet on local elections, whether the central bank will cut interest rates, and when Jesus.Christ will return, there doesn't seem much likelihood of legal reform making a whole lot of difference.

Our complicated relationship with the USA

It hardly needs re-stating, but Canada's relationship with the United States is now on pretty rocky ground. What is perhaps less obvious is the contradictory nature of our attitudes towards our overbearing southern neighbour.

For example, in the latest polls, 49% of Canadians think that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally of Canada, and a further 27% "somewhat" believe that. That's 76% (three-quarters) of the population, compared to 22% who believe or somewhat believe that the US is trustworthy.

As a result, 75% of us have responded to the Trump administration's predations by avoiding purchasing American goods or services, and 51% have cancelled travel plans to the US. That's how much we dislike them (or rather "him", although it's difficult to tease the two apart).

But...

A large majority still believes that, for better or worse, we are tied to the United States, at least to some extent. Thus, 81% think that the USMCA/CUSMA free trade agreement with the USA and Mexico has been a net positive for Canada, and 87% think it is important or somewhat important to preserve USMCA/CUSMA, and support Prime Minister Carney in his bid to renegotiate the agreement this year.

So, it's very much case of "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". We would prefer to have nothing to do with the USA, but most people realize that's not actually practical.

No, Mr. Ford, banning the Al-Quds Day rally is not the answer

Talking of putting himself on the wrong side of history again, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is on a roll recently, most recently by wading into the controversial pro-Palestine Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto, which is scheduled for later today.

In a very-last-minute attempt at intervention, Ford has called on the Ontario Attorney-General to ban this year's demonstration, which he says "is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and anti-semitism" and that "it glorifies violence, it celebrates terrorism". 

Legally, constitutionally, I'm pretty sure he can't do that. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)  says it is "deeply troubled" by Ford's move, calling it "a sweeping attack on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly".

The Al-Quds Day rally is an annual demonstration, part of a "global day against imperialism" that has been happening every year for decades now. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for the Islamic holy city of Jerusalem, as well as one of the holy names of God, meaning "the holy one" or "the pure one". In Toronto at any rate, it is first and foremost a pro-Palestinian protest, although, given the current situation in the Middle East, it will almost certainly include Iran and Lebanon under its banner this year. It is only anti-Israel insofar as Israel is the country oppressing Palestine, and only anti-Jewish insofar as Israel is motivated by Jewish nationalism.

That said, the protest has in the past pushed boundaries. While not actually violent, it has seen some pretty inflammatory anti-Israel, and, very occiasionally, antisemitic rhetoric. This is unfortunate, but pre-emptively banning the demo at the last minute is not the solution.

The rally plans to go ahead inspire of Ford's calls for an injunction. There will almost certainly be a pro-Israel counter-demonstration too, which is the only thing that might cause it to end in violence.

UPDATE

In the end, the Ontario Court denied Ford his injunction and the Al-Quds day really went ahead. It was noisy, boisterous and well-attended (about 3,000 in downtown Toronto and many more at other smaller rallies) and, despite the presence of a small pro-Israel counter-protest, there were just two isolated arrests. So much for Ford's predicted hate-filled bloodbath.

Ford professed himself "extremely disappointed", and no doubt he will be complaining again about our "biassed" legal system and renew his calls for reform (he has expressed his preference for a partisan appointed judiciary, à la USA). But luckily we still have an independent judiciary so that, when Ford and his administration tries to pull illegal and unconstitutional stunt, as they are prone to do  there is an objective legal system there to hold him to account.

Let's be realistic about privacy and civil rights

When I was younger - much younger - I felt strongly about privacy and civil rights. As an old geezer now, I find I am much less concerned about such matters. Maybe that's normal part of ageing: young folks tend to be much more idealistic and less pragmatic.

Either way, I find that the opposition of "privacy advocates" to the recently-tabled federal Bill 22 to be overblown and exaggerated. The bill grants law enforcement agencies like the police and CSIS new "lawful access" powers to online data and cellphone records for investigative purposes where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise to me, although I've a suspicion that, twenty years ago, I would have been up in arms about it. But this is not government spying. This is not some kind of police state manoeuvre. Nobody is tracking our every move in our everyday lives (well, except Google, Facebook and whole host of other tech companies!)

It merely allows law enforcement agencies to gather more pertinent and important information in specific circumstances where a crime may have been committed. If you don't go around committing crimes, this new law will not affect you at all.

I don't think I am being naïve here, as civil rights organizations would almost certainly assert. Neither is it necessarily the start of a slippery slope. It's just a practical aid to law enforcement in Canada, and one they have been requesting for for years.

Hell, I don't even care that much about those tech companies these days. If they want to track my online movements and target advertising towards my specific preferences, that's fine by me. I can choose to ignore the ads - which is what I usually do - or maybe I'll actually discover something I really like. At any rate, it seems like a small price to pay for all the "free" services companies like Google provide. (I'm less supportive of the likes of Facebook, X, etc, which don't really provide any useful content in my opinion; consequently, I have not had accounts with those kinds of social media bloodsuckers for decades. My choice.)

Doug Ford moves to exert more power over Toronto

Doug Ford, Premier of the province of Ontario, is furthering his life-long ambition to be Mayor of Toronto, or at least to exert control over the city, one way or another. He has never forgiven Toronto for not voting him in as Mayor back in 2014, and has made it his MO as Ontario Premier to interfere in Toronto politics as much as he possibly can, from reducing the number of city councillors (in the middle of a municipal election) to closing down and moving iconic museums to trying (and failing) to get rid of the city's bike lanes and speed cameras.

In his latest shot across the bow of the city, Ford has vowed to take over Toronto Island's little Billy Bishop City Airport and expand it to accommodate jet planes. Currently, the small airport is only used by smaller turboprop planes operated by Porter Airlines and Air Canada. Ford wants to see "small jets" also able to use it, which would require an extension to the runway and more parking and infrastructure in general.

The idea of jet flights from the island airport has been proposed - and defeated - many times, most recently in 2013. Business travellers may be in favour of it, but the residents and users of the Toronto waterfront and its parks have repeatedly rejected it due to the increased noise and development. Current Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow remains implacably opposed to expansion of the airport.

The airport is currently owned by a three-way agreement between the City of Toronto, the Toronto Port Authority (a federal agency) and the federal Government of Canada. While the City remains opposed to the idea, the Port Authority reportedly favours further development, and the federal government is reserving judgement thus far. 

Because of the way the municipality is structured and its subservience to the province, Ford and the province of Ontario could legally replace Toronto in this ownership structure, in which case the further development of the airport would be all but assured, even if it is against the wishes of the city's residents. Ford would have another victory over the ungrateful City of Toronto, and his business buddies would be very pleased with him.

Either way, Ford is putting himself on the wrong side of history yet again with this issue, and putting his business buddies ahead of the regular folk of the area. Sign the petition and send him an email.

Studies say remote working actually improves productivity and engagement

Remember all that fuss a year or two ago, as companies and government departments reacted en masse against the pandemic trend of remote working? How we were told that the pandemic was now over and we had to get back to normal - at least four or five days a week in the office - because the financial health.of rge.ckmpany, the province, the very country, was at stake? A lot of people were very upset about it, but most people went along with it - after all, they were left with little choice.

Well, how did that turn out?

Multiple studies are suggesting that, actually, those few holdout companies that did not insist on the great exodus back to the office are.doing substantially better than those that, for whatever reason, did insist on a return to the traditional office set-up. 

A report by the Insititute for Corporate Productivity says that more flexible organizations that allow for remote working produce stronger output, wealthier engagement, and faster growth than those more hidebound conapnies that mandated office attendance. Even without invasive monitoring of employees, such companies reported high or very high productivity. 

A Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a positive relationship between remote work and total factor productivity in various industry sectors, and faster growth in productivity since the pandemic.

The Flex Index has shown that fully flexible companies grew revenues 1.7 times faster than more traditional companies, even after adjusting for industry and size.

A randomized peer-reviewed study by Trip.com found that their two-days-from-home hybrid model resulted in no decline in performance or promotion rates and a much improved staff retention rate. 

A US Government.sccpuntavikoty Office report in 2025 notes that workplace flexibility has helped with recruitment, retention and general organizational health. This is in spite of Trump's blanket back-to-the-office mandate.

A University of Pittsburgh paper on S&P500 comapanies concluded that return-to-office mandates do not improve financial performance or company value and adversely affects employee satisfaction, and even led to an outflow of higher-skilled talent.

It seems like the jury is in, and flexibility wins out over tradition.

Stock exchanges will more than recover from current war - they always do

The stock markets almost always take a hit with every war or major global disruption, particularly those that impact oil producing countries, whether it be the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Yom Kippur War, the Gulf War, or Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The US-Iran conflict is no different, although it has the potential to be a much bigger upheaval, what some are calling "the biggest oil disruption in history".

After every such event, though - even partway through sometimes - the markets find a way to come to terms with the perceived risk, and returns to pre-war levels, usually within a matter of days. For example, this took just 28 days.in the cae of the 2003 Iraq War, 27 days for the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, 7 days for the 2025 US bombing of Iran. The 1990 Gulf War took longer at 131 days, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War and Arab oil embargo took as long as 6 years for the stock exchanges to get back to pre-war levels. But investors can take heart that, even in the worst cases, share prices do recover (and then go on to ever-increasing record levels). 

The same will happen with the current US-Iran conflict, although it could takes a while, particularly with the unpredictable Trump at the helm of the US efforts. The stock exchanges always seem to me irredeemably naïve in some ways. For example, all it takes is Trump saying "the war is very complete, pretty much", and that it will be over "very soon", for the markets to react positively and oil prices to correct themselves a little, even though what he said didn't actually make sense, comes amid mixed messages from others in the administration and even from Trump himself, and is an opinion based anyway on absolutely nothing. 

So, hold on, they BELIEVE the guy!? The war is far from "complete", and a resolute Iran says, "we are the ones who will determine the end of the war". And even if Trump wants it to call it a day - "Any time I want it to end,  it will end" - Israel has no intentions of stopping the bombing any time soon - while Iran is down they will continue kicking for as long as they possibly can.

But end it most certainly will, one day. And you can bet that, within weeks, the stock exchanges will be be back at, or near, record levels.

Tone deaf to the nth degree

In an instance of tone-deafness jaw-dropping even by his own lofty standards, Donald Trump has essentially called most Americans fools.

As Americans - and others - kvetch about the rapidly rising prices of oil and gasoline (and therefore everything else) Trump dropped a Truth Social post: "Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety snd Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY." [His capitalization and punctuation]

Oh, OK. Daddy knows best, I suppose. Pardon me for thinking.