Elon Musk's response to Taylor Swift says it all

Kamala Harris finally got her all-important endorsement from Taylor Swift. I know it's a sad reflection of modern society, but Ms. Swift - like it or not, and whether she likes it or not - has an iron-clad grip over the beliefs and opinions of millions of Swifties. Arguably, it is the next thing to a cult, one of the largest and most influential in recent history. So, what she says makes a difference.

What she said was: "I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I'm voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos." 

A clear, reasoned assessment if ever I saw one. And, in a nod to Trump's running mate, JD Vance, she signed off as "Childless Cat Lady", complete with a photo of her and her cat.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has the celebrity backing of one, Elon Musk. Musk's response to Taylor Swift's endorsement is telling: "Fine Taylor ... you win ... I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life". Like so many of Musk's attempts at humour, it falls flat, but with a slightly disturbing edge to it.

Setting aside his autism, and the difficulty some autistic people have with reading the room and judging their tone, Musk's flippant response is emblematic of the glaring difference between the Republican and Democratic camps in today's politics. "Civil, reasoned and compassionate vs. boorish, irrational and rapacious" may be one way to characterize it.

Delay on sentencing Trump is political however you slice it

A New York judge has just ruled that ex-President Trump will not be sentenced until just after the November US election in the hush money case. Way back in May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, but the sentencing was delayed. 

Sentencing was originally scheduled for September 18th, but the worthy justice, in his his wisdom, decided it should be delayed.

Judge Juan Merchan argued that he made this decision to avoid any appearance of affecting the outcome of the presidential race. But in doing so, he has ... affected the outcome of the presidential race.

Granted, the judge was between a rock and a hard place, and anything he did would attract condemnation from one side or the other. Was this the right decision? Who can say? Even if Trump were to campaign from behind bars, his rabid supporters would still vote for him; in fact, it may even have given his campaign a boost.

However much Judge Merchan might try to justify it, it ends up being a political decision. In his ruling, the judge asserted that "the Court is a fair, inpartial and apolitical institution" (ha! try telling the Supreme Court that!) But at this point in the election run-up, EVERYTHING is political.

Singh pulls out of supply-and-confidence agreement and no-one understands why

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has ended the supply-and-confidence power-sharing agreement with the Liberals a year early, paving the way for an early federal election in Canada, an election that seems to destined to go in a disastrous landslide to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. More to the point, an election that will see the NDP do as badly, if not worse than in the last one, at least according to the polls. 

The supply-and-confidence agreement, has allowed the NDP to steer Liberal policy distinctly leftward over the past two or three years. It has propped up Justin Trudeau's sagging government, but it has also given the NDP more influence over national policy than it has ever had, and allowed it to pass some landmark policies, an opportunity it would never otherwise - as the perennial third-place party - have had.

But now, just days after Poilievre publicly called on "Sellout Singh" to abandon the agreement early and allow for a "carbon tax election", as he insists on calling it, Singh has done just that, for reasons that no-one really seems to understand. Maybe Poilievre's adoption of Trump-style name-calling is having an effect.

Saying that "the Liberals have let people down" and that they "will always cave to corporate greed", he has opened the door for Poilievre, whose caving to corporate greed knows no bounds. Singh has also abandoned any hopes of pushing through any other pieces of legislation the NDP might have hoped for in the remaining months of the agreement, which was originally expected to continue until June 2025. 

Singh's announcement suggested that he thought the NDP stood a better chance of defeating the Conservatives in an election than the Liberals - "they cannot stop the Conservatives, but we can" - which is wishful thinking of epic proportions given recent polls showing the Conservatives at 41%, the L8berals at 27%, and the NDP at just 14%.

Now, every parliamentary issue becomes a confidence vote - Poilievre is desperate for an election while he is polling well. It's still possible that the NDP could prop up the Liberals in such a vote, supply-and-confidence or no supply-and-confidence, as could the Bloc Québécois. But it has put everything on much shakier ground than before. And for what?

It's a head-scratcher on the level of the BC Liberals recent bewildering decision to throw their lot in with the BC Conservatives, with whom they seem to have little or nothing in common. It has also led to a huge backlash within the NDP party, with increasing calls for Singh's resignation, and jibes that he has sold his soul to Poilievre and offered him the country on a silver platter.

It's certainly a week for inexplicable surprise political decisions.

The fraught issue of regulation of e-bikes

I've often wondered what are the actual rules around e-bikes. They are ubiquitous in Toronto these days and, given that many of them use roads, bike lanes and sidewalks almost interchangeably, it's hard to know what they are supposed to be doing. Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure they are not following what rules do exist.

A pretty comprehensive article in the Globe tries to tackle the subject and, yes, it's complicated. While provinces and municipalities are keen to encourage e-bikes as a way of addressing traffic problems and climate change, it's hard to do that while also ensuring the safety of pedestrians, regular cyclists, e-bikers and even car-drivers.

There are so many different types of e-bikes available these days that the line between bike, e-bike and motorbike is pretty blurry. And the rules governing them are a patchwork of provincial and municipal laws. And, to make things worse, there is next to no enforcement of the rules anyway.

One distinction is between e-bikes on which the motor plays merely a supporting role and most of the power is provided by pedalling (sometimes referred to as "pedelecs"), and ones where pedalling is optional or entirely unnecessary. Some e-bikes may have pedals that are completely inoperable and just for show, designed to ensure they are classed as bikes and not motorbikes (which have much more onerous regulations and licensing requirements, as well as insurance implications). Some e-bikes may have speed limiters, where the motor cuts out when a certain speed is reached, but most don't.

The laws and bylaws governing e-bikes try to take all this heterogeneity into account, but that ends up making things very complicated. For example, in Toronto, e-bikes that are limited to 32 km/h capability are allowed in paint-only bike lanes (i.e. those that are not physically separated from the road by a curbstones or other barrier) but prohibited in separated ones, the (perfectly reasonable) theory being that passing other cyclists is easier and safer on the paint-only lanes. But do you think anyone is even aware of these arcane bylaws?

Also, e-bikes that require some muscular power (i.e pedalling) are allowed on all bikeways in Toronto, providing they weigh less than 40 kg. Again, you can see the logic here - especially given that some actually weigh in at over 100 kg - but it is completely unenforceable. 

And all e-bikes are technically banned from riding on sidewalks, but is anyone really going to ticket a food courier riding on the sidewalk of a fast, dangerous arterial road which has no bike lane, when that they are merely prioritizing their own safety? Presupposing that anyone is even trying to police them.

British Columbia's rules are even more complex. Its Motor Vehicle Act defines e-bikes according to their power rating, 200 or 250 watts depending on the rider's age, and a speed capacity of less than 32 km/h. If an e-bike exceeds these parameters, then they are technically subject to motor vehicle licensing and other rules like a full-blown motor cycle. How is that going to be enforced?

Electric kick scooters (like a kid's scooter but with a motor, sometimes referred to as "micromobility") are a whole other issue, and a whole other risk factor for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. These require no physical exertion (apart from balance), but they are nimble, portable .... and fast. Some are rated at 40 km/h or more - I was talking to a guy recently who maintained his scooter did 80km/h! -  although Ontario's laws limit them to 24 km/h on roads. Well, that's not going to happen!

You can't fault provinces and municipalities for trying to regulate e-bikes and micromobility. They are increasingly popular, and are an increasing hazard, and accidents and complaints about them are proliferating. And, of course, they are a good match with jurisdictions' climate change goals and traffic management issues. But to call it the Wild West is putting it mildly.

The author of the article suggests a way forward that tries to balance safety and safety conduct with the encouragement of further growth in e-bikes. First, food delivery couriers need to be specifically regulated (with the onus on the app/company): riders need to be properly trained, bikes should be monitored to ensure they are in good working order and meet all applicable rules, safe charging stations and secure overnight parking facilities should be mandated, etc.

Second, provinces should provide funded cycling education in schools (as already happens in BC) as well as for any adults who want it. Motorists should also have their driver education extended to include dealing with bikes and e-bikes.

Third, governments should standardize their e-bike definitions, and implement a system that allows for easy identification of e-bikes and whether or not they should be covered by licensing laws.

And cities should re-double their efforts to build cycling infrastructure. Toronto, for example, has bike lanes on only 4% of its roads, lagging well behind leaders like Vancouver and Montreal.

All sensible suggestions. But since when did sensible suggestions becomes the basis for government policy?

How do we feel about Canada's prohibitive tariffs on cheap Chinese EVs?

I've been avoiding commenting on - even thinking about - Canada's new 100% tariff sucharge on imported Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), as well as a 25% tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum. That's because it's complicated, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it on balance. 

Given that we are following the Americans' identical move (and a lesser tariff increase by the European Union), we ought to be on pretty firm ground, but I still feel like we're not. The main stated goal of the move is to protect Canada's home-grown EV industry and its high-paying, high-skilled jobs, but it brings with it a bunch of other not-so-desirable baggage.

First off, let's get one thing out of the way: is it even legal under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules? Surely, we can't just go around slapping tariffs on specific countries willy nilly, can we? China will certainly argue that we can't, and the WTO will definitely be one of their first ports of call.

Well, legal scholars think that Canada can maybe justify itself to the WTO, although it's not a particularly straightforward argument. Section 53 of Canada's own Custom Tariff Act, while rarely used, should cover our internal laws on the matter, but what about international law? 

The argument would be that China is itself breaking WTO rules by subsidizing its exports rhrough its system of "state capitalism". It is argued that Canada is justified in acting unilaterally over this, even in the absence of a WTO panel adjudication, because the WTO's broken dispute settlement system would take years to come to a decision.

Furthermore, the WTO Agreement allows member states to depart from binding obligations if their "essential security interests" are threatened because of war or "other emergency in international relations". Apparently, it can be argued that China's massively subsidized exports and its aggressive policy of exporting excess capacity in order to make itself into the dominant global supplier would qualify as an "emergency in international relations", or at least that's the theory.

Both arguments seem a bit tenuous to me, but "the experts" seem convinced.

That aside, are Canada's actions worth the pain that China will certainly inflict in retaliation? There is little doubt that it will retaliate - it has still to retaliate against the USA, which instituted its tariff change earlier, but little Canada is much more vulnerable than the USA. The most likely form of retaliation is for China to pick a sector like Canada's agricultural exports and block market access, much as they are doing with the EU. Exactly how that could play out remains to be seen, but China could make life quite uncomfortable for Canadians.

And then there is the issue of how this affects Canada's climate change commitments. Environmentalists warn that, if Canada is to stand any chance of achieving its ambitious climate change goals, then one plank of that has to be making EVs more affordable and more mainstream, not just expensive luxury items that only wealthy households can afford. Doubling the price of affordable Chinese EVs is not the way to do that, and the new tariffs will effectively slow down Canada's transition to electric vehicles.

Environmental groups like Clean Energy Canada and Environmental Defense have come out strongly against the tariff, despite the admitted benefits to the Canadian sustainable vehicle industry. And I can appreciate where they are coming from.

Even government officials admit that Canadian-made EVs will be substantially more expensive than Chinese imports - even Chinese imports with a 100% import tariff - if only because Canadian workers get paid a reasonable wage, vehicle safety rules are much more stringent, and we have to follow local labour and environmental regulations. 

Because that is another charge laid against Chinese EVs: China's power grid is still very carbon-intensive compared to Canada's (and increasing, despite China's huge investments in renewable energy), so we should not be encouraging products manufactured with a large carbon footprint. True, but even EVs produced in a coal-powered environment are still greener than gas-powered cars over the vehicle's lifetime. And it is kind of hard to knowingly start down the slippery slope of protectionism...

Like I said, it gets complicated; you can twist yourself into knots over this stuff.

Immigration not all to blame for Canada's economic woes

The federal Liberal government has been shamed and browbeaten into taking action on immigration, and more specifically on the temporary foreign worker system, which, at least at a cursory glance, does seem to have run out of hand in the last few years.

The Liberals, always very much pro-immigration, has seen the wisdom (political, if not economic) of scaling back the ambitious Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program that it brought in a couple of years ago, when post-pandemic labour shortages were the main issue. It's an(other) embarrassing u-turn for the Liberals, but I'm kind of past caring about them right now.

The new rules disallow the hiring of low-wage TFWs in areas where unemployment is over 6%, except in the areas of agriculture, fisheries, construction and healthcare (which is actually where most TFWs are). Also, employers will be limited to 10% of TFWs out of their total workforce, down from the current 20%, and TFWs will be limited to one-year contracts, down from the current two years.

Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have latched on to the immigration issue as an effective wedge, and much of their improved polling has come from the way they have changed Canadians' views on immigration. Housing crisis? Blame the immigrants. Inflation? Immigration. Healthcare crunch? Unemployment? Yup, yup. 

Just a couple of years ago, public support in Canada for immigration numbers was at an all-time high. Today, an increasing number of Canadians are questioning immigration levels, a change almost entirely due to Polievre's constant hammering away at the issue and his dog-whistle politics.

There is an alternative viewpoint, though, and it is being doggedly put forward by a small not-for-profit Migrant Workers Alliance for Change and its director Syed Hussan. Most recently, and in direct response to the government's announcements, he was interviewed on CBC NewsNight, and what he says actually makes a lot of sense.

Among his points:

• Immigrants, and specifically TFWs are being used as a convenient political scapegoat for all manner of economic ills that are much more complex than just the immigration aspect.
• TFWs make up about 60,000 people out of Canada's 42 million - they alone are just not able to influence the country's housing situation. (This number could actually be around 83,000 out of the 2.8 million non-permanent residents according to federal data, but the point stands.)
• Most TFWs live in employer-controlled housing anyway, and so are not even competing with the local populace on single-family homes, etc.
• Cutting the already small number of TFWs will have a negligible effect on the unemployment rate of immigrants in general, which is always higher than that among the general population due to systemic racism issues, accreditation of foreign qualifications, etc.
• Most TFWs are in agriculture, fisheries, domestic work, construction and care work, all of which are specifically excluded from the new announcement (because, for various reasons, we need them).
• TFWs, particularly during and after the pandemic, have been instrumental in keeping the Canadian economy's head above water.
• Reducing the numbers of TFW will not improve the living and working conditions they are suffering, conditions that a UN report recently called "a breeding ground for contemporary forms of slavery".

Hmm. Food for thought.

Toronto trams are the slowest in the world - or are they?

Toronto's streetcars (trams) have been a subject of controversy forever. Personally, I quite like them, and I think people would be shocked at how bad Toronto's traffic could get without them (they hold multiple times more passengers than buses). We've had a glimpse of that from time to time when construction projects necessitate bus replacements (an increasingly common occurrence). They are also preferable environmentally. Many people, though - mainly car drivers, to be fair - viscerally hate them, and blame them for all sort of evils.

Anyway, be that as it may, a new study of tram systems around the world has found that, while Toronto scores well on service frequency (departures per hour per direction), it comes in dead last on network speed. Essentially, Toronto has the slowest trams in the world, and by quite a large margin.

Toronto's streetcars are about three time slower than those of Utrecht, and twice as slow as cities like London, Göteborg, Stockholm and Sydney. 

Now, to be fair, Utrecht is a relatively small city, but London? Hold on, though, London doesn't have trams! Or it didn't last time I was there. When I checked, it turns out that "Trams run in parts of South London between Wimledon, Croydon, Beckenham and New Addington". Oh, so not in the busy central part of the city, then? Well, of course they will run faster!

Stockholm and Sydney, though, fair comparison, right? Well, maybe. But Stockholm's figures are from 2017 and Sydney's are from 2016, while Toronto's figures are from 2024. So, not really an apples-to-apples comparison in an increasingly busy world. 

Toronto's streetcar system may indeed be bad, although a comparison factoring in dollar investment may be more illuminating, given Toronto's notoriously underfunded public transit system. But I think that BlogTO could have done a better job of offering some perspective rather than just a blanket condemnation.

Why would RFK Jr. endorse Donald Trump?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., scion of the most famous Democrat family in US history, son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, is now apparently a Republican.

He was a Democrat for most of his life, albeit a rather flaky unrepresentative one. He stood as a candidate for the Democratic presidential candidate last year, but dropped out when it became clear that he had no path to winning the nomination, and declared he would stand as an independent presidential candidate, calling the Democracts "the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big money".

He seemed to attract voters disaffected by both traditional main parties ("double-haters"), as well as mavericks who liked his espousal of anti-vaccine and other conspiracy theories. At one point, he was polling at 14-16%, enough to present a major disruption to the two main parties, although that gradually fell away to low single digits (as little as 2% according to some polls), especially after Kamala Harris' assumption of the Democratic candidacy.

Then, when he didn't see "a realistic path to victory" (that phrase again) that way either, he threw his weight behind Donald Trump, at a rally in Arizona, earning himself the undying contempt of the Democratic Party and his own ardently Democratic family. His own sister called it a "betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear". He says he will withdraw his name from 10 battleground states where his presence on the ballot might detract from Trump's (although it is already too late to withdraw from the crucial swing states of Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin).

Trump, who had once called RFK "more LIBERAL than anyone running as a Democrat", a "Democrat plant", and "totally Anti-Gun, an Extreme Environmentalist who makes the New Green Scammers look Conservative, a Big Time Taxer, and Open Border Advocate, and Anti-Military/Vet", now sees him as "phenomenal" and "brilliant". 

RFK, for his part, says he has "the certainty that this is what I'm meant to do", and credits the main reasons for his extraordinary volte face as his belief in free speech, the war in Ukraine, and "the war on children". But just a few short months ago, he was slamming Trump for his record: "His lockdowns during Covid. His atrocious environmental record. His cozy relationship with corporate America ... support for the war machine ... service to the billionaire class". 

He has called Trump "a terrible human being" and "probably a sociopath" and "unhinged" and "barely coherent". As recently as May 2024, RFK said that "under no circumstances" would he join Trump on a presidential ticket. But now, all of a sudden, he's the potential saviour of the United States? Hmm. What gives?

This has all the hallmarks of "the art of the deal". RFK is apparently interested in a position in Trump's cabinet, maybe as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, where he can bring his anti-vax crusade to bear. And that would be enough for him to sacrifice decades of his family's values (and at least some of his own)? I'm tempted to wonder whether any money or other financial favours changed hands - I wouldn't put it past either party - but there is no evidence of such that I have heard about.

It's hard to know what to make of RFK Jr., and the extent to which his flakiness is a result of the brain parasite he suffered from over a decade ago, which caused severe memory loss and brain fog. But he has certainly not done his political legacy any favours over the last year or so. Certainly, he adds a whole new level of "weird" to the Republican transition team.

As to whether his move will have any actual political repercussions in November's crucial presidential election, that remains to be seen. Some maintain that his defection will make little or no practical difference, although intuitively you would think that Trump would be the main beneficiary.

Right now, we're just waiting for the next tipping point in this highly eventful presidential campaign.