You can't buy veggie chicken in Europe any more

The EU comes in for a lot of stick from a lot of folks and for various different reasons. But, for all that, it remains one of the most sensible and civilized blocs in today's world. Yes, it has its problems (Hungary, anyone?) but, for the most part, it does a good job of providing a voice of sobriety and reason in today's increasingly weird and dysfunctional global politics.

Occasionally, though, it missteps. One such misstep is the latest policy decision to ban the use of words like "chicken", "bacon" and "steak" by vegetarian and vegan food producers, even if it is clearly qualified on the label as being vegetarian or vegan. Mysteriously, words like "burger", "nuggets" and "sausage" ARE still allowed, because ... well, I'm really not sure why. Where they stand on the use of "chick'un", "chick'n", etc, I'm also not sure. Incidentally, this ruling also applies to the UK, which - also mysteriously - is still subject to such EU commercial edicts.

Now, it seems pretty unlikely to me that anyone has ever picked up a pack of veggie bacon in a supermarket and been traumatized to find that it contains absolutely no dead animal. The "veggie" part is usually front and centre of their packaging and advertising - it's a positive selling point, after all. (A British survey suggests that 92% of shoppers say they have never mistaken "fake" meat for the "real thing".)

Either way, I think the EU overstepped their brief on this this one. Do they really have nothing better to discuss at the moment, like maybe global security, recession-spawning tariffs, existential changes in the climate?

No-one wants to help dig Trump out of his latest quagmire

Unsurprisingly, Trump's "demand" that other countries (like China, Japan, South Korea, France and the UK) help police the Strait of Hormuz is falling on deaf ears.

"I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their own territory", quoth he. Well, no it's not, actually. The Strait, which is as narrow as 20 miles (32km) at one point, is technically an "international strait" within the meaning of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is bordered by Iran on one side and Oman on the other. Iran does not legally own the Strait, but it can effectively control it based on its physical proximity. However, it definitely does not belong to the USA, China or any other country that may happen to use it or want it.

Trump, whose "most powerful military in the world" seems to be struggling to assert control in the region, wants to drag other countries into his unilateral war. But, wisely, no-one is biting. Just because Trump has bitten off more than he can chew doesn't mean that everyone else should come flocking to his aid - quite the contrary. He needs to learn not to go around imperilling world trade and security based on little more than a whim and delusions of grandeur. 

After Trump warned - in his usual tone of veiled, or not-so-veiled, threat - that not doing as he "demands" would be "very bad for the future of NATA", one former British Chief of Defence Staff laid it out clearly: "NATO was created as a ... defensive alliance. It was not an alliance that was designed for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow." Thus far, there have been few firm commitments (none confirmed publicly, despite Trump's claims). Canada, as always is playing it cagey, insisting that "there has been no formal ask of Canada". More bluntly, the UK's Keir Starmer asserts that the UK "will not be drawn into the wider war". German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius was even blunter: "This is not our war. We haven't started it."

UPDATE

Stung by the deafening silence from the US's "allies", Trump launched into another bewildering speech in which he flip-flopped back and forth but eventually concluded (I think) with the rather tired line that America doesn't actually NEED anyone else's help - they're the most powerful country on earth, don't you know, with the strongest military anybody has ever seen, ever - and that he was only asking for help in the Strait of Hormuz to see who would respond, to see who his real friends are.

Unbearable man! I think he can safely say, after this little exercise, that he HAS no friends, and that he has managed to alienate pretty much the whole world in just one year.

Even teabags are full of microplastics

By now, we have pretty much come to understand that microplastics and nanoplastics.(collectively, MNPs) are everywhere, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the very air we breathe. Our bodies are therefore just full of them.

A recent meta-study shows just how many are entering our system through as innocent an activity as drinking a cup of tea. Setting aside MNPs in the water, MNPs leaching from the cup/mug/teapot, and MNPs from the packaging and processing operations, the studies show that the teabags themselves are a significant source of micro- and nano- plastics.

I try to avoid those fancy pyramid-shaped "silk" teabags, which are essentially made of nylon (i.e. plastic). Pour boiling water over them and you have to expect a flood of plastic bits to be released. But traditional "paper" teabags (which are actually primarily made of bleached wood pulp and abaca, a banana plant derivative) are also a source, made worse by the fact that many such paper teabags are treated with polypropylene, epichlorohydrin, etc, to help strengthen and seal them. Not even "biodegradable", "compostable" and PLA "bioplastic" teabags are exempt.

A single teabag, it seems, can release between 1.3 and 14.7 billion MNPs, depending on the study and the methodology. Those are huge and scary numbers, but they do not mean that teabags are killing us, merely that they are contributing to the plastic load in our bodies and the environment, which over time will degrade our health in subtle and opaque ways.

Makes you feel like throwing your hands up in despair and having a cup of tea, doesn't it? Oh, wait...

Trump's solution to the oil crisis is ... not actually a solution

Trump's gratuitous and illegal war in Iran has upended the world's trade in oil and gas and caused a record spike in prices

But, never fear, he has a plan. That plan involves lifting the restrictions that he himself imposed on other countries buying Russian gas. Not the most obvious solution, you might think. Not even a very effective solution. But, as treasury secretary Scott Bessant assures us, this really won't benefit Russia all that much: "It won't provide significant benefit to the Russian government", and is merely a "tailored short-term move".

Well, it turns out that this "tailored short-term move" will actually generate about $11.3 billion for Russia, money that Moscow will happily pocket and put towards its rapidly-depleting Ukraine kitty. India and China, neither of which greatly care about the morality of buying Russian oil, will be most happy to take advantage of this new loophole without being dinged by American tariffs. 

And this is somehow supposed to directly ameliorate the global oil price crunch? To rectify the economic chaos that Trump himself instigated?

Brilliant idea, Donny! Inspired!

Gambling in America goes beyond the pale

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

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

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

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

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

Our complicated relationship with the USA

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

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

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

But...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

Let's be realistic about privacy and civil rights

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

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

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

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

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

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