Working pretty hard to secure his legacy as the climate change president, US President Obama and the US Department of Energy have just issued a hugely important energy-saving standard for the country that “will save more energy than any other standard issued by the Department to date”.
The new standard governs commercial air conditioners and furnaces, which consume massive amounts of energy across America every day. Over its lifetime, the standard is expected to translate into $167 billion in saved costs for businesses, as well as 15 quadrillion BTUs of saved energy for the country, and 885 million tons of saved carbon dioxide emissions. It was arrived at through a “consensus process” involving industry, labour groups, and environmentalists.
By 2030, this and other previously issued revisions to energy standards (such as standards on the energy efficiency of dishwashers, refrigerators, etc) are expected to reduce net US greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 3 gigatons, of which this latest measure alone makes up almost 1 gigaton.
These simple, uncontentious, and technically feasible measures can make a big difference. We should all be doing it.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Most of what is wrong with America
I couldn't help but weigh in on the festive card that is making the rounds of the press and the interwebs. The bizarre Christmas card sent out by Nevada congresswoman Michele Fiore features a photo of Michele and her extended family - including little 5-year-old Jake - all dressed in festive red and toting various kinds of guns.
Michelle is the chunky blonde in the centre, looking quite comfortable with what looks like a sawn-off shotgun (see how little I know about these things), which according to the helpful key at the top is apparently a "super shorty". Yes, the guns are also introduced by name.
Ms. Fiore is what you might call outspoken about the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Among other things, she has sponsored a bill to allow concealed firearms on the campuses of colleges and grade schools and in day care facilities, and she has a bunch of over-the-top gun-related quotes to her name for those interested enough to look for them.
But doesn't this card make her at least borderline psychotic? What was she thinking? Can she not be arraigned for encouraging child soldiers or something? This exemplifies everything that is wrong (well, most of it) with the United States of America.
Michelle is the chunky blonde in the centre, looking quite comfortable with what looks like a sawn-off shotgun (see how little I know about these things), which according to the helpful key at the top is apparently a "super shorty". Yes, the guns are also introduced by name.
Ms. Fiore is what you might call outspoken about the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Among other things, she has sponsored a bill to allow concealed firearms on the campuses of colleges and grade schools and in day care facilities, and she has a bunch of over-the-top gun-related quotes to her name for those interested enough to look for them.
But doesn't this card make her at least borderline psychotic? What was she thinking? Can she not be arraigned for encouraging child soldiers or something? This exemplifies everything that is wrong (well, most of it) with the United States of America.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Samuel Beckett at his most Beckettian
I have been reading a few of Samuel Beckett's shorter stories, "Stories and Texts for Nothing", and I never cease to be impressed by the man's idiosyncratic and virtuoso command of the English language. And then I realized that the stories, like most of his later works, were originally written in French!
Beckett moved from Ireland to France in mid-career in the late 1930s, partly to escape from the prodigious shadow of fellow Irishmen James Joyce, and partly because he fell out with his mother. He played an active part in the French Resistance during the Second World War (preferring, in his words, "France at war to Ireland at peace"), and continued to live there for the rest of his life.
Beckett wrote most of his earlier works in English and then translated them into French. His later works, from about 1948 onwards and including many of his most famous pieces (like Waiting for Godot), were written in French and only then translated into English. He claimed that he wrote in French as it made it easier for him to write "without style".
The "Stories and Texts for Nothing", which date from the late 1950s but were not published in English until 1967, are written in the usual feverish and oppressive Beckettian style, full of pathos and grotesquerie. But, oh, the language!
An example of a typically consummate sentence from the first story, "The Expelled":
All the unmitigated and unrelenting angst and misery does get a bit wearing after a while, though, and one story starts to blur into another. As in most Beckett stories, nothing much happens in any of the "Stories and Texts for Nothing". The protagonists simply react to some limited set of circumstances, look back wistfully on (marginally) better times, and forge ahead with the depressing business of day-to-day existence. Thus, for example, after some pages of inconclusive ramblings and reminiscences, "The Expelled" concludes:
Beckett moved from Ireland to France in mid-career in the late 1930s, partly to escape from the prodigious shadow of fellow Irishmen James Joyce, and partly because he fell out with his mother. He played an active part in the French Resistance during the Second World War (preferring, in his words, "France at war to Ireland at peace"), and continued to live there for the rest of his life.
Beckett wrote most of his earlier works in English and then translated them into French. His later works, from about 1948 onwards and including many of his most famous pieces (like Waiting for Godot), were written in French and only then translated into English. He claimed that he wrote in French as it made it easier for him to write "without style".
The "Stories and Texts for Nothing", which date from the late 1950s but were not published in English until 1967, are written in the usual feverish and oppressive Beckettian style, full of pathos and grotesquerie. But, oh, the language!
An example of a typically consummate sentence from the first story, "The Expelled":
"This carriage [i.e. stiff, halting, accompanied by frequent falls] is due, in my opinion, in part at least, to a certain leaning from which I have never been able to free myself completely and which left its stamp, as was only to be expected, on my impressionable years, those which govern the fabrication of character, I refer to the period which extends, as far as the eye can see, from the first totterings, behind a chair, to the third form, in which I concluded my studies."The wording, sentence structure and vocabulary in Beckett's works is frequently obscure, eccentric or elliptic, and the "Stories and Texts for Nothing" are no exception. Once again, this is not due to poor translation, but is deliberate and wilful. Another brief example from "The Expelled".
"I saw the horse as with my eyes of flesh."Say what? But, Beckett being Beckett, of course, you know full well that is exactly what he mean to say, as he meant to say it.
The thirteen shorter "Texts for Nothing" are even more
stream-of-consciousness than the three "Stories", and if anything even more
perplexing, e.g.:
"How long have I been here, what a question, I've often wondered. And often I could answer, An hour, a month, a year, a century, depending on what I meant by here, and me, and being, and there I never went looking for extravagant meanings, there I never much varied, only the here would sometimes seem to vary."Maybe this is translated from the original French, but I feel it has nevertheless a certain intrinsic Irishness about it. I'm sure I can't be the only one to find myself reading the English text with an Irish brogue.
All the unmitigated and unrelenting angst and misery does get a bit wearing after a while, though, and one story starts to blur into another. As in most Beckett stories, nothing much happens in any of the "Stories and Texts for Nothing". The protagonists simply react to some limited set of circumstances, look back wistfully on (marginally) better times, and forge ahead with the depressing business of day-to-day existence. Thus, for example, after some pages of inconclusive ramblings and reminiscences, "The Expelled" concludes:
"I don't know why I told this story. I could just as well have told another."Quite.
Paris Agreement is laudable but alarming vague in its language
The so-called Paris Agreement, the enduring achievement and payback from the recent COP21 Paris climate change conference, is indeed a significant and ground-breaking document, as 195 countries make a commitment to take urgent and concrete measures to reduce carbon emissions. But, when you read some of the main summarizing points, you realize that much of it is couched in alarmingly vague and non-specific language.
So, on the whole, the Agreement has to be seen as a triumph in environmental and international relations terms. But it also serves to illustrate just how far we still need to go, and just how carefully such accords need to tread around national egos and sensibilities in order not to break down completely. The careful, and often lamentably imprecise, language epitomizes this need.
In the absence of legally binding commitments and punitive for transgressions, the accord essentially relies on international peer pressure and domestic public opinion. And we know from the abject failure of 1997's Kyoto Accord, when countries made bold promises and then promptly ignored them, that some countries (and some domestic publics) just don't really care about those things, Canada under the Harper government being one of the most egregious examples.
On global temperature increases: “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”The inclusion of an aspirational target of 1.5°C global temperature increase over pre-industrial levels is to be welcomed (the difference between 2°C and 1.5°C might seem small, but its potential repercussions could be huge), and in large part a testament to the work of the Alliance of Small Island States, but it remains aspirational and non-binding. Even if the 2°C target can be said to be binding, it does not provide any hard targets for the greenhouse gas reductions needed to achieve such a feat. Couching targets in terms of long-term temperature change (which I admit is, after all, the ultimate goal) seems to me a rather nebulous and uncertain way of achieving measurable concrete change in the short term.
On the preservation of forests: “Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.”Also a welcome addition, prioritizing reforestation and discouraging deforestation by means of financial incentives has finally been recognized as an important plank of the overall edifice of GHG reduction. I actually don't know what the "existing framework" mandates, but I sincerely hope that it is specific and prescriptive enough to be of immediate practical use.
On subsidies for developing countries: “As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.”Again, all good and laudable, but the hard figure of $100 billion a year in contributions from developed countries to the carbon reduction efforts of developing countries was only mentioned in the preamble to the agreement, and so is not legally binding. Neither is it made clear how much each country needs to contribute in order to achieve even that aspirational target.
On transparency and trust: “In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established.”This is taken to refer to the establishment of a single system of progress evaluation for all countries, large and small, an important consideration in the building of trust between so many countries with conflicting agendas and priorities. But, once again, the language seems really very vague.
On peak emissions: “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”This seems like a classic of diplomatic cautiousness, including as it does woolly and contextualized phrases like "as soon as possible", "in accordance with best available science", "on the basis of", "in the context of", etc. What is needed is a much more specific commitment, with definitive target dates. What we are actually left with is a tacit agreement that the fossil fuel industry can continue to pump out emissions for many years to come, with little or no checks other than what individual country governments choose to impose.
On averting climate-related loss and damage: “Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage.”While officially admitting for the first time that climate change will lead to financial loss and physical damage (particularly in the more vulnerable small island states), this clause only calls on the world to "recognize the importance" of such outcomes, and not to accept liability and provide recompense.
On progress reviews: “Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.”This clause calls for reporting and evaluation of progress on emissions targets every 5 years, and represents an improvement on what some countries were calling for. It could probably not practicably be improved upon.
So, on the whole, the Agreement has to be seen as a triumph in environmental and international relations terms. But it also serves to illustrate just how far we still need to go, and just how carefully such accords need to tread around national egos and sensibilities in order not to break down completely. The careful, and often lamentably imprecise, language epitomizes this need.
In the absence of legally binding commitments and punitive for transgressions, the accord essentially relies on international peer pressure and domestic public opinion. And we know from the abject failure of 1997's Kyoto Accord, when countries made bold promises and then promptly ignored them, that some countries (and some domestic publics) just don't really care about those things, Canada under the Harper government being one of the most egregious examples.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Like it or not, Trump has changed the face of American politics
Loath as I am to contribute more Internet commentary on the "Trump phenomenon", it is undeniably a major political reality with potentially worldwide consequences. However queasy we are about it, it cannot be ignored, because it is not going away any time soon.
Out of the blue, Donald Trump has just gone a step further than any of Europe's ultra-rightists (Marine le Pen, Nigel Farage, Heinz-Christian Strache, even Geert Wilders) in calling for the complete exclusion of an entire category of people from the United States based on their religious and ethnic identity. Even for the American Republican Party, this is off the charts and beyond the bounds of civilized and acceptable politics, and the GOP is justifiably concerned about what it means for the party, the country, and indeed the world.
In pursuing this course, Trump has tapped into a political underbelly most had hoped never to see again. But tapped into he has, and his most extreme statements have seen his poll lead in the Republican nomination extended, not diminished.
And the repercussions are starting to be felt. Several of the other Republican nomination candidates, while publicly expressing their indignation and revulsion at Trump's words, have already started subtly angling their campaigns along a similar (although less extreme) line. Just by putting the concept out there, Trump has, like it or not, changed the way we discuss the issue, changed whether we discuss the issue. Many European far-right parties, already growing and size and popularity, have taken heart from all this American hand-wringing.
Whether or not you believe that Trump's proposals (and their apparent popularity) are playing into the hands of Islamic jihadists like Islamic State, and whether or not you believe that Trump himself believes in what he spouts (or just sees it as a means to his own megalomaniac personal ends), it seems clear that the politics of race, ethnicity and religion has resurfaced in the Land of the Free.
It is difficult for us smug Canadians, and even most of the decent Americans I have spoken to, to understand where Trump's support is coming from. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, but it comes overwhelmingly from what some analysts are describing as "The Disaffecteds" - white, male, poorly educated voters, not necessarily from the Republican Party's traditional right-wing base, but who feel (for whatever reason) alienated from, or abandoned by, mainstream politics. It even cuts across party lines.
The conventional wisdom is that the politics of racial identity cannot hope to win the day in modern America. The last time this was overtly tried (Barry Goldwater in 1964) resulted in a decisive defeat, and today's America has both a lot more racial minority voters (particularly Latinos) and a much higher racial tolerance in general.
That said, whether Trump triumphs in the Republican nomination race, or is forced out (to stand as an independent), it is clear that he will take a lot of votes with him. Either way, the GOP - and even the USA - may never be quite the same again.
UPDATE
An interesting test of Europe's flirtation with ultra-rightism occurred recently with the regional elections in France.
Marine Le Pen's National Front party received its largest ever popular vote, but ultimately it failed to take any of the regions, despite have led handsomely in several regions after the first vote. The voter turnout in the second and decisive vote was much higher than in the first, suggesting that the electorate perhaps panicked somewhat at the spectre of a National Front victory. In a fascinating and extreme example of strategic voting, the Socialist candidates in two regions pulled out completely and urged their supporters to back the Conservatives in order to block the National Front.
The mainstream French parties (and probably most of the country) are clearly relieved at the outcome, but are looking on this scare as a timely warning. The ultra-right movement in France is strong and vigorous, and still out for blood.
Out of the blue, Donald Trump has just gone a step further than any of Europe's ultra-rightists (Marine le Pen, Nigel Farage, Heinz-Christian Strache, even Geert Wilders) in calling for the complete exclusion of an entire category of people from the United States based on their religious and ethnic identity. Even for the American Republican Party, this is off the charts and beyond the bounds of civilized and acceptable politics, and the GOP is justifiably concerned about what it means for the party, the country, and indeed the world.
In pursuing this course, Trump has tapped into a political underbelly most had hoped never to see again. But tapped into he has, and his most extreme statements have seen his poll lead in the Republican nomination extended, not diminished.
And the repercussions are starting to be felt. Several of the other Republican nomination candidates, while publicly expressing their indignation and revulsion at Trump's words, have already started subtly angling their campaigns along a similar (although less extreme) line. Just by putting the concept out there, Trump has, like it or not, changed the way we discuss the issue, changed whether we discuss the issue. Many European far-right parties, already growing and size and popularity, have taken heart from all this American hand-wringing.
Whether or not you believe that Trump's proposals (and their apparent popularity) are playing into the hands of Islamic jihadists like Islamic State, and whether or not you believe that Trump himself believes in what he spouts (or just sees it as a means to his own megalomaniac personal ends), it seems clear that the politics of race, ethnicity and religion has resurfaced in the Land of the Free.
It is difficult for us smug Canadians, and even most of the decent Americans I have spoken to, to understand where Trump's support is coming from. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, but it comes overwhelmingly from what some analysts are describing as "The Disaffecteds" - white, male, poorly educated voters, not necessarily from the Republican Party's traditional right-wing base, but who feel (for whatever reason) alienated from, or abandoned by, mainstream politics. It even cuts across party lines.
The conventional wisdom is that the politics of racial identity cannot hope to win the day in modern America. The last time this was overtly tried (Barry Goldwater in 1964) resulted in a decisive defeat, and today's America has both a lot more racial minority voters (particularly Latinos) and a much higher racial tolerance in general.
That said, whether Trump triumphs in the Republican nomination race, or is forced out (to stand as an independent), it is clear that he will take a lot of votes with him. Either way, the GOP - and even the USA - may never be quite the same again.
UPDATE
An interesting test of Europe's flirtation with ultra-rightism occurred recently with the regional elections in France.
Marine Le Pen's National Front party received its largest ever popular vote, but ultimately it failed to take any of the regions, despite have led handsomely in several regions after the first vote. The voter turnout in the second and decisive vote was much higher than in the first, suggesting that the electorate perhaps panicked somewhat at the spectre of a National Front victory. In a fascinating and extreme example of strategic voting, the Socialist candidates in two regions pulled out completely and urged their supporters to back the Conservatives in order to block the National Front.
The mainstream French parties (and probably most of the country) are clearly relieved at the outcome, but are looking on this scare as a timely warning. The ultra-right movement in France is strong and vigorous, and still out for blood.
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
Even a fall in CO2 emissions is not unalloyed good news
A study suggesting that total global carbon dioxide emissions may stall or even fall this year, which was published recently in the journal Nature Climate Change and was presented at the COP21 climate summit in Paris, has been garnering a lot of attention. Perhaps too much, because the story behind the headline is not as positive as the headline itself.
Much as I hate to rain on a parade, the report - which initially seems like a welcome piece of good news in an area where good news is hard to come by - is not in fact unalloyed good news. If indeed 2015's greenhouse gas emissions do show a small reduction, it is probably more to do with China's economic downturn than any positive change in policies.
Yes, there has been a benefit from the faster uptake of renewables worldwide. But the most significant effect is from the reduced use of coal in China as its economy slows down. China now contributes over a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so its emissions have a disproportionately large effect on the global totals.
The point, then, is that any decrease is small and temporary. As the report makes clear, we are not seeing a peak in GHG emissions, just a blip in the curve. Emerging economies, including huge ones like India's, are mostly based on coal, and so the inexorable upward curve of emissions is expected to continue. Even with a strong agreement in Paris, overall emissions are likely to continue to increase for some time. So, words like "encouraging" and "a boost", which I have seen used in many news reports, are at best premature, and even potentially damaging if they have the effect of lulling us into a false sense of security.
It is also worth mentioning that the report only refers to carbon dioxide. Another article today has alerted me to an important elephant in the climate change room: methane. Methane is emitted during the production and transportation of coal, natural gas and oil, as well as due to livestock and other agricultural practices, and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Although relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, with about 80 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide in its first 20 years in the atmosphere (declining to roughly 30 times that of CO2 after about 100 years). The International Energy Agency ranks cutting oil- and gas-generated methane at the same level of effectiveness in the fight against climate change as increased investment in renewable energy.
One major source of methane emissions is leakage from natural gas power generation, which is increasingly being used to replace coal generation due to its (slightly) lower CO2 emissions. Worldwide, methane escapes from oil and gas operations have an estimated climate impact equal to about 40% of total global coal combustion, and Canada is the world’s fourth-largest methane emitter (after Russia, Uzbekistan and the United States). Alberta’s new climate strategy aims to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 45% by 2025, a substantial improvement in green house gas emissions that can be achieved relatively cheaply. If every gas-producing country matched those targets, it is estimated to have the same 20-year effect as closing 1,000 coal-fired power plants.
Good news is always welcome. But what we need to avoid is the conclusion that recent changes have been enough, and that we can now afford to slacken off. Au contraire. The fight is just beginning.
Much as I hate to rain on a parade, the report - which initially seems like a welcome piece of good news in an area where good news is hard to come by - is not in fact unalloyed good news. If indeed 2015's greenhouse gas emissions do show a small reduction, it is probably more to do with China's economic downturn than any positive change in policies.
Yes, there has been a benefit from the faster uptake of renewables worldwide. But the most significant effect is from the reduced use of coal in China as its economy slows down. China now contributes over a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so its emissions have a disproportionately large effect on the global totals.
The point, then, is that any decrease is small and temporary. As the report makes clear, we are not seeing a peak in GHG emissions, just a blip in the curve. Emerging economies, including huge ones like India's, are mostly based on coal, and so the inexorable upward curve of emissions is expected to continue. Even with a strong agreement in Paris, overall emissions are likely to continue to increase for some time. So, words like "encouraging" and "a boost", which I have seen used in many news reports, are at best premature, and even potentially damaging if they have the effect of lulling us into a false sense of security.
It is also worth mentioning that the report only refers to carbon dioxide. Another article today has alerted me to an important elephant in the climate change room: methane. Methane is emitted during the production and transportation of coal, natural gas and oil, as well as due to livestock and other agricultural practices, and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Although relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, with about 80 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide in its first 20 years in the atmosphere (declining to roughly 30 times that of CO2 after about 100 years). The International Energy Agency ranks cutting oil- and gas-generated methane at the same level of effectiveness in the fight against climate change as increased investment in renewable energy.
One major source of methane emissions is leakage from natural gas power generation, which is increasingly being used to replace coal generation due to its (slightly) lower CO2 emissions. Worldwide, methane escapes from oil and gas operations have an estimated climate impact equal to about 40% of total global coal combustion, and Canada is the world’s fourth-largest methane emitter (after Russia, Uzbekistan and the United States). Alberta’s new climate strategy aims to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 45% by 2025, a substantial improvement in green house gas emissions that can be achieved relatively cheaply. If every gas-producing country matched those targets, it is estimated to have the same 20-year effect as closing 1,000 coal-fired power plants.
Good news is always welcome. But what we need to avoid is the conclusion that recent changes have been enough, and that we can now afford to slacken off. Au contraire. The fight is just beginning.
Friday, December 04, 2015
Trudeau's household staff issue is a distraction and a diversion
I'm not one to easily excuse the abuse of power or the sins of the rich, but the storm-in-a-teacup over Justin Trudeau's household staff is already starting to feel pretty tired, just a day or two after it began. Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt and other Conservatives are desperately trying to make a self-serving mountain out of what hardly qualifies as a molehill.
Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, have hired two nannies to help look after their three young children, and the Tories are replete with righteous indignation that a rich man like Trudeau should be charging their costs as part of his household expenses, rather than bearing them himself.
Yawn! OK, maybe the optics are not great and the public relations could have been better handled, but compared to the Prime Minster's $325,000 salary, and the legally-mandated household budget that goes with the job (which is almost certainly also huge), this is no great shakes. The two cabinet-authorized "special assistants" will have other responsibilities around the house in addition to child-care duties, and their appointment in the ongoing household staff shuffle is not expected to increase the total number of staff from the six members traditionally employed. Unlike ex-PM Stephen Harper's, the current household happens to include small children, that's just how it is.
And, in case it has escaped the notice of his detractors, Mr. Trudeau has been a little busy during his first few weeks in power, dealing with other minor issues like climate change, a major refugee crisis, world-changing trade agreements, taxation amendments, that kind of thing.
If this is all the Conservatives can find to carp about after Trudeau's extremely demanding first few weeks as Prime Minister, filled with several top level international meetings and tough decisions both at home and abroad, then I think he might consider himself well pleased.
As for the nannies? Just get over it. They are a distraction and a diversion, and there are more important things to discuss. And don't deliberately try to hobble him as he makes a concerted effort to get the country back on its feet after so many years of neglect.
Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, have hired two nannies to help look after their three young children, and the Tories are replete with righteous indignation that a rich man like Trudeau should be charging their costs as part of his household expenses, rather than bearing them himself.
Yawn! OK, maybe the optics are not great and the public relations could have been better handled, but compared to the Prime Minster's $325,000 salary, and the legally-mandated household budget that goes with the job (which is almost certainly also huge), this is no great shakes. The two cabinet-authorized "special assistants" will have other responsibilities around the house in addition to child-care duties, and their appointment in the ongoing household staff shuffle is not expected to increase the total number of staff from the six members traditionally employed. Unlike ex-PM Stephen Harper's, the current household happens to include small children, that's just how it is.
And, in case it has escaped the notice of his detractors, Mr. Trudeau has been a little busy during his first few weeks in power, dealing with other minor issues like climate change, a major refugee crisis, world-changing trade agreements, taxation amendments, that kind of thing.
If this is all the Conservatives can find to carp about after Trudeau's extremely demanding first few weeks as Prime Minister, filled with several top level international meetings and tough decisions both at home and abroad, then I think he might consider himself well pleased.
As for the nannies? Just get over it. They are a distraction and a diversion, and there are more important things to discuss. And don't deliberately try to hobble him as he makes a concerted effort to get the country back on its feet after so many years of neglect.
A Santa-less Santa Claus Parade
Although so many dispatches from small-town America tend to involve bewildering examples of redneck insensitivity, a report on excessive political correctness in the American Mid-West on CBC Radio 1's satirical This Is That program (whose by-line is "Canada: North America's Third Largest Country") cheered up my day no end.
It involves an interview with a councillor from Dunlop, Wisconsin ("the inclusive jewel of the Mid-West"), which has just announced that its historic Santa Claus Parade this year will exclude the politically incorrect, offensive and divisive figure of ... Santa.
As the councillor explains, with admirable seriousness: "The idea of Santa may offend some people, so we felt it best to have a Santa-less parade this year ... this is an event that ultimately should offend nobody." The traditional portrayal of Santa as an older man can be seen as both sexist and ageist ("we have received letters"), and Dunlop is looking to replace the old guy with a different character carrying less political baggage. Consideration is being given to a large, sexless, ageless snowflake, or perhaps "a large circular shape with eyes and a mouth and arms and legs".
It will, however, still be called the Santa Claus Parade ("It would be too confusing to call it something else.") The good councillor stresses at the end of the interview that, "It's still the Santa Claus Parade, with just the subtle change that the actual Santa Claus will not be in it, so please don't get confused by that."
As with some other This Is That items (like the one on the horseless RCMP Musical Ride from earlier this year, for example), it is a mite difficult to tell whether the interviewers and interviewees are being completely serious or whether their tongue is held firmly in cheek (it is in fact, completely fictional/satirical, although you'd be hard-pressed to know it). Either way, the interview is a hoot and I strongly suggest that you check out the audio online.
It involves an interview with a councillor from Dunlop, Wisconsin ("the inclusive jewel of the Mid-West"), which has just announced that its historic Santa Claus Parade this year will exclude the politically incorrect, offensive and divisive figure of ... Santa.
As the councillor explains, with admirable seriousness: "The idea of Santa may offend some people, so we felt it best to have a Santa-less parade this year ... this is an event that ultimately should offend nobody." The traditional portrayal of Santa as an older man can be seen as both sexist and ageist ("we have received letters"), and Dunlop is looking to replace the old guy with a different character carrying less political baggage. Consideration is being given to a large, sexless, ageless snowflake, or perhaps "a large circular shape with eyes and a mouth and arms and legs".
It will, however, still be called the Santa Claus Parade ("It would be too confusing to call it something else.") The good councillor stresses at the end of the interview that, "It's still the Santa Claus Parade, with just the subtle change that the actual Santa Claus will not be in it, so please don't get confused by that."
As with some other This Is That items (like the one on the horseless RCMP Musical Ride from earlier this year, for example), it is a mite difficult to tell whether the interviewers and interviewees are being completely serious or whether their tongue is held firmly in cheek (it is in fact, completely fictional/satirical, although you'd be hard-pressed to know it). Either way, the interview is a hoot and I strongly suggest that you check out the audio online.
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
The world's most popular tourist destinations
A graphic in today's Globe and Mail illustrates some interesting and unexpected facts about the world's most visited destinations.
As in previous years, France was the single most popular tourist destination in 2014, followed by the USA and then Spain. Perhaps no big surprises thus far. But then comes Chile, and that was a surprise to me. As was Russia at No. 9, and Malaysia at No. 12. Saudi Arabia makes No. 16, presumably by merit of the annual haj.
Canada is currently languishing in 17th position, down from 8th place back in 2000 (although it has apparently rebounded some in 2015, thanks to the low Canadian dollar). The main reason for Canada's slide is a fall in American visitors - America remains by far the most important source of tourists to Canada, followed by Britain and then China, although China seems poised to take over second position.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of all: Canada only very narrowly beats out Poland and Macau. Now, I know that Macau is a popular casino destination for the gambling-mad Chinese (as well as - fun fact - the most densely populated region in the world, and one of the richest). But Poland? Really?
Anyway, for the record, the top 20 tourist destinations are as follows:
As in previous years, France was the single most popular tourist destination in 2014, followed by the USA and then Spain. Perhaps no big surprises thus far. But then comes Chile, and that was a surprise to me. As was Russia at No. 9, and Malaysia at No. 12. Saudi Arabia makes No. 16, presumably by merit of the annual haj.
Canada is currently languishing in 17th position, down from 8th place back in 2000 (although it has apparently rebounded some in 2015, thanks to the low Canadian dollar). The main reason for Canada's slide is a fall in American visitors - America remains by far the most important source of tourists to Canada, followed by Britain and then China, although China seems poised to take over second position.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of all: Canada only very narrowly beats out Poland and Macau. Now, I know that Macau is a popular casino destination for the gambling-mad Chinese (as well as - fun fact - the most densely populated region in the world, and one of the richest). But Poland? Really?
Anyway, for the record, the top 20 tourist destinations are as follows:
- France
- USA
- Spain
- Chile
- Italy
- Turkey
- Germany
- Britain
- Russia
- Mexico
- Hong Kong
- Malaysia
- Austria
- Thailand
- Greece
- Saudi
- Canada
- Poland
- Macau
- Korea
Zuckerberg to give away $45 billion
Hot on the heels of the news of a Saudi prince's vow to give $32 billion to charity (see a previous post of mine), come the news that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is to give away 99% of his fortune to charity, in honour of his new daughter, Max (short for, yes, Maxima).
The donation will amount to about $45 billion, based on today's prices, and it will be channelled though the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, over the course of Zuckerberg's and his wife Priscilla Chan's lives. His immediate plan is to sell or gift no more than $1bn of Facebook stock each year for the next three years, and he has indicated that intends to retain his majority voting position in the company, at least for the foreseeable future.
The intention of this outrageously huge donation is supposedly to make the world a better place for Max to grow up in. The remit of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is described as "to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation". This encompasses the rather vague goals of personalised learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities. One major plank of it "will come from giving everyone access to the internet". Ah, right...
Critics, and there are always critics, argue that, for the sake of his karma, Zuckerberg needs to do something to atone for the damage to "human potential" and "equality" already perpetrated by his huge and pervasive Facebook organization - the gathering and selling of untold amounts of data, insufficient harassment and reporting policies that allow for online abuse, the employment of just 50 black people out of a staff of 10,000 (68% of whom are male), the gentrification of Silicon Valley which puts accommodation out of the reach of locals, etc, etc. Some say that this is just another example of the "white savior industrial complex".
Sour grapes, maybe, but an element of truth nonetheless. Although much of what Mr. Zuckerberg does is self-serving, and this latest gesture may be also to some extent, it is really difficult to carp at such magnanimity. Also, if it encourages/pressurizes other one-percenters to get in touch with their philanthropic side, then this cannot be a bad thing.
And, in case you were concerned, even giving away 99% of his holdings will still leave Zuckerberg with hundreds of millions of dollars for his day-to-day expenses.
The donation will amount to about $45 billion, based on today's prices, and it will be channelled though the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, over the course of Zuckerberg's and his wife Priscilla Chan's lives. His immediate plan is to sell or gift no more than $1bn of Facebook stock each year for the next three years, and he has indicated that intends to retain his majority voting position in the company, at least for the foreseeable future.
The intention of this outrageously huge donation is supposedly to make the world a better place for Max to grow up in. The remit of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is described as "to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation". This encompasses the rather vague goals of personalised learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities. One major plank of it "will come from giving everyone access to the internet". Ah, right...
Critics, and there are always critics, argue that, for the sake of his karma, Zuckerberg needs to do something to atone for the damage to "human potential" and "equality" already perpetrated by his huge and pervasive Facebook organization - the gathering and selling of untold amounts of data, insufficient harassment and reporting policies that allow for online abuse, the employment of just 50 black people out of a staff of 10,000 (68% of whom are male), the gentrification of Silicon Valley which puts accommodation out of the reach of locals, etc, etc. Some say that this is just another example of the "white savior industrial complex".
Sour grapes, maybe, but an element of truth nonetheless. Although much of what Mr. Zuckerberg does is self-serving, and this latest gesture may be also to some extent, it is really difficult to carp at such magnanimity. Also, if it encourages/pressurizes other one-percenters to get in touch with their philanthropic side, then this cannot be a bad thing.
And, in case you were concerned, even giving away 99% of his holdings will still leave Zuckerberg with hundreds of millions of dollars for his day-to-day expenses.
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
The World in 2016
The Economist's annual look at the year ahead hit our mailbox this week. It always makes interesting reading. Here is a small selection of the issues it touches on:
- A dramatic graph shows how, in recent years, real global GDP growth is increasingly being driven, not by developing countries as in recent years, but by the developed world. From 2010 to 2013, emerging markets, particularly the BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, have generated a much larger, and increasing proportion of the world's GDP growth. Since 2014, however, the trend has dramatically reversed, largely as a result of economic problems in China, Brazil and Russia, and this looks set to continue into 2016.
- Britain is due to hold a referendum on whether it should remain in the European Union some time before the end of 2017 and, for various reasons, this is most likely to happen sometime in 2016. David Cameron's pro-Europeans are still expected to sneak a slim win, and he has inertia on his side. But, with the British economy out-performing that of most of the rest of Europe, and concern about immigration from the Middle East at fever pitch, a Brexit result is a distinct possibility. This is regardless of the negative economic consequences that would almost certainly ensue, and the strong likelihood that Scotland would then finally secede from the Union. If Britain does exit, it will surely never be allowed to rejoin.
- A United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drug policy will convene in 2016, for the first time since 1998. Back in 1998, there was an almost unanimous agreement on the need for severe regulation and the complete eradication of the drug trade. In 2016, the situation is much more complex. The 1998 policies are acknowledged as a failure (cannabis and cocaine consumption are 50% up, opiate use has nearly trebled, and new synthetic drugs are everywhere), and the trend is towards legalization and decriminalization (Portugal has decriminalized all drugs; Uruguay and four American states have legalized marijuana, with more states and Canada expected to follow soon; the Netherlands continues to turn a deliberate blind eye to pretty much everything; and many other countries are looking for alternatives to prohibition).
- 2016 is also Olympics year, with Rio de Janeiro hosting. Olympic preparations there have been plagued with problems and scandals, but the odds are that facilities will be up and running (just) in time. The predicted medal count favours the usual suspects (USA, China and Russia, in that order), but what might be more interesting is how Brazil's embattled president Dilma Rousseff emerges from the experience, whether there are major political demonstrations or riots, how Russia's recent bad-boy attitude plays out in the sporting arena, and whether the current drug and doping culture in sports rears its ugly head (an estimated one-in-seven track athletes showed results "highly suggestive of doping" during tests in August 2015). Rio may turn out to be a litmus test of the world's attitudes towards the current Olympics paradigm.
- And, lest we forget, November 2016 will see the US election. To outsiders, it already seems to have been going on forever, as we watch, open-mouthed in disbelief and disgust, the unedifying spectacle of the Republican leadership contest. Assuming that Republicans finally come to their real-world senses, they will probably end up with an unexciting and unobjectionable candidate like Marco Rubio; barring major upsets, the Democratic candidate will almost certainly be the unloved but safe Hilary Clinton. Who actually wins the actual election will probably be more about how the American economy with world events in the meantime: if global forces derail America's economic recovery in 2016, the incumbent Democrats will probably lose; if not, they may still sneak in, despite the historical odds against a third consecutive term of power. In that case, Mrs Clinton will almost certainly be hampered by a Republican House of Representatives, and probably the Senate too.
- One interesting graph illustrates the strong positive correlation between the income inequality of a country and its index of health and social problems. The USA is way out ahead of the pack in both these metrics, followed (perhaps unexpectedly) by Portugal and then Britain, while at the other end of the scale are equality-conscious Scandinavian countries and (unexpectedly for me) Japan, with Canada appearing in the middle of the pack. One mind-boggling statistic mentioned is that the average CEO of an American company made 42 times as much as its average employee in 1980; in 2015, that ratio was 373 to 1. In 2016, of course, it will be even worse.
- It's always interesting to see how other parts of the world see Canada and its role in world affairs. Here on the ground, it feels like almost everything has changed since October's election ended years of Conservative retrenchment and inaction, so I was surprised to see The Economist's assessment that Canada will merely look and sound different, hiding an underlying business-as-usual reality. However, the article then goes on to list the many ways in which the country will in fact change (increased openness; investment in infrastructure, clean-tech and greenhouse gas mitigation; improved relations with the provinces; more emphasis on Canada's traditional international roles of humanitarian aid and peacekeeping; a liberalizing of abortion practices and cannabis use; etc, etc). Business as usual? Hardly.
- 2016 seems likely to see an increase in the economic and political rivalry between the world's top two superpowers, the USA and China, particularly in and around Asia itself. Among issues that may come to a head next year are: China's creation of artificial islands in disputed waters in the South China Sea; the establishment of both Chinese and American military bases in the region; Chinese opposition to American bilateral agreements with several countries in Asia, and especially its support of Taiwan (which also sees an election early in the New Year); the potential trade effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which excludes China), and the China-dominated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
- Economic growth in China is expected to be "only" about 7% in 2016, down from the heady days of double-digit expansion. But what is interesting is that much of that growth will come courtesy of a bunch of second-tier cities that I, for one, have never even heard of. China's top ten emerging cities are: Guiyang, Xiangyang, Hengyang, Chongqing, Suqian, Huainan, Huaibei, Zhuzhou, Zhengzhou and Chengdu. Other unknown cities, such as Urumqi and the aptly-named Wuhu are likely to enjoy the fastest income growth and fastest growth in consumer spending.
- One of the important developments in science and medicine which will come to the fore in 2016 is the use of organoids, simulacra of brains, livers, kidneys, intestines and many other body parts, ethically grown from stem cells of a patient, so that they have the genetic characteristics of that individual. Thus, drugs and other treatments can be tested, non-invasively, to see how the individual's actual body would react.
- And, finally, a few milestones that will be achieved during 2016, according to extrapolations of various charts and graphs: the share of wealth of the world's richest 1% will exceed that of the remaining 99%; the amount of global crowd-funding investment will exceed that committed by investors to venture-capital funds; annual Internet traffic will enter into zettabyte territory (a trillion gigabytes), largely on the back of the demand for online video content; speaking of which, Netflix is expected to have a larger ratings audience than ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox; and over half of the children born in Britain will be born "out of wedlock" (the equivalent statistic 40 years ago was 10%).
Monday, November 30, 2015
Six graphics that explain climate change
With the Paris COP21 climate conference underway, the ever-reliable BBC has produced a webpage containing "six graphics that explain climate change".
The first one in particular is a great animated graphic that shows the monthly temperatures each year since 1880 gradually superimposing over each other. You can watch, over a period of about 30 seconds, as the temperature graphs stack up, with the older ones at the (colder) bottom of the graph, only reaching the 20th Century average mark by about the 1940s. As the 20th Century progresses, all the temperature lines are above the average mark, increasingly so, until in the 21st Century all the lines are right at the (hotter) top of the graph. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years were recorded in the 21st Century (i.e. the last 15 years), with 2015 on course to set another all-time record. It's a very graphic graphic.
Other graphics on the page show: the steady increase in global carbon dioxide concentration since 1960; the steady decrease in Arctic sea ice since 1980; the projected temperature change throughout the world by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions peak between 2010-2020 and then decline substantially, compared to if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st Century; the greenhouse contributions of the world’s top ten greenhouse gas emitters (China, USA, EU, India, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Canada, DR Congo and Indonesia); and, finally, the average global warming by the end of the century if we do nothing, if we follow current policies, and if countries follow through on their Paris pledges.
The last of these shows that, even if all countries that have made specific pledges for the Paris conference act on these pledges, there will be a rise of 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The generally accepted rule-of-thumb is that a 2°C global temperature increase will lead to substantial and dangerous climate impacts, hitting the world's poor in particular. So, we (all) need to act on these pledges, and then we need to tighten the screw still further down the road.
And, just for good measure, here is a link to the BBC's ultra-simplified 1-minute video on why 2 degrees actually matters.
The first one in particular is a great animated graphic that shows the monthly temperatures each year since 1880 gradually superimposing over each other. You can watch, over a period of about 30 seconds, as the temperature graphs stack up, with the older ones at the (colder) bottom of the graph, only reaching the 20th Century average mark by about the 1940s. As the 20th Century progresses, all the temperature lines are above the average mark, increasingly so, until in the 21st Century all the lines are right at the (hotter) top of the graph. Thirteen of the 14 warmest years were recorded in the 21st Century (i.e. the last 15 years), with 2015 on course to set another all-time record. It's a very graphic graphic.
Other graphics on the page show: the steady increase in global carbon dioxide concentration since 1960; the steady decrease in Arctic sea ice since 1980; the projected temperature change throughout the world by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions peak between 2010-2020 and then decline substantially, compared to if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st Century; the greenhouse contributions of the world’s top ten greenhouse gas emitters (China, USA, EU, India, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Canada, DR Congo and Indonesia); and, finally, the average global warming by the end of the century if we do nothing, if we follow current policies, and if countries follow through on their Paris pledges.
The last of these shows that, even if all countries that have made specific pledges for the Paris conference act on these pledges, there will be a rise of 2.7°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. The generally accepted rule-of-thumb is that a 2°C global temperature increase will lead to substantial and dangerous climate impacts, hitting the world's poor in particular. So, we (all) need to act on these pledges, and then we need to tighten the screw still further down the road.
And, just for good measure, here is a link to the BBC's ultra-simplified 1-minute video on why 2 degrees actually matters.
How the future changes over time
Reading Mary Shelley's "The Last Man", what jumps out at me is the sheer ordinariness and unremarkableness of the early 19th Century conception of what the future might hold. The book was written in 1826, but its story begins in 2074, some two-hundred-and-fifty years into the future, and continues until 2100. Interestingly, though, Shelley's vision of the day-to-day world in 2074 looks like nothing so much as ... the world in 1826. Granted, then, an apocalyptic plague drastically changes the face of the world, but there is no sign of any grand, technological utopia (or dystopia) here. Even the geopolitical divisions and mechanisms of Europe seem to have weathered the two-and-a-half centuries with many a change. Plus ça change?
Sometimes called the first science fiction novel - and you can debate that one until the cows come home! - "The Last Man" was written eight years after "Frankenstein", but still some 60 or 70 years before the ground-breaking science fiction of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. Quite honestly, there is little or no actual science in the novel, so perhaps speculative fiction or apocalyptic fiction would be a better label.
It seems to me that part of the point of science fiction (or speculative fiction, for that matter) is to imagine a world and a time that is very different from the world or time of the author's contemporary audience. But it is, by definition, impossible to imagine the unimaginable. An author's imagination appears to be circumscribed by their own, experience, knowledge and scientific understanding. Thus, the worlds envisioned by Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury in the early 1950s would have been literally inconceivable to Mary Shelley (or even H.G. Wells). By the same token, Isaac Asimov would probably have been unable to conceive of the kind of technical detail in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books, or the Culture universe of Ian M. Banks. Like it or not, we are, at least to some extent, a product of our times.
in 1826, big changes in science and technology were most definitely already afoot, and the well-educated Shelley was almost certainly aware of most of the developments. The Industrial Revolution was gathering steam (literally), Newtonian physics was well established, the first vaccines had been introduced, and the very early basis for modern chemistry, biology and geology were all in place. But, even so, the pace of innovation was positively glacial compared to what was to come.
When I think of what has come to pass in the fifty-odd years of my own lifetime - from near-Earth satellites to a man on the moon to probes approaching the edge of the Solar System and multi-spectrum photos from the edge of the observable universe; personal computers to the Internet to smartphones to virtual reality; genetically-modified crops to clones to whole genome sequencing and CRISPR gene editing; nuclear power to solar panels to hybrid cars; robotic assembly lines to 3-D printing to synthetic meat; the list could go on and on - and the speed of continuing development, envisioning two-hundred-and-fifty-years into the future seems all but impossible (or futile).
What we can be really sure of, though, is that the world in 2265 will look nothing like today's world.
Sometimes called the first science fiction novel - and you can debate that one until the cows come home! - "The Last Man" was written eight years after "Frankenstein", but still some 60 or 70 years before the ground-breaking science fiction of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne. Quite honestly, there is little or no actual science in the novel, so perhaps speculative fiction or apocalyptic fiction would be a better label.
It seems to me that part of the point of science fiction (or speculative fiction, for that matter) is to imagine a world and a time that is very different from the world or time of the author's contemporary audience. But it is, by definition, impossible to imagine the unimaginable. An author's imagination appears to be circumscribed by their own, experience, knowledge and scientific understanding. Thus, the worlds envisioned by Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury in the early 1950s would have been literally inconceivable to Mary Shelley (or even H.G. Wells). By the same token, Isaac Asimov would probably have been unable to conceive of the kind of technical detail in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books, or the Culture universe of Ian M. Banks. Like it or not, we are, at least to some extent, a product of our times.
in 1826, big changes in science and technology were most definitely already afoot, and the well-educated Shelley was almost certainly aware of most of the developments. The Industrial Revolution was gathering steam (literally), Newtonian physics was well established, the first vaccines had been introduced, and the very early basis for modern chemistry, biology and geology were all in place. But, even so, the pace of innovation was positively glacial compared to what was to come.
When I think of what has come to pass in the fifty-odd years of my own lifetime - from near-Earth satellites to a man on the moon to probes approaching the edge of the Solar System and multi-spectrum photos from the edge of the observable universe; personal computers to the Internet to smartphones to virtual reality; genetically-modified crops to clones to whole genome sequencing and CRISPR gene editing; nuclear power to solar panels to hybrid cars; robotic assembly lines to 3-D printing to synthetic meat; the list could go on and on - and the speed of continuing development, envisioning two-hundred-and-fifty-years into the future seems all but impossible (or futile).
What we can be really sure of, though, is that the world in 2265 will look nothing like today's world.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Black Friday as cultural imperalism
So, today, it seems, is Black Friday. As a Canadian, to say that I am nonplussed would be an understatement of the highest degree.
In the USA, the day after Thanksgiving is a day marked by mass hysteria and commercialization on an unprecedented scale. It is by far the biggest single shopping day in the US, a de facto national holiday, and (in an egregious example of "Christmas creep") it is considered the beginning of what is now known as the "Christmas shopping season". It is capitalism gone bonkers. Many people forego their Thanksgiving holiday to camp out for a chance at snagging the best bargains. Apparently, it regularly results in injuries, and has directly caused 7 reported shopping deaths since 2006. In case people have not had enough shopping by the weekend, it has recently spawned the demon-child, Cyber Monday (and now Giving Tuesday).
Most Canadians (and probably even most Americans) have no idea what Black Friday even means, except that they are supposed to go out and shop. I had to look it up myself: it's origins are murky, but it either originated in the 1960s to describe the heavy and disruptive traffic in Philadelphia after the Thanksgiving holiday, or it marks the (mythical and spurious) point in the year at which retailers transition from operating in the red to the black, i.e. begin to turn a profit. Good reason for a national holiday, eh? And what a good choice of names!
Canadian Thanksgiving is at the beginning of October, and the end of November has no significance whatsoever to us. But, since the days of Canada-US dollar parity back in 2008-2009, the Black Friday phenomenon has made increasing inroads into Canadian trade and commerce. Apparently, it is now also a "thing" in the UK, Mexico and several other countries. This year, it is enjoying blanket coverage in Canada, from full-page ads in national newspapers to hand-written signs on mom-and-pop stores. It follows the judicious and discerning commercial logic that says, "if they are doing it, we should probably be doing it too", and it is snowballing out of control.
Enough, I say! Let us say a resounding "no" to this cultural imperialism! If we really need a dedicated shopping day, let's choose, I don't know, Boxing Day. Oh, wait, we already have Boxing Day, or rather Boxing Week (and probably, coming soon, Boxing Month). Is there no end to this madness?
In the USA, the day after Thanksgiving is a day marked by mass hysteria and commercialization on an unprecedented scale. It is by far the biggest single shopping day in the US, a de facto national holiday, and (in an egregious example of "Christmas creep") it is considered the beginning of what is now known as the "Christmas shopping season". It is capitalism gone bonkers. Many people forego their Thanksgiving holiday to camp out for a chance at snagging the best bargains. Apparently, it regularly results in injuries, and has directly caused 7 reported shopping deaths since 2006. In case people have not had enough shopping by the weekend, it has recently spawned the demon-child, Cyber Monday (and now Giving Tuesday).
Most Canadians (and probably even most Americans) have no idea what Black Friday even means, except that they are supposed to go out and shop. I had to look it up myself: it's origins are murky, but it either originated in the 1960s to describe the heavy and disruptive traffic in Philadelphia after the Thanksgiving holiday, or it marks the (mythical and spurious) point in the year at which retailers transition from operating in the red to the black, i.e. begin to turn a profit. Good reason for a national holiday, eh? And what a good choice of names!
Canadian Thanksgiving is at the beginning of October, and the end of November has no significance whatsoever to us. But, since the days of Canada-US dollar parity back in 2008-2009, the Black Friday phenomenon has made increasing inroads into Canadian trade and commerce. Apparently, it is now also a "thing" in the UK, Mexico and several other countries. This year, it is enjoying blanket coverage in Canada, from full-page ads in national newspapers to hand-written signs on mom-and-pop stores. It follows the judicious and discerning commercial logic that says, "if they are doing it, we should probably be doing it too", and it is snowballing out of control.
Enough, I say! Let us say a resounding "no" to this cultural imperialism! If we really need a dedicated shopping day, let's choose, I don't know, Boxing Day. Oh, wait, we already have Boxing Day, or rather Boxing Week (and probably, coming soon, Boxing Month). Is there no end to this madness?
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Yes, Virginia, Facebook does indeed lead to depression
Why am I not surprised that recent studies have shown that regular use of Facebook can lead to depressive symptoms?
A pair of University of Houston studies was reported in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology earlier this year under the title "Seeing Everyone Else's Highlight Reels: How Facebook Usage is Linked to Depressive Symptoms". The studies look at what social psychologists call "social comparison", a common phenomenon which is made even more acute by the fact that, on social media, people tend to over-report the good or exciting parts of their lives, what the author calls their "highlight reels". These particular studies focused on Facebook users, but the same almost certainly applies to other social media outlets like Twitter, Instagram, etc.
So, when we read about people jetting off to exotic locations while we are stuck at home, or when we see that friends are in stable relationships when we are not, or when we look at people's smug #AfterSexSelfie when we can't even get to first base, then our own lives appear by comparison to be so much worse or more boring, leading to feelings of depression and compound any existing feelings of loneliness and isolation. This effect is probably experienced to some extent by most people - unless we happen to be the guy in a stable relationship jetting off to Corfu and posting cute post-coital photos - but obviously some people are more prone than others to full-blown depression.
All of which makes me much more sanguine about not using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat or any other variant of social media. I may be less "social", but at least I am less depressed.
A pair of University of Houston studies was reported in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology earlier this year under the title "Seeing Everyone Else's Highlight Reels: How Facebook Usage is Linked to Depressive Symptoms". The studies look at what social psychologists call "social comparison", a common phenomenon which is made even more acute by the fact that, on social media, people tend to over-report the good or exciting parts of their lives, what the author calls their "highlight reels". These particular studies focused on Facebook users, but the same almost certainly applies to other social media outlets like Twitter, Instagram, etc.
So, when we read about people jetting off to exotic locations while we are stuck at home, or when we see that friends are in stable relationships when we are not, or when we look at people's smug #AfterSexSelfie when we can't even get to first base, then our own lives appear by comparison to be so much worse or more boring, leading to feelings of depression and compound any existing feelings of loneliness and isolation. This effect is probably experienced to some extent by most people - unless we happen to be the guy in a stable relationship jetting off to Corfu and posting cute post-coital photos - but obviously some people are more prone than others to full-blown depression.
All of which makes me much more sanguine about not using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, SnapChat or any other variant of social media. I may be less "social", but at least I am less depressed.
In Alberta, oil industry, left-wing government and environmental groups all on same page
An unlikely alliance appears to be developing between the relatively new Alberta NDP government and Alberta's commercial oil sands developers. Such a coming together of minds and opinions would have been unthinkable just a year ago, but in the new Zeitgeist of low oil prices and increased concern over global warming, it is perhaps not as unlikely as it first appears.
Rachel Notley's left-leaning NDP government was elected in May of this year, against all expectations and putting an end to an 80-year run of centre-right governments in Alberta, on a platform which included taking strong and effective action on climate change.
Alberta remains the "dirty man" of Canada, with its huge dependence on carbon-intensive oil sands development and more coal-fired electricity generation than the rest of the country out together. But the Alberta government has taken action recently to turn that around with the announcement of their new provincial climate action plan in the run-up to the Paris climate forum this December.
The plan includes a province-wide carbon tax, starting at $20/tonne in 2017, and increasing to $30/tonne in 2018 (which is also where British Columbia's very successful carbon tax is pitched). Sticklers may complain that it is not a completely revenue-neutral carbon tax like BC's, but the estimated $3 billion a year in carbon tax revenue will be ploughed back into green technologies and infrastructure, and also into compensation for the lowest earning 60% of households. So, it is not revenue-neutral for individuals, but it is revenue-neutral for the province as a whole.
In addition, the plan calls for a hard cap on oil sands carbon emissions, a phase-out of coal-fired power over the next 15 years (with two-thirds being replaced by renewables, primarily wind power), a 10-year goal to nearly halve methane emissions, and incentives for renewable energy development (which is to represent 30% of Alberta's power by 2030). All in all, a pretty comprehensive and ambitious policy.
But the expected howls of outrage and indignation from Alberta's oil industry did not arrive. Indeed, its reaction has been positively supportive and celebratory. Why? The strategy will cost Albertan businesses and residents billions, but there has been a grudging recognition that the perceptions (especially south of the border), even if not the reality, of the oil sands operations have been actively harming the oil industry's ability to do business. Premier Notley specifically referred to US President Obama's recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline over the environmental impact of oil sands development as "a wake-up call" (as well as "a kick in the teeth").
The leaders of some of Canada's biggest carbon dioxide emitters emitters lined up to express their support and to bolster their greem credentials. CNTL chairman Murray Edwards commented, "On behalf of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, my colleagues at Suncor, Cenovus and Shell, we applaud Premier Notley for giving us [sic], to provide the position of leadership on climate policy". Suncor CEO Steve Williams offered: "This plan will make one of the world's largest oil-producing regions a leader in addressing the climate change challenge". Shell Canada's president Lorraine Michelmore called the climate plan "a turning point" and "the end of a chapter for Alberta, and for Canada, where the economy and the environment were at odds". Kinder Morgan Canada's president Ian Anderson issued a statement saying: "The collaboration of industry, the government of Alberta and environmental groups helps pave a path forward and provides important clarity to policy and direction for the entire industry".
Wow! The Cool-Aid has definitely changed colour.
Rachel Notley's left-leaning NDP government was elected in May of this year, against all expectations and putting an end to an 80-year run of centre-right governments in Alberta, on a platform which included taking strong and effective action on climate change.
Alberta remains the "dirty man" of Canada, with its huge dependence on carbon-intensive oil sands development and more coal-fired electricity generation than the rest of the country out together. But the Alberta government has taken action recently to turn that around with the announcement of their new provincial climate action plan in the run-up to the Paris climate forum this December.
The plan includes a province-wide carbon tax, starting at $20/tonne in 2017, and increasing to $30/tonne in 2018 (which is also where British Columbia's very successful carbon tax is pitched). Sticklers may complain that it is not a completely revenue-neutral carbon tax like BC's, but the estimated $3 billion a year in carbon tax revenue will be ploughed back into green technologies and infrastructure, and also into compensation for the lowest earning 60% of households. So, it is not revenue-neutral for individuals, but it is revenue-neutral for the province as a whole.
In addition, the plan calls for a hard cap on oil sands carbon emissions, a phase-out of coal-fired power over the next 15 years (with two-thirds being replaced by renewables, primarily wind power), a 10-year goal to nearly halve methane emissions, and incentives for renewable energy development (which is to represent 30% of Alberta's power by 2030). All in all, a pretty comprehensive and ambitious policy.
But the expected howls of outrage and indignation from Alberta's oil industry did not arrive. Indeed, its reaction has been positively supportive and celebratory. Why? The strategy will cost Albertan businesses and residents billions, but there has been a grudging recognition that the perceptions (especially south of the border), even if not the reality, of the oil sands operations have been actively harming the oil industry's ability to do business. Premier Notley specifically referred to US President Obama's recent cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline over the environmental impact of oil sands development as "a wake-up call" (as well as "a kick in the teeth").
The leaders of some of Canada's biggest carbon dioxide emitters emitters lined up to express their support and to bolster their greem credentials. CNTL chairman Murray Edwards commented, "On behalf of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, my colleagues at Suncor, Cenovus and Shell, we applaud Premier Notley for giving us [sic], to provide the position of leadership on climate policy". Suncor CEO Steve Williams offered: "This plan will make one of the world's largest oil-producing regions a leader in addressing the climate change challenge". Shell Canada's president Lorraine Michelmore called the climate plan "a turning point" and "the end of a chapter for Alberta, and for Canada, where the economy and the environment were at odds". Kinder Morgan Canada's president Ian Anderson issued a statement saying: "The collaboration of industry, the government of Alberta and environmental groups helps pave a path forward and provides important clarity to policy and direction for the entire industry".
Wow! The Cool-Aid has definitely changed colour.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Atheism in the Arab World
An interesting article in the venerable New Republic magazine, which I missed when it first came out earlier this year, looks at the extent of, and the reasons for, the rise in atheism in the Arab World.
It begins, a little tongue in cheek, with "official" numbers of atheists in various Arab countries, according to Cairo-based Dar Al Ifta, which identifies, with exemplary accuracy, 866 in Egypt, 325 in Morocco, 320 in Tunisia, 242 in Iraq, 178 in Saudi Arabia, 170 in Jordan, 70 in Sudan, 56 in Syria, 34 in Libya, and 32 in Yemen (a total of precisely 2,293 nonbelievers in a population of about 300 million). These may or may not be based on members of various Facebook atheist groups, and obviously should not be taken too seriously.
The Western stereotype of Arabs and the Muslim world makes it difficult to even conceive of an atheist Arab. While not everyone assumes that all Muslims are terrorists - yes, there are those that do - the common assumption is that Arabs are just sheep-like followers of the official line.
But, interestingly, a 2012 WIN/Gallup International poll found that Saudi Arabia, one of the most hard-line religious countries in the region, harboured well over a million people (5% of the population) who self-identify as "convinced atheists", and almost six million (19%) who self-identify as "not a religious person". In the Arab word as a whole, those who express some measure of religious doubt is estimated at 22%, which is actually higher than in South Asia (17%) and Latin America (16%). In some less theocratic Arabic countries like Lebanon, this reaches 37%.
Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia is a strictly theocratic country which, along with the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Yemen and others, upholds the sharia rule punishing apostasy of any kind with death, and regularly dispenses public floggings for the slightest misdemeanour. Saudi Arabia goes as far as characterizing atheism, and questioning the Islamic faith, as terrorist acts. In Bangladesh and elsewhere, there has been a spate of murders of high-profile atheists in recent months. Even Arab countries which have no apostasy laws, like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Oman, have strict methods of deterring religious disbelief, including substantial jail sentences, corporal punishment, enforced conversion, and even annulment of marriages.
Having said that, in practice, except in relatively small ultrareligious circles, secular lifestyles and attitudes are largely tolerated in the Arab world, in the same way as technically verboten drinking of alcohol, sex outside of marriage, and praying five times a day at fixed times are often overlooked. As the New Republic article points out, it seems it is the appearance of religiosity that is important, not the fact of it, and even outright atheism is tacitly tolerated so long as it is not claimed out loud and thrust in the face of the authorities.
Most Westerners would probably assume that the apparent rise in irreligion in the Muslim world is due to disgust with the horrors committed in the name of Islam by groups like Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, but not so. Like anywhere else, the road to atheism typically begins with personal doubts and with questioning the inconsistencies and illogicalities in the Ko'ran. But in the Arab world, personally-experienced oppression and persecution in the name of Islamic beliefs is also a major factor, including experiences of the abuse of power and the physical abuse of women in particular.
I actually discovered this article through a HuffPost article about the burgeoning #ExMuslimBecause hashtag. The campaign, started recently by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, encourages lapsed Muslims to come out on social media and explain why they left Islam. Unexpectedly, it has become hugely popular (it was the UKs top trending hashtag for a while), both among disaffected residents of Muslim-majority countries writing under pseudonyms, and among the ex-Muslim diaspora. Various different viewpoints are expressed in the tweets, many of them quite poignant and powerful. Here is a sample:
It begins, a little tongue in cheek, with "official" numbers of atheists in various Arab countries, according to Cairo-based Dar Al Ifta, which identifies, with exemplary accuracy, 866 in Egypt, 325 in Morocco, 320 in Tunisia, 242 in Iraq, 178 in Saudi Arabia, 170 in Jordan, 70 in Sudan, 56 in Syria, 34 in Libya, and 32 in Yemen (a total of precisely 2,293 nonbelievers in a population of about 300 million). These may or may not be based on members of various Facebook atheist groups, and obviously should not be taken too seriously.
The Western stereotype of Arabs and the Muslim world makes it difficult to even conceive of an atheist Arab. While not everyone assumes that all Muslims are terrorists - yes, there are those that do - the common assumption is that Arabs are just sheep-like followers of the official line.
But, interestingly, a 2012 WIN/Gallup International poll found that Saudi Arabia, one of the most hard-line religious countries in the region, harboured well over a million people (5% of the population) who self-identify as "convinced atheists", and almost six million (19%) who self-identify as "not a religious person". In the Arab word as a whole, those who express some measure of religious doubt is estimated at 22%, which is actually higher than in South Asia (17%) and Latin America (16%). In some less theocratic Arabic countries like Lebanon, this reaches 37%.
Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia is a strictly theocratic country which, along with the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Yemen and others, upholds the sharia rule punishing apostasy of any kind with death, and regularly dispenses public floggings for the slightest misdemeanour. Saudi Arabia goes as far as characterizing atheism, and questioning the Islamic faith, as terrorist acts. In Bangladesh and elsewhere, there has been a spate of murders of high-profile atheists in recent months. Even Arab countries which have no apostasy laws, like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Oman, have strict methods of deterring religious disbelief, including substantial jail sentences, corporal punishment, enforced conversion, and even annulment of marriages.
Having said that, in practice, except in relatively small ultrareligious circles, secular lifestyles and attitudes are largely tolerated in the Arab world, in the same way as technically verboten drinking of alcohol, sex outside of marriage, and praying five times a day at fixed times are often overlooked. As the New Republic article points out, it seems it is the appearance of religiosity that is important, not the fact of it, and even outright atheism is tacitly tolerated so long as it is not claimed out loud and thrust in the face of the authorities.
Most Westerners would probably assume that the apparent rise in irreligion in the Muslim world is due to disgust with the horrors committed in the name of Islam by groups like Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, but not so. Like anywhere else, the road to atheism typically begins with personal doubts and with questioning the inconsistencies and illogicalities in the Ko'ran. But in the Arab world, personally-experienced oppression and persecution in the name of Islamic beliefs is also a major factor, including experiences of the abuse of power and the physical abuse of women in particular.
I actually discovered this article through a HuffPost article about the burgeoning #ExMuslimBecause hashtag. The campaign, started recently by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, encourages lapsed Muslims to come out on social media and explain why they left Islam. Unexpectedly, it has become hugely popular (it was the UKs top trending hashtag for a while), both among disaffected residents of Muslim-majority countries writing under pseudonyms, and among the ex-Muslim diaspora. Various different viewpoints are expressed in the tweets, many of them quite poignant and powerful. Here is a sample:
- I was told I was a Muslim. But then I learned that religion is not a gene and being born to believers doesn't make you one ()
- I'm gay and proud to be the first public figure to come out and campaign for LGBTI Rights in Afghanistan. ( )
- my being unveiled is NOT the cause of earthquakes or other calamities ()
- I couldn't handle hearing my own family say that Shi'as, my neighbours and best friends, are kuffar. ()
- my own mother told me I should be killed because I didn't believe the same things she did ()
- Bacon - what other reason could there possibly be? ( )
- I'm told Islam gives you freedom of thought and religion but at the same time punishes apostasy by death ()
- I was indoctrinated as a child and denounced my religion as soon as I was old enough to think for myself. ()
- I simply used my brain. ()
- I prefer reality over myth and reason over ignorance. ()
- I'd rather look through a telescope than read a book that says I came out of a man's rib to be lured by a talking snake. ()
- Misogyny, homophobia, stoning ppl to death & killing apostates don't suddenly become "respectable" when put in a holy book. ()
Friday, November 20, 2015
Russian plane bombing fades (quickly) into obscurity
It's interesting to note the extent to which the Russian plane crash on October 31st has been completely overshadowed by the Paris terrorist attacks on November 13th.
A Russian passenger plane was brought down by a terrorist bomb over Egypt's Sinai peninsula on October 31st, killing all 224 people (tourists and crew) on board. It cause, then, almost twice as many casualties as the Paris bombings. A local affiliate of Islamic State has claimed full responsibility for the bombing, making it just as much a terrorist act as the events of November 13th.
But, even before the Paris attacks, there seemed to be relatively little news coverage and outrage over the Russian plane crash, and since Paris, hardly any.
Likewise, the Islamic State suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, on November 12th, which killed at least 37, got lost in the Paris coverage, and the more recent Al-Qaeda-sponsored siege of a hotel in Bamako, Mali, on November 20th, in which 19 guests and two militants were killed, has received only fleeting attention from the press in comparison with Paris.
This, of course, is to say nothing of the casualties in Syria itself, at the hands of the various different armed groups which are operating there, which include Syrian governmental forces, Russian forces, Kurdish self-management forces, extremist Islamic groups, armed opposition groups, international coalition forces, and other unidentified groups. The death toll is estimated at between 120 and 180 each day, which includes 20-50 civilian casualties. And then, of course, there is also Iraq...
Now, Egypt, Lebanon, Mali, Syria and Iraq are admittedly a bit further away from the European/American centre of world gravity than is France, but not that much. And I am as unsympathetic to Russia and the Putin regime as most Westerners are. But why such disproportionate media attention, I wonder?
A Russian passenger plane was brought down by a terrorist bomb over Egypt's Sinai peninsula on October 31st, killing all 224 people (tourists and crew) on board. It cause, then, almost twice as many casualties as the Paris bombings. A local affiliate of Islamic State has claimed full responsibility for the bombing, making it just as much a terrorist act as the events of November 13th.
But, even before the Paris attacks, there seemed to be relatively little news coverage and outrage over the Russian plane crash, and since Paris, hardly any.
Likewise, the Islamic State suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, on November 12th, which killed at least 37, got lost in the Paris coverage, and the more recent Al-Qaeda-sponsored siege of a hotel in Bamako, Mali, on November 20th, in which 19 guests and two militants were killed, has received only fleeting attention from the press in comparison with Paris.
This, of course, is to say nothing of the casualties in Syria itself, at the hands of the various different armed groups which are operating there, which include Syrian governmental forces, Russian forces, Kurdish self-management forces, extremist Islamic groups, armed opposition groups, international coalition forces, and other unidentified groups. The death toll is estimated at between 120 and 180 each day, which includes 20-50 civilian casualties. And then, of course, there is also Iraq...
Now, Egypt, Lebanon, Mali, Syria and Iraq are admittedly a bit further away from the European/American centre of world gravity than is France, but not that much. And I am as unsympathetic to Russia and the Putin regime as most Westerners are. But why such disproportionate media attention, I wonder?
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Health Canada needs its own health warning
While on the subject of health, I also read a timely article about the much-ballyhooed claims of Cold-FX, and it comes as no great surprise to me that the claims are at best over-stated, and at worst downright misleading.
Cold-FX is a top-selling ginseng-based herbal remedy that boldly claims that it helps reduce the frequency, severity and duration of cold and flu symptoms, and furthermore that, when combined with a flu shot, it is clinically proven to reduce cold and flu symptoms. Health Canada have seen fit to allow these claims, and so obviously accepts the science provided by Cold-FX manufacturer Valeant Canada.
What the label (and the company website) fails to mention, though, is that, in order for any benefit to kick in, two pills a day must be taken for an absolute minimum of two months, and preferably four months (six months for seniors). Four months' worth of pills would cost well over a hundred dollars. Taking the pills when cold symptoms begin to be felt is completely useless and a waste of money. Even taking the pills for four months only reduces the average number of colds per year from 0.93 to 0.68, according to the developer's own studies, and.even this is based on self-reported data, which could include cold-like symptoms from other similar respiratory conditions such as allergies. The scientific basis of the claims that Cold-FX works even better when combined with a flu shot is, if anything, even rockier.
A new formulation, Cold-FX First Signs, actually specifically directs that it be taken "at first signs of a cold to help relieve cold symptoms and promote healthy immune function", when even its own research suggests that no instantaneous effects are possible. Again, Health Canada seem to have accepted this, arguing that the medication makes no specific promises about its effectiveness!
All of which begs the question of why Health Canada has accepted these scientifically questionable claims. The answer seems to be that the bar is, for some reason, set substantially lower for natural health products than for prescription drugs. Which suggests that there are probably a whole host of ineffective, and possibly even unsafe, natural health products out there, raking in the dollars while achieving little or nothing in the way of health benefits (zinc lozenges are another such cold remedy, once highly recommended, but now considered next to useless, and even positively harmful if taken in the kind of dosages required for its claimed effectiveness).
So, maybe Health Canada approvals need to come with their own health warnings?
Cold-FX is a top-selling ginseng-based herbal remedy that boldly claims that it helps reduce the frequency, severity and duration of cold and flu symptoms, and furthermore that, when combined with a flu shot, it is clinically proven to reduce cold and flu symptoms. Health Canada have seen fit to allow these claims, and so obviously accepts the science provided by Cold-FX manufacturer Valeant Canada.
What the label (and the company website) fails to mention, though, is that, in order for any benefit to kick in, two pills a day must be taken for an absolute minimum of two months, and preferably four months (six months for seniors). Four months' worth of pills would cost well over a hundred dollars. Taking the pills when cold symptoms begin to be felt is completely useless and a waste of money. Even taking the pills for four months only reduces the average number of colds per year from 0.93 to 0.68, according to the developer's own studies, and.even this is based on self-reported data, which could include cold-like symptoms from other similar respiratory conditions such as allergies. The scientific basis of the claims that Cold-FX works even better when combined with a flu shot is, if anything, even rockier.
A new formulation, Cold-FX First Signs, actually specifically directs that it be taken "at first signs of a cold to help relieve cold symptoms and promote healthy immune function", when even its own research suggests that no instantaneous effects are possible. Again, Health Canada seem to have accepted this, arguing that the medication makes no specific promises about its effectiveness!
All of which begs the question of why Health Canada has accepted these scientifically questionable claims. The answer seems to be that the bar is, for some reason, set substantially lower for natural health products than for prescription drugs. Which suggests that there are probably a whole host of ineffective, and possibly even unsafe, natural health products out there, raking in the dollars while achieving little or nothing in the way of health benefits (zinc lozenges are another such cold remedy, once highly recommended, but now considered next to useless, and even positively harmful if taken in the kind of dosages required for its claimed effectiveness).
So, maybe Health Canada approvals need to come with their own health warnings?
The perfect health care system
An article on health care models in today's paper gives me a welcome excuse to think and write about something other than IS bombings and the war in the Middle East.
The article lists four different international reports comparing the health systems of various countries. A World Health Organization report in 2000 concluded that France had the world's best health care system, followed by Italy, San Marino, Andorra and Malta. Bloomberg's 2014 rankings show Singapore on top, followed by Hong Kong, Italy, Japan and South Korea. The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Japan and No, 1, followed by Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland and Australia. The Commonwealth Fund ranks the UK as having the best health system, followed by Switzerland, Sweden, Australia and Germany.
There are a few recurring elements in the lists (Italy, Singapore, Australia, Japan, Switzerland), but it is notable that no one country appears in any three of the four lists. Canada, it can be said, appears in none. Perhaps all that can be gleaned from this meta-analysis, then, is that there are many different ways in which a health system can be judged or measured, and that anyway data is not always reliable, compatible or comparable.
With this in mind, Mark Britnell of KPMG, in his new book "In Search of the Perfect Health System", concludes that the perfect health system might include:
Interesting, though.
The article lists four different international reports comparing the health systems of various countries. A World Health Organization report in 2000 concluded that France had the world's best health care system, followed by Italy, San Marino, Andorra and Malta. Bloomberg's 2014 rankings show Singapore on top, followed by Hong Kong, Italy, Japan and South Korea. The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Japan and No, 1, followed by Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland and Australia. The Commonwealth Fund ranks the UK as having the best health system, followed by Switzerland, Sweden, Australia and Germany.
There are a few recurring elements in the lists (Italy, Singapore, Australia, Japan, Switzerland), but it is notable that no one country appears in any three of the four lists. Canada, it can be said, appears in none. Perhaps all that can be gleaned from this meta-analysis, then, is that there are many different ways in which a health system can be judged or measured, and that anyway data is not always reliable, compatible or comparable.
With this in mind, Mark Britnell of KPMG, in his new book "In Search of the Perfect Health System", concludes that the perfect health system might include:
- the values and universal access of the UK;
- the primary care of Israel;
- the community services of Brazil;
- the mental health system of Australia;
- the health promotion philosophy of the Nordic countries;
- the patient and community empowerment of part of Africa;
- the research and development infrastructure of the United States;
- the innovation, flair and speed of India;
- the information, communication and technology of Singapore;
- the choice offered to patients in France;
- the funding model of Switzerland; and
- the elderly care of Japan.
Interesting, though.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Retaliation for Paris attacks may not be the best plan
In the wake of the horrendous Islamic State (IS) bombings and shootings in Paris over the weekend, the responses of various countries are beginning to be articulated.
Predictably enough, some of the strongest words are coming from France itself, with President François Hollande calling the attacks an "act of war", and vowing in no uncertain terms to completely destroy the IS (or Daesh, as the organization is increasingly called, using the loose Arabic acronym of the organization, which coincidentally also sounds like the Arabic words for "one who sows discord" and "one who crushes something underfoot").
This is fighting talk indeed from the French, but it really is not as simple as that - if it were, it would already have been done. And I can't help thinking that M. Hollande is reacting exactly how IS want him to.
This was an act of terrorism, not an act of war. Despite the name, Islamic State, as even they would probably admit, is not even a real state against which a war can be waged. It is a scattered force of guerrilla warriors, and its aim is not to take over France, but to establish a Muslim caliphate in northern Syria and northwestern Iraq in which they can enforce their own version of conservative Islamic traditions (see my earlier piece on understanding jihadi groups).
So, attacking France does not serve any immediate purpose for IS, but it is presumably part of the "shock-and-awe" tactics it employs to drum up supporters, as well as an attempt to discourage countries, like France, who are actively fighting against them in Syria.
If France dramatically ups the ante in Syria, the death toll will rise substantially, including the collateral damage to the local population which will undoubtedly accompany it. And, given the terrain and the organization of IS, the chances of comprehensively destroying them are slight in the extreme (see this article for just one analysis of how hard it might be to deal comprehensively with IS). Death, torture, genocide and martyrdom are all part of the IS game plan, and boosting the number of martyrs will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the survivors, as well as to increase the likelihood of more retaliatory attacks in the West.
Now, I don't have a good solution to the situation, but I am pretty sure that all-out war will achieve little but a drastically increased death toll. If anything, the solution probably has to involve carving up Syria and Iraq in some way (the current set-up, established after the Second World War, is really not working well).
Luckily, Canada no longer has the belligerent Stephen Harper at the helm, as I am reasonably sure his reaction would have been very similar to President Hollande's, which would only have the effect of putting the whole country at an increased risk of retaliation while actually achieving very little. New Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, is still committed to taking the Canadian contingent of fighter jets (the 6 ageing CF-18 Hornets are hardly crucial to the allied military campaign) out of Syria and Iraq, in favour of a more behind-the-scenes role in local military training and humanitarian aid, although the timeline for the pull-out is still flexible. He was just voted into power with a strong mandate to do just that, so realistically what else can he do? Mr. Trudeau has since reiterated that the Paris attacks have not changed that commitment.
I have actually been a bit surprised by the extent of the militaristic tub-thumping in the Canadian press since the bombings. Most of it smacks to me of knee-jerk reaction, whereas what we actually need, now more than ever, is calm and considered decision-making, difficult though that might be in the heat of the outrage that most people are feeling. I don't see withdrawing our CF-18s as a blow to Canada's credibility on the world stage, as I have often seen it characterized, but as replacing something that Canada does not do very well with something we apparently do do well (i.e. military training). There is even some evidence suggesting that the air war in Syria may be actually strengthening IS and fuelling a surge in their recruits, as it feeds their narrative of a Western crusade against Islam. That alone would be a good reason to maintain the Canadian pull-out from the bombing mission.
Trudeau is also still committed to Canada's taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees. Despite some vociferous opposition since the French attacks (Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall being one of the most outspoken), this also still seems like the right thing to do. Yes, security screening is needed - that was always the plan - but I don't see any need to change that plan in the light of events in France. IS has been outspoken in its condemnation of Syrians fleeing to Europe as refugees, and it would like nothing better than for Western countries to shut their doors to Syrian refugees, as some 16 Republican US states and a few European countries are currently vowing.
There are rumours (still unconfirmed as far as I know) that one of the Paris attackers may have been a Syrian who entered France under the current EC refugee program. But it is still far from clear whether the passport found was planted, stolen, forged or genuine, or indeed whether it belonged to an attacker or a victim (why would a jihadist have his passport with him on an action of this kind?). Certainly, there is no reason to suppose that the refugees looking to move to Canada are doing so for nefarious purposes, any more than has been the case in years past. The refugees are those fleeing Syria, not those sympathetic to IS ideals, and anyway the vast majority of the Paris attackers were long-time residents and citizens of France and Belgium.
As for the idiots who set fire to a mosque in Peterborough, Ontario, recently, apparently in retaliation for the Paris attacks, I have no idea what they were thinking, and they deserve everything that is coming to them. Islamic State is very little to do with Islam as most people understand and practise it, so making innocent Canadian Muslims suffer makes absolutely no sense. They are already fearful enough of revenge attacks as it is.
Predictably enough, some of the strongest words are coming from France itself, with President François Hollande calling the attacks an "act of war", and vowing in no uncertain terms to completely destroy the IS (or Daesh, as the organization is increasingly called, using the loose Arabic acronym of the organization, which coincidentally also sounds like the Arabic words for "one who sows discord" and "one who crushes something underfoot").
This is fighting talk indeed from the French, but it really is not as simple as that - if it were, it would already have been done. And I can't help thinking that M. Hollande is reacting exactly how IS want him to.
This was an act of terrorism, not an act of war. Despite the name, Islamic State, as even they would probably admit, is not even a real state against which a war can be waged. It is a scattered force of guerrilla warriors, and its aim is not to take over France, but to establish a Muslim caliphate in northern Syria and northwestern Iraq in which they can enforce their own version of conservative Islamic traditions (see my earlier piece on understanding jihadi groups).
So, attacking France does not serve any immediate purpose for IS, but it is presumably part of the "shock-and-awe" tactics it employs to drum up supporters, as well as an attempt to discourage countries, like France, who are actively fighting against them in Syria.
If France dramatically ups the ante in Syria, the death toll will rise substantially, including the collateral damage to the local population which will undoubtedly accompany it. And, given the terrain and the organization of IS, the chances of comprehensively destroying them are slight in the extreme (see this article for just one analysis of how hard it might be to deal comprehensively with IS). Death, torture, genocide and martyrdom are all part of the IS game plan, and boosting the number of martyrs will only serve to strengthen the resolve of the survivors, as well as to increase the likelihood of more retaliatory attacks in the West.
Now, I don't have a good solution to the situation, but I am pretty sure that all-out war will achieve little but a drastically increased death toll. If anything, the solution probably has to involve carving up Syria and Iraq in some way (the current set-up, established after the Second World War, is really not working well).
Luckily, Canada no longer has the belligerent Stephen Harper at the helm, as I am reasonably sure his reaction would have been very similar to President Hollande's, which would only have the effect of putting the whole country at an increased risk of retaliation while actually achieving very little. New Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, is still committed to taking the Canadian contingent of fighter jets (the 6 ageing CF-18 Hornets are hardly crucial to the allied military campaign) out of Syria and Iraq, in favour of a more behind-the-scenes role in local military training and humanitarian aid, although the timeline for the pull-out is still flexible. He was just voted into power with a strong mandate to do just that, so realistically what else can he do? Mr. Trudeau has since reiterated that the Paris attacks have not changed that commitment.
I have actually been a bit surprised by the extent of the militaristic tub-thumping in the Canadian press since the bombings. Most of it smacks to me of knee-jerk reaction, whereas what we actually need, now more than ever, is calm and considered decision-making, difficult though that might be in the heat of the outrage that most people are feeling. I don't see withdrawing our CF-18s as a blow to Canada's credibility on the world stage, as I have often seen it characterized, but as replacing something that Canada does not do very well with something we apparently do do well (i.e. military training). There is even some evidence suggesting that the air war in Syria may be actually strengthening IS and fuelling a surge in their recruits, as it feeds their narrative of a Western crusade against Islam. That alone would be a good reason to maintain the Canadian pull-out from the bombing mission.
Trudeau is also still committed to Canada's taking in 25,000 Syrian refugees. Despite some vociferous opposition since the French attacks (Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall being one of the most outspoken), this also still seems like the right thing to do. Yes, security screening is needed - that was always the plan - but I don't see any need to change that plan in the light of events in France. IS has been outspoken in its condemnation of Syrians fleeing to Europe as refugees, and it would like nothing better than for Western countries to shut their doors to Syrian refugees, as some 16 Republican US states and a few European countries are currently vowing.
There are rumours (still unconfirmed as far as I know) that one of the Paris attackers may have been a Syrian who entered France under the current EC refugee program. But it is still far from clear whether the passport found was planted, stolen, forged or genuine, or indeed whether it belonged to an attacker or a victim (why would a jihadist have his passport with him on an action of this kind?). Certainly, there is no reason to suppose that the refugees looking to move to Canada are doing so for nefarious purposes, any more than has been the case in years past. The refugees are those fleeing Syria, not those sympathetic to IS ideals, and anyway the vast majority of the Paris attackers were long-time residents and citizens of France and Belgium.
As for the idiots who set fire to a mosque in Peterborough, Ontario, recently, apparently in retaliation for the Paris attacks, I have no idea what they were thinking, and they deserve everything that is coming to them. Islamic State is very little to do with Islam as most people understand and practise it, so making innocent Canadian Muslims suffer makes absolutely no sense. They are already fearful enough of revenge attacks as it is.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
"The Bone Clocks" is Mitchell (almost) at his best
I feel the need to report on "The Bone Clocks", the latest offering from the always excellent and provocative David Mitchell, which I have just finished reading.
Mitchell is probably unrivalled in his ability to tease and braid subtly interconnected plot lines across a series of different chronological periods, as he does to great effect in "Cloud Atlas" (which I have reviewed elsewhere). "The Bone Clocks" is another such feat of interweaving, involution and genre-blurring.
The book begins with an apparently mundane and distinctly earth-bound story about 15-year old working class schoolgirl Holly, her rather banal and prosaic family life in banal and prosaic 1980s Gravesend, Kent, her decision to run away from home after a tiff with her boyfriend, and the sudden disappearance of her little brother. Gradually, though, and increasingly, some less mundane, not to say downright inexplicable, elements begin to intrude into this workaday story.
But, before anything starts to make sense, this plot-line unceremoniously sputters to a halt, and a completely new, and apparently unrelated, story takes over. Here, we are immersed in the decadent lifestyle of the spoilt rich kids of early 1990s Cambridge University, with their devil-may-care nihilistic schemes and their dissolute jaunts to swish European resorts. Except that, here too, unexpected elements of the paranormal begin to intrude. And eventually Holly-from-Gravesend briefly resurfaces in a story that is decidedly not her own. A little more of the fantastic reality underlying the unexplainable incidents is allowed to trickle out, before ... SKREEEKK! ... unconnected plot-line three abruptly takes over. Mr. Mitchell clearly does not want us to get too comfortable.
In 2004, Holly is now married to old school friend Ed Brubeck and, in between Ed's reminiscences of life on journalistic assignment in war-torn Iraq and more homely scenes from a family wedding, their 6-year old daughter mysteriously goes missing, and is only found through Holly's unconscious channelling of unknown and incomprehensible powers ... SKREEEKK!
2015's story arc follows a dry and cynical writer's travels on the international literary festival circuit, with cameo appearances from Holly, who is herself now a celebrated author thanks to her account of her own earlier brushes with the supernatural.
As the story begins to stretch into the near future, it criss-crosses the globe ever more frantically, lurching from England to Norway to New York and beyond. Plot strands begin to entangle further, previously-introduced characters discover increasingly complex and unexpected interconnections, and the paranormal becomes increasingly the norm. Some explanations do also start to unfold at this point, with lots of rather deep and turgid talk of capitalized concepts like Atemporals, Anchorites, Sojourners, Horologists, the Aperture, etc. It is only here, in 2024, that the story becomes a fully-fledged fantasy tale, and it turns out that unassuming Holly Sykes still has a key role to play. But, alas, this is neither the time nor the place to give away too much more of the plot.
Functioning as a kind of epilogue, the final story arc, dated 2043, is a grim, although ultimately hopeful, post-apocalyptic tale. In a world beset by catastrophic climate change, drastic fuel shortages, mercenary globalized capitalism, and social and technological breakdown, Holly and her grandchildren hunker down in rural Ireland, living a hard life of fearful resignation and humble prospects, until an unexpected visit brings thing full circle.
As with "Cloud Atlas", Mitchell's conceit of tenuously-connected, time-disjointed stories allows him to display his prowess at writing in a series of quite different styles, with different voices and tones, all within one novel. A few short quotations from different sections might illustrate this.
Plotline 1984 is written in teen demotic Estuary English:
Mitchell is probably unrivalled in his ability to tease and braid subtly interconnected plot lines across a series of different chronological periods, as he does to great effect in "Cloud Atlas" (which I have reviewed elsewhere). "The Bone Clocks" is another such feat of interweaving, involution and genre-blurring.
The book begins with an apparently mundane and distinctly earth-bound story about 15-year old working class schoolgirl Holly, her rather banal and prosaic family life in banal and prosaic 1980s Gravesend, Kent, her decision to run away from home after a tiff with her boyfriend, and the sudden disappearance of her little brother. Gradually, though, and increasingly, some less mundane, not to say downright inexplicable, elements begin to intrude into this workaday story.
But, before anything starts to make sense, this plot-line unceremoniously sputters to a halt, and a completely new, and apparently unrelated, story takes over. Here, we are immersed in the decadent lifestyle of the spoilt rich kids of early 1990s Cambridge University, with their devil-may-care nihilistic schemes and their dissolute jaunts to swish European resorts. Except that, here too, unexpected elements of the paranormal begin to intrude. And eventually Holly-from-Gravesend briefly resurfaces in a story that is decidedly not her own. A little more of the fantastic reality underlying the unexplainable incidents is allowed to trickle out, before ... SKREEEKK! ... unconnected plot-line three abruptly takes over. Mr. Mitchell clearly does not want us to get too comfortable.
In 2004, Holly is now married to old school friend Ed Brubeck and, in between Ed's reminiscences of life on journalistic assignment in war-torn Iraq and more homely scenes from a family wedding, their 6-year old daughter mysteriously goes missing, and is only found through Holly's unconscious channelling of unknown and incomprehensible powers ... SKREEEKK!
2015's story arc follows a dry and cynical writer's travels on the international literary festival circuit, with cameo appearances from Holly, who is herself now a celebrated author thanks to her account of her own earlier brushes with the supernatural.
As the story begins to stretch into the near future, it criss-crosses the globe ever more frantically, lurching from England to Norway to New York and beyond. Plot strands begin to entangle further, previously-introduced characters discover increasingly complex and unexpected interconnections, and the paranormal becomes increasingly the norm. Some explanations do also start to unfold at this point, with lots of rather deep and turgid talk of capitalized concepts like Atemporals, Anchorites, Sojourners, Horologists, the Aperture, etc. It is only here, in 2024, that the story becomes a fully-fledged fantasy tale, and it turns out that unassuming Holly Sykes still has a key role to play. But, alas, this is neither the time nor the place to give away too much more of the plot.
Functioning as a kind of epilogue, the final story arc, dated 2043, is a grim, although ultimately hopeful, post-apocalyptic tale. In a world beset by catastrophic climate change, drastic fuel shortages, mercenary globalized capitalism, and social and technological breakdown, Holly and her grandchildren hunker down in rural Ireland, living a hard life of fearful resignation and humble prospects, until an unexpected visit brings thing full circle.
As with "Cloud Atlas", Mitchell's conceit of tenuously-connected, time-disjointed stories allows him to display his prowess at writing in a series of quite different styles, with different voices and tones, all within one novel. A few short quotations from different sections might illustrate this.
Plotline 1984 is written in teen demotic Estuary English:
"The summer holidays'll be here before the truancy officer can fart, and I'm sixteen in September, and then it's stuff you Windmill Hill Comprehensive."1991 showcases Cambridge-elite erudition mixed with a debauched and irreverent machismo:
"The gents smells well fermented and the only free urinal is blocked and ready to brim over with the amber liquid so I have to queue, like a girl."The 2004 subplot spends much of its time in the war zones of Iraq, featuring journalistic passages like:
"Through a hole blasted in a dry block wall, Aziz snapped a family hurrying across the wasteland north of the doctors' compound. An Arabic Grapes of Wrath, on foot."In the world-weary back-stabbing literary environment of the 2015 segment, the tone changes abruptly once again:
"I, the Festival Elf, Publicity Girl, and Editor Oliver traverse the wooden walkways over the sodden sod past booths selling gluten-free cupcakes, solar panels, natural sponges, porcelain mermaids, wind chimes tuned to your own chi aura, biodegradable trays of GM-free green curry, eReaders, and hand-stitched Hawaiian quilts."In 2024, Mitchell delves into full fantasy mode, complete with an apocalyptic battle on a kind of astral plane:
"The psychoduel becomes too magnesium-bright to look at, so it is through my chakra-eye that I see the long table rise ten feet into the air, hang there for a second like a bird of prey, then hurtle straight at Arkady and Unalaq."And finally, the 2043 epilogue visits the genre of the post-apocalyptic novel, in the vein of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" or J.G. Ballard's "The Drowned World":
"People talk about the Endarkenment like out ancestors talked about the Black Death, as if it's an act of God. But we summoned it, with every tank of oil we burned our way through."All in all, it's not "Cloud Atlas" - what could be? - but "The Bone Clocks" is nevertheless a very worthy and welcome addition to David Mitchell's oeuvre. And, looked at as six novels in one, over 620 pages, it's a bargain.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Israel's predictably excessive response to the EU
My patience with the state of Israel continues to decline from an already low level. In the face of the European Union's proposed new guidelines for the labelling of food products from Israeli-occupied parts of Palestine, the outcry from Israel is predictably deafening, not to mention excessive, inappropriate and often puerile.
Goods from the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and Gaza that are exported to the EU must now make clear that they came from an Israeli settlement or business in territories that are internationally considered illegal, rather than simply "Product of Israel" or "Product of Palestine". Additionally, such goods will no longer receive the preferential tariff extended by the EU to Israel. Initially, I thought this may have been something of a storm in a teacup, but it turns out that this actually involves about 1% of Israel's annual $30 billion of trade with the EU, so the amounts are pretty substantial.
Benjamin Netanyahu, in his usual considered and understated way, slammed the ruling as "an immoral decision ... it chose to single out Israel and Israel alone while it's fighting with its back against the wall against the wave of terror", and warned that it could lead to "emboldening those who are not interested in Israeli-Palestinian peace but in eliminating Israel altogether". Other Israeli politicians called it "anti-Semitic" and drew comparisons with the use of the yellow star during the Holocaust.
This is just the kind of thing that annoys me. The EU decision may well be political, but it is a political statement against the policies of a maverick pariah state which continues to build and maintain illegal settlements against the almost unanimous will of the international community. This is not a racist action, and the race and religion of the illegal settlers is just not relevant to the decision. Rather, it is Israel that pulls the race card, as it does so often, and it does so secure in the knowledge that the rest of the world (and especially Europe) feels distinctly uncomfortable singling out a people who have suffered so extensively throughout history. But their mention of anti-Semitism, and using the Holocaust as a get-out-of-jail-free card, is starting to get really tired.
This wilful conflation of race, religion and politics, and this cynical reliance on guilt-tripping, is the hallmark of Israeli international relations. Maybe a certain amount of paranoia is inevitable, given their history, but, contrary to Israel's assumptions, most other people really don't care what race or religion they are. Europe is making a purely political point based on current geopolitical circumstances (i.e. Israel's illegal settlement in Palestine, their subversion of basic human rights in the region, and their quasi-apartheid treatment of Palestinians).
In fact, this most recent example of the apparent Jewish single-mindedness about race led me to some research I had long wanted to pursue. I had always thought that Semitism, as a race, culture and language, was a shared root of both Jews and Arabs. And, yes, it seems that I was right. Wikipedia and other sources confirm that the language, culture and ethnicity of both Jews and Levantine Arabs stem from common Semitic roots (along with the Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, etc, i.e. essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa). The Jews and the Palestinians are therefore close cousins ethnically and culturally, and genetically almost indistinguishable.
The use of the word "Semitic" to refer to Jews in particular (especially in a hostile or discriminatory manner) is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to a handful of 19th Century German and French historians and political agitators, although the Jews themselves seem to have wholeheartedly embraced this usage during the last century or so.
Indeed, the Jews, so fiercely proud of their race, turn out to be at least as mongrelized as most other races and cultures, if not more so. In terms of Y-chromosome (male line) genetics, for example, Palestinians are to be found right in the middle of the various Jewish populations, with little or nothing to distinguish one from the other. Even in mitochondrial DNA (female line) terms, so important in matrilineal Jewish culture, Jewish women demonstrate a highly diverse gene pool, consistent with constant intermarriage both with a wide variety of local populations and with other Jewish groups.
So, Jewishness essentially comes down to something as arbitrary as their choice of religion. Centuries of strife, and countless deaths all over the world, can be traced back to which particular old book they choose to revere. Unbelievable, when you think about it.
Goods from the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Golan Heights and Gaza that are exported to the EU must now make clear that they came from an Israeli settlement or business in territories that are internationally considered illegal, rather than simply "Product of Israel" or "Product of Palestine". Additionally, such goods will no longer receive the preferential tariff extended by the EU to Israel. Initially, I thought this may have been something of a storm in a teacup, but it turns out that this actually involves about 1% of Israel's annual $30 billion of trade with the EU, so the amounts are pretty substantial.
Benjamin Netanyahu, in his usual considered and understated way, slammed the ruling as "an immoral decision ... it chose to single out Israel and Israel alone while it's fighting with its back against the wall against the wave of terror", and warned that it could lead to "emboldening those who are not interested in Israeli-Palestinian peace but in eliminating Israel altogether". Other Israeli politicians called it "anti-Semitic" and drew comparisons with the use of the yellow star during the Holocaust.
This is just the kind of thing that annoys me. The EU decision may well be political, but it is a political statement against the policies of a maverick pariah state which continues to build and maintain illegal settlements against the almost unanimous will of the international community. This is not a racist action, and the race and religion of the illegal settlers is just not relevant to the decision. Rather, it is Israel that pulls the race card, as it does so often, and it does so secure in the knowledge that the rest of the world (and especially Europe) feels distinctly uncomfortable singling out a people who have suffered so extensively throughout history. But their mention of anti-Semitism, and using the Holocaust as a get-out-of-jail-free card, is starting to get really tired.
This wilful conflation of race, religion and politics, and this cynical reliance on guilt-tripping, is the hallmark of Israeli international relations. Maybe a certain amount of paranoia is inevitable, given their history, but, contrary to Israel's assumptions, most other people really don't care what race or religion they are. Europe is making a purely political point based on current geopolitical circumstances (i.e. Israel's illegal settlement in Palestine, their subversion of basic human rights in the region, and their quasi-apartheid treatment of Palestinians).
In fact, this most recent example of the apparent Jewish single-mindedness about race led me to some research I had long wanted to pursue. I had always thought that Semitism, as a race, culture and language, was a shared root of both Jews and Arabs. And, yes, it seems that I was right. Wikipedia and other sources confirm that the language, culture and ethnicity of both Jews and Levantine Arabs stem from common Semitic roots (along with the Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, etc, i.e. essentially all of the Middle East and North Africa). The Jews and the Palestinians are therefore close cousins ethnically and culturally, and genetically almost indistinguishable.
The use of the word "Semitic" to refer to Jews in particular (especially in a hostile or discriminatory manner) is a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back to a handful of 19th Century German and French historians and political agitators, although the Jews themselves seem to have wholeheartedly embraced this usage during the last century or so.
Indeed, the Jews, so fiercely proud of their race, turn out to be at least as mongrelized as most other races and cultures, if not more so. In terms of Y-chromosome (male line) genetics, for example, Palestinians are to be found right in the middle of the various Jewish populations, with little or nothing to distinguish one from the other. Even in mitochondrial DNA (female line) terms, so important in matrilineal Jewish culture, Jewish women demonstrate a highly diverse gene pool, consistent with constant intermarriage both with a wide variety of local populations and with other Jewish groups.
So, Jewishness essentially comes down to something as arbitrary as their choice of religion. Centuries of strife, and countless deaths all over the world, can be traced back to which particular old book they choose to revere. Unbelievable, when you think about it.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Tory-appointed judge should be struck off
The Federal Court of Canada has ruled that an Alberta judge overstepped the bounds of reasonableness during his handling of a rape case back in 2014. He is accused of being "dismissive of, if not contemptuous towards, the substantive law of sexual assault and of evidence ... combined with a refusal to apply them".
Justice Robin Camp was, at the time, a judge in the Alberta Provincial Court. He has since been elevated to a position on the Federal Court by then Justice Minister Peter Mackay, a final gift to the country from the Conservative government just before losing October's federal election. Go figure!
The case in question involved the washroom rape of a homeless 19-year old woman. During the case, Justice Camp peppered the victim with questions like "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" and "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?" He also openly mocked the very idea of consent, asking "Are there any particular words you must use, like the marriage ceremony?", and "Do children learn this at school? Do they pass tests like driver's licenses? ... It's not the way of the birds and the bees."
A few other pearls of wisdom from Justice Camp during the same trial: "The accused [sic] hasn't explained why she allowed the sex to happen if she didn't want it"; " Sex and pain sometimes go together - that's not necessarily a bad thing"; "Sex is very often a challenge"; etc. He also insisted on including evidence of the victim's previous sexual activities, contrary to the express legal injunction against doing so.
Justice Camp ultimately acquitted the 240-lb accused rapist in the case, although a court of appeal later overturned the ruling, noting that the judge did not seem to fully understand the concept of consent in Canadian case law.
Clearly worried about his job since the complaints came to light (and just why did this take so long?), Justice Camp has promised to take voluntary gender sensitivity training, and has issued a public apology both to the woman involved in the case and to other women who may be dissuaded from reporting sexual abuse due to attitudes like his. So, he is at least receiving competent advice now, although just how heartfelt his apologies are is anyone's guess.
The Federal Court has already taken the unusual step of ruling that he cannot preside over cases involving sexual conduct pending the outcome of a judicial review of his earlier conduct. And it may yet go further and remove him completely from the court. The last time that happened was 2009, and it has only occurred twice since 1971. The final decision actually rests with Parliament, but typically judges choose to resign before a case reaches that stage.
Justice Camp's behaviour and comments are clearly unacceptable from a senior Canadian judge in this day and age, and I would happily see him struck off. It seems to me unlikely that this was a one-off "mistake" or aberration, and I am guessing that the Canadian Judicial Council review will uncover other equally dubious behaviour that, taken all in all, might well lead to his dismissal.
It also raises for me questions about the Canadian practice of political appointees to top judicial positions. I have never understood why this is allowed to happen, and why top judges are not appointed on merit or at least according to some more democratic process.
UPDATE
As of November 25th 2015, Justice Camp has been removed from all cases indefinitely. "Indefinitely" seems to mean at least until he has completed "a comprehensive program of gender sensitivity counselling", although there is still a continuing campaign within the legal fraternity to have him removed completely.
UPDATE UPDATE
Nearly a year and a half later, counselling and education sessions notwithstanding, Justice Camp resigned his position, in the face of a 19-to-4 vote by the Canadian Judicial Council to have him removed.
Justice is, so to speak, served.
Justice Robin Camp was, at the time, a judge in the Alberta Provincial Court. He has since been elevated to a position on the Federal Court by then Justice Minister Peter Mackay, a final gift to the country from the Conservative government just before losing October's federal election. Go figure!
The case in question involved the washroom rape of a homeless 19-year old woman. During the case, Justice Camp peppered the victim with questions like "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?" and "Why didn't you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn't penetrate you?" He also openly mocked the very idea of consent, asking "Are there any particular words you must use, like the marriage ceremony?", and "Do children learn this at school? Do they pass tests like driver's licenses? ... It's not the way of the birds and the bees."
A few other pearls of wisdom from Justice Camp during the same trial: "The accused [sic] hasn't explained why she allowed the sex to happen if she didn't want it"; " Sex and pain sometimes go together - that's not necessarily a bad thing"; "Sex is very often a challenge"; etc. He also insisted on including evidence of the victim's previous sexual activities, contrary to the express legal injunction against doing so.
Justice Camp ultimately acquitted the 240-lb accused rapist in the case, although a court of appeal later overturned the ruling, noting that the judge did not seem to fully understand the concept of consent in Canadian case law.
Clearly worried about his job since the complaints came to light (and just why did this take so long?), Justice Camp has promised to take voluntary gender sensitivity training, and has issued a public apology both to the woman involved in the case and to other women who may be dissuaded from reporting sexual abuse due to attitudes like his. So, he is at least receiving competent advice now, although just how heartfelt his apologies are is anyone's guess.
The Federal Court has already taken the unusual step of ruling that he cannot preside over cases involving sexual conduct pending the outcome of a judicial review of his earlier conduct. And it may yet go further and remove him completely from the court. The last time that happened was 2009, and it has only occurred twice since 1971. The final decision actually rests with Parliament, but typically judges choose to resign before a case reaches that stage.
Justice Camp's behaviour and comments are clearly unacceptable from a senior Canadian judge in this day and age, and I would happily see him struck off. It seems to me unlikely that this was a one-off "mistake" or aberration, and I am guessing that the Canadian Judicial Council review will uncover other equally dubious behaviour that, taken all in all, might well lead to his dismissal.
It also raises for me questions about the Canadian practice of political appointees to top judicial positions. I have never understood why this is allowed to happen, and why top judges are not appointed on merit or at least according to some more democratic process.
UPDATE
As of November 25th 2015, Justice Camp has been removed from all cases indefinitely. "Indefinitely" seems to mean at least until he has completed "a comprehensive program of gender sensitivity counselling", although there is still a continuing campaign within the legal fraternity to have him removed completely.
UPDATE UPDATE
Nearly a year and a half later, counselling and education sessions notwithstanding, Justice Camp resigned his position, in the face of a 19-to-4 vote by the Canadian Judicial Council to have him removed.
Justice is, so to speak, served.
The health effects of marijuana
With the recent election of a new Liberal government, Canadians are becoming more exercised about the possibility of the legalization of recreational marijuana (cannabis) in Canada. In fact, it was one of the few campaign issues that clearly separated the three main parties, with the Liberals advocating full legalization, the NDP decriminalization, and the Conservatives the death penalty (sorry, the status quo). It is an issue with sharp dividing lines and strong opinions, from vehement opposition to unthinking acquiescence to an attitude of almost complete indifference (as in my case).
With that in mind a timely report has come out of the University of Queensland in Australia on the health effects of marijuana. The report, published this week in the respected journal Addiction, examines and summarizes the scientific evidence from 1993 to 2013, a twenty year period during which cannabis use burgeoned throughout the world, and in which the drug itself, and the industry in which it operates, underwent some substantial changes.
Among the findings are:
All in all, although marijuana is clearly not as dangerous a drug as cocaine, heroin or amphetamines (with which it is often classified in many countries), it does carry many of the same risks as alcohol use, including an increased risk of accidents, dependence and psychosis. It is not a pretty thing, but then neither are alcohol and tobacco, and these are still condoned, albeit less so than heretofore. It seems to me that marijuana belongs in the same category as these legal drugs, and not with cocaine and heroin. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it heavily, discourage it, and get over it.
With that in mind a timely report has come out of the University of Queensland in Australia on the health effects of marijuana. The report, published this week in the respected journal Addiction, examines and summarizes the scientific evidence from 1993 to 2013, a twenty year period during which cannabis use burgeoned throughout the world, and in which the drug itself, and the industry in which it operates, underwent some substantial changes.
Among the findings are:
- People who drive under the influence of marijuana double their risk of being in a car crash.
- About one in 10 daily marijuana users becomes dependent on the drug.
- Adolescents who use cannabis regularly are about twice as likely as non-users to drop out of school.
- Adolescents who use cannabis regularly are also about twice as likely to experience cognitive impairment and psychotic disorders as adults, including disordered thinking, hallucinations, delusions, even full-blown schizophrenia (although some critics argue that it is possible that people with mental health problems may be more likely to use marijuana to begin with, so the link may not necessarily be causal).
- Regular cannabis use in adolescence is linked to some extent to the use of other illicit drugs (the "gateway" effect), although there is still some debate over this.
- Cannabis use in pregnant women may slightly reduce the birth weight of the baby, with all the various health implications that may have for the child.
- While the chances of dying from an overdose of marijuana are almost vanishingly small, there have been several case reports of deaths from heart problems in otherwise healthy marijuana smokers. Middle-aged people who smoke marijuana regularly appear to be at an increased risk of heart attacks.
- The effects of cannabis on respiratory function and respiratory cancer remain unclear, mainly because most cannabis smokers also tend to smoke tobacco (or at least used to).
All in all, although marijuana is clearly not as dangerous a drug as cocaine, heroin or amphetamines (with which it is often classified in many countries), it does carry many of the same risks as alcohol use, including an increased risk of accidents, dependence and psychosis. It is not a pretty thing, but then neither are alcohol and tobacco, and these are still condoned, albeit less so than heretofore. It seems to me that marijuana belongs in the same category as these legal drugs, and not with cocaine and heroin. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it heavily, discourage it, and get over it.