Neil Young (and others) took a principled stand, Spotify did not

The world looked up when Canadian musician Neil Young gave music platform Spotify an ultimatum. Mr. Young is a reasonably heavy hitter in music circles, and has never been one to hide his political views. 

So, of course, when he complained about Spotify's continued hosting of far-right darling Joe Rogan's podcast, with its inflammatory dog whistle politics and repeated misinformation about COVID vaccines, it came as no surprise that he would put his money where his mouth is. "I want all my music off their platform ... they can have Rogan or Young. Not both.", he told them (in spite of the fact that Spotify represents about 60% of his streaming income). In case that was not clear enough, he elaborated further on his own website: "Lies [are] being sold for money". Fellow Canadian Joni Mitchell joined him a few days later, as did the popular Canadian music podcaster Vish Khanna, and many users have cancelled their Spotify accounts in solidarity.

Problem is, Spotify makes a whole lot more money off Joe Rogan than it does off Neil Young (and Joni Mitchell and Vish Khanna combined). It is rumoured that the streaming service has sunk some $100 million into The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. So, given that they are clearly not willing to take a principled stance, they have called Young's bluff and he has taken his music off the platform. Although originally a music-only outlet (albeit a contentious one, with many artists complaining of being underpaid for their products), Spotify has been getting heavily into the more lucrative podcast market in recent years, and the music scene is likely to be increasingly short-changed.

But with great power comes great responsibility, and I'm not sure Spotify are willing to accept that responsibility. They say they have policed and yanked thousands of other podcasts with iffy content, but they are clearly not willing to do that with Joe Rogan (other than some vague promises about "content advisories" on episodes dealing with COVID) because ... well, because money.

Many Spotify users have also complained about the service's anti-democratic moves, but it is in such a dominant position it is not clear how much effect that will have. Maybe a mass boycott is called for. If it's any consolation, Spotify has lost $2 billion off their market value as a result of the dispute.

Germany is a case study in how not to pursue an energy policy

It's difficult to believe that Germany has dug itself into quite such a large and enveloping hole over its energy imports as it apparently has.

While most Western countries are umming and ahhing over how they can best sanction Russia for its threats to the sovereign independence of Ukraine, there is an ominous silence coming from Germany. Why? Because it has sold its soul to Russian gas. It may not have been Angela Merkel's idea - that honour goes to her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder - but she has certainly been instrumental in making that hole much bigger over her 16 years in power. (Mind you, Italy is probably in an even bigger hole vis-à-vis Russian energy, something that gets talked about even less.)

About 40% of Europe's imported gas comes from Russia, which is bad enough. But this figure is in the region of 50-75% in the case of Germany, and this could rise still further when Germany closes the last three of its nuclear reactors later this year. This increased reliance on Russia has has shot up in the last six or seven years in particular, from around 35% in 2015. The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which doubles the capacity of the original Nord Stream 1 pipeline, is all on Ms. Merkel (although it is not actually in use yet, because it has still not been approved by German regulators).

Buy why would anyone put themselves, and their whole country, in hock to a superpower as unreliable and downright nasty as Russia? It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Russia would seek to weaponize its gas exports, and it would would easy for Putin to turn off the taps at the drop of a hat. He has already reduced supplies and increased prices to excruciating levels.

And now the Americans and others are calling for Nord Stream 2 to be used as a bargaining chip in sanctions talks, and the Germans are dithering and prevaricating. All because they are over-reliant on one energy closure and one (maverick) country.

UPDATE

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the very different attitude new German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is taking toward Russia (including rearmament and unexpectedly cancelling Nord Stream 2), Angela Merkel's relationship with Russia and Putin are starting to be looked at in a very different light. 

Merkel's fluency in Russian, her maintaining of diplomatic ties with Russia through thick and thin (including 2014's annexation of Crimea), her rapid increase in dependency on Russian energy imports, and even her insistence on maintaining German spending on national defence at a bare minimum, are all now starting to look like weakness, even suspicious appeasement. Other than her openness to refugees and immigration, her legacy is undergoing a major revision right now.

How much difference do masks, ventilation and social distancing actually make?

Vaccines aside, if you were in any doubt as to the efficacy of mask-wearing, social distancing and ventilation during this pandemic, a new study breaks things down for you. The study itself (in Environmental Science & Technology) is a bit dense and hard to digest, but a quick digest on MLive brings out a few salient points.

For example, going to a crowded movie theatre with poor ventilation and mostly unmasked audience gives you a 14% chance of catching the virus, provided no-one speaks before and after (and during). But if people are talking throughout and remain unmasked, that percentage jumps to 54%. If the audience is masked, the chances fall to 5.3% with no talking, and 24% with talking. So, huge differences.

Take gyms as another example. Gyms often complain about how they have been victimized and how working out in a gym is not a risky endeavour, even during the Omicron phase of the pandemic. But heavy exercise in a poorly-vented facility without masks is basically a guarantee for catching the virus, with a 99% probability. Even a short work-out in a well-ventilated gym gives you a 17% chance if unmasked (and would you want to work out with a mask on?). If not well-ventilated and filtered, the chances are around 67% (and how far do you trust what a gym tells you abouts it's ventilation system).

These are just two example from the study, but you get the idea. A similar profile would also apply to restaurants, indoor sports venues, etc. One figure in the original study which tries to compare the relative COVID risks of locations like restaurants, libraries, school classrooms, concert halls, places of worship, supermarkets, etc, is rather hard to interpret and subject to widespread variability. In general terms, though, it places restaurants, concert halls, places of worship and hospital examination rooms relatively high, and libraries, large family dinners and some physical education classes relatively low (with most of the others falling somewhere in between).

I don't know how accurate these figures can be said to be, nor have I looked into the methods used and assumptions made. The bottom line, though, is that ventilation, masks and distance from people speaking or breathing heavily are game-changers. Better yet, don't go into indoor settings any more than necessary.

Freedom Convoy's funds withheld by crowd-funding platform

It's interesting to read that GoFundMe is withholding the $4.7 million raised on its platform by the so-called "Freedom Convoy" of Canadian truckers opposed to the vaccine mandate for essential workers crossing the Canada-USA border (in both directions: the US has imposed similar restrictions). It had never occurred to me that they would be allowed to do so.

In its statement, the crowd-funding platform says, "We require that fundraisers be transparent about the flow of funds and have a clear plan for how those funds will be spent". Fair enough, but the campaign states that the funds will be used for food, fuel and lodgings for the truckers involved. Isn't that clear and transparent enough?

It is estimated that some 16,000 (about 13%) of the 120,000 Canadian truckers who regularly travel across the border are not vaccinated, and these are the individuals who will lose their jobs (or be forced to change their jobs) as a result of the government's vaccine mandate. But, you know, they've had a long time to fix that, and they have deliberately chosen not to, and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them. These are people who believe that they have a right to do what they want when and where they want it, and that's just not how the social contract works. Sorry.

I've read letters suggesting that long-distance truckers don't really interact with anyone, just some spending all their time on their own in the right cab, so why the need for vaccination? But clearly that is rubbish: as another letter points out, truckers routinely interact with dispatch offices, warehouses, truck stops, publish washrooms, coffee shops, repair shops .. oh, and their own homes and family dwellings. 

And I think that we, as a country, could probably afford to have 13% of our food missing from grocery shelves anyway, at least temporarily, although frankly that is unlikely to happen anyway, despite what some followers and some Conservative MPs would have you think...

It's hard to be sympathetic to the protesting truckers or the organizing group, which, incidentally, is bizarrely called Canada Unity, in a grand feat of Orwellian doublespeak. The Liberals oppose the "Freedom Convoy", especially given some of the violent language that has been circulating on social media, as does the NDP and the Canadian Trucking Association (the Conservatives, predictably, are unwilling to oppose them, and several prominent Conservative MPs have been outspoken in their support of the Convoy). 

It has had a lot of online support from a whole host of right-wing extremists - because don't think this is just about truckers and vaccine mandates, it's about FREEDOM! - both in Canada and, for some reason, the US, including Joe Rogan (no surprise there) and Elon Musk (probably no surprise there either). Oh, and that Donald Trump guy. Some Canadian supporters  are openly calling it "Canada's Jan. 6" and some are even flaunting swastikas and, bizarrely, Confederate flags And "Trump 2024" signage. When asked what they want, participants tend to yell "Freedom!" and, if pressed, mumble something about "tyrants" and "my body, my choice", a phrase they have obviously heard somewhere.

And yes, the far right is integrally involved with this, even if some of the attendees are in fact bona fide truckers, and white nationalist groups are encouraging their members to get involved with the protest. The main organizer and instigator of the Convoy, Tamara Lich, is a member of the western separatist Maverick Party. Not a trucker. A top Ontario organizer for the protest, Jason LaFace (also not a trucker), made his position very clear: "This is no longer about the mandate any more [sic]."

And, make no mistake, this is no longer a protest - this is a blockade, this is an occupation (I have also heard it called "terrorism", "assault on democracy",  "insurrection" and "seige", the latter, incidentally, from a Conservative politician), and, as such, no longer legal or covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As they make their way to Toronto this weekend, Twitter hashtags like #GoHomeFluTruxKlan are already springing up, so they are on no doubt what the locals think.

But, before I go off on too much of a rant, and returning to my original point: interesting that a fundraising platform like GoFundMe can actually withhold funds already raised. Go GoFundMe!

UPDATE

With the Freedom Convoy's GoFundMe campaign now sitting at around $10 million, the crowd-funding platform has now asserted that it no longer meets its terms of service (citing its "promotion of violence and harassment"), and is closing it down.

Donors can apply for refunds, and any funds not withdrawn will be given to a worthier charity. Which I think is just dandy.

Of course, it won't end there. Bizarrely, extremo Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is sticking his oar in, and calling for an investigation, although, just before his announcement, GoFundMe revised its plan and is now saying that all donations will be refunded.

Sale of Canadian lithium mine to China ill-advised

When the state-owned Chinese mining giant Zijin Mining Group made its bid to buy up Canadian lithium mining company Neo Lithium Corp, I imagine most people expected a strict formal national security review, and most would have expected a negative ruling. After all, Zijin has already bought out several Canadian copper and gold mining companies, and lithium is arguably an even more strategic resource. 

It came as quite a slap in the face, then, when Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced in record time (45 days, the fastest possible timeline for approval under the security review rules) that the takeover would be allowed. And no formal review was actually carried out, as the company itself confirms, despite recent updates to the Investment Canada Act, which brought in specific requirements for "enhanced scrutiny" of acquisitions of Canadian companies by state-controlled foreign entities.

Lithium, of course, is the new oil, a critical mineral essential for phones, computers, electric car battery production and many other high-tech uses. Canada currently has no lithium production or processing facilities, most of which are either owned, or in the process of being bought up, by China. And given the way China operates these days, do we really want to hand it complete control over such an essential mineral?

When questioned about why a more in-depth review was not carried out, Minister Champagne prevaricated and waffled. Granted, Neo Lithium does not actually have a Canadian lithium mine in its portfolio, just a mine in Argentina, but it's still puzzling why Champagne would conclude that lithium from "so far away" would not find its way into the Canadian supply chain. 

He also states that lithium carbonate (which is what Neo Lithium is offering) is not of strategic value to Canada, whereas lithium hydroxide might be. In fact, lithium carbonate is extremely valuable, and more widely used in the industry than hydroxide (given the current shortage of lithium carbonate, some companies are even paying to turn hydroxide into carbonate).

Minister Champagne insists that a "rigorous" national security review was carried out, and concluded that the sale of the Canadian company was not against the national interest. However, he seems to be labouring under some serious misapprehensions, misapprehensions that are contributing to the continued hollowing out of Canadian industry. As Industry Minister, he needs to do better. And what is the security review system there for if not just this kind of transaction?

What does Putin really want in Ukraine

As Vladimir Putin plays soldiers along the borders of Ukraine, I have to stop and wonder just what it is that he wants and why he wants it. Granted, it's a little difficult for me to put myself into the head of a megalomaniac dictator but, try as I may, I still just really don't get it.

Putin has now moved over 100,000 troops and a whole load of military machinery to the borders of neighbouring Ukraine, including some into adjacent puppet-state Belarus. His intentions appear to be either to invade sometime soon, or to pretend he is going to do that for whatever twisted reasons he may have.

But why would you want to rule over a population that you know is going to hate you (in the main). Yes, there are a good number of ethnic Russians (about 17%, maybe 8 million individuals) in Ukraine, especially in the eastern part of the country, but the 77% ethnic Ukrainians that make up most of the country are not going to welcome a return to a Russian-led pseudo-Soviet Union. So, why would you want to put yourself in that position? What would make it worthwhile?

The best analysis I could find comes from  the Council on Foreign Relations website. Historically, Ukraine was the second most populous and second most powerful of the 15 Soviet republics, after Russia itself, and the home of much of the Soviet Union's agriculture and its military and defence industries. Since independence, thirty years ago, though, Ukraine has been very clear in its determination to steer its own course, and a noted preference for alignment with the European Union and NATO, rather than with Russia (and now we can see why that might have been wise).

To us in the West, Russia looks to be the clear aggressor in the current situation, particularly in the aftermath of the unilateral (and illegal, in the eyes of most non-Russian observers) 2014 invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia. For its part, Russia argues that it is merely responding to Western aggression in its backyard, particularly the 2017 acceptance into NATO of the ex-Soviet Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

When the Soviet Union broke up in the early 90s, it was not actually promised a "sphere of influence" going forward, but President Putin has been very vocal in claiming such a "guarantee". Neither was there any promise that NATO should not expand not expand own influence in the region. In fact, Russia is a signatory to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which is promised to respect Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity, as well as the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, in which Russia agreed to the very NATO "expansion" it is now so outraged about. But then, Putin is not one to let the odd writen agreement stand in the way of his lust for power.

Of course, most ex-Soviet republics don't actually want to be in Russia's sphere of influence and, quite rightly, don't trust Russia. Bulgaria and Romania have been particularly outspoken in refusing to move NATO troops from their territories, arguing that Russia has no right to interfere in the decisions of other sovereign states. If Putin is looking to establish a buffer of "friendly" countries between Russia and the West, he does not have many options, as very few ex-Warsaw Pact countries remain friendly to Russia. But, what Russia really wants to avoid in particular is larger countries like Ukraine and Georgia also joining NATO - what Putin refers to as the "eastward expansion of NATO" (as though NATO is invading Russian territory), and this is the "red line" that must not be crossed for him.

As a matter of principle, the USA and NATO will not give into Russian demands that it guarantee that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO: Russia will never be allowed a veto over who can join NATO, nor should they. Nor are they likely to give in to Putin's other major demand, that NATO remove all weapons and troops from Eastern European member countries. But it's far from clear that NATO actually has any intentions of allowing Ukraine to join, for a whole variety of reasons, however much Ukraine may want to.

So, is that really what Putin is after? Or is he just hung up on re-creating the Soviet Union, come what may (despite official protestations to the contrary)? I also have yet wonder whether he has not had his nose put out of joint by the increased attention on China in recent years - Putin likes to be top of the news cycle, likes to consider himself the USA's principal bugbear. It looks, for all the world, like he is suffering from paranoia, narcissism and delusions, increasingly out of touch with the Russian people and political reality, and a victim of his own culture of propaganda and disinformation. The man is as extreme a psychological study as his erstwhile buddy Donald Trump. 

So, might all these military machinations and chest-thumping, not be, in the end, all about President Putin's personal legacy and his delusions of grandeur? (I'm certainly not the only person to believe that; some bona fide Russian experts also think that "it's not about Russia, it's about Putin" and his need to cement his place in history.) In which case, there may be no logical, strategic grounds for Putin's military moves at all, and no amount of negotiation is going to make any difference.

Prince Andrew retains one, highly appropriate, title

A canny Globe and Mail letter-writer points out that, although beleaguered royal Prince Andrew has had most of his various titles rescinded, one title he does retain is that of Vice-Admiral. Which seems poetically appropriate given his circumstances and the allegations he faces.

(Actually, it seems he is still technically a Prince and he also retains the title of Duke of York, as these were not conferred titles but his due by birth.)

China blames Canada for Beijing's first Omicron case

The first ever case of the Omicron variant to be discovered in Beijing (other Chinese cities have also seen cases) is a big deal for China. Alone among major countries, it is still chasing the elusive target of zero COVID cases, particularly with the Winter Olympics just around the corner. In a typical example of Chinese overkill, the whole office block where the infected individual works was immediately locked down, and everyone was essentially locked in with zero notice (pillows and bedding were seen being delivered to the office tower).

The 26-year old women in question has apparently not travelled outside of Beijing recently, nor had she had any contact with anyone else who has tested positive. So, China had to come up with an explanation, preferably one that implicated dastardly foreign powers.

Imagine our surprise, though, when the Beijing Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided to finger a piece of mail from Canada as the culprit. The Beijing woman apparently received a letter from Canada (via Hong Kong and the USA) about a week before her positive test. So, there you have it - obvious isn't it?

Predictably, pretty much every Canadian doctor, health organization and politician has pointed out in no uncertain terms that this is a ridiculous claim. Which, of course, it is. Calling the claim "implausible" and "ludicrous", and warning that it "doesn't sound credible" and "doesn't add up", Canadian health specialists and epidemiologists point out that has been many months since we have unduly worried about transmission of the virus on contaminated surfaces (fomites) - it is definitively an airborne disease, spread through relatively short-lived aerosol particles - and the chances of such particles surviving that length of time on piece of paper are exceedingly slim.

So, good try, China, but really not very convincing. Maybe the contamination actually did occur in China after all. Maybe your system is not perfect. Maybe it's not all part of a despicable foreign conspiracy.