No DST - what's the plan, Mark?

Many Canadians like to the news that, late last night, Mark Carney summarily rescinded the Digital Services Tax (DST), the tax - announced way back in 2020, but scheduled to come into force today - on profits made in Canada by foreign Internet-based companies like Amazon, Netflix, Google, Uber, AirBnB, etc.

The reason? Because Donald Trump doesn't like it. And that is no exaggeration. The threat of the tax has been hanging around for years now, and the USA (including Joe Biden and the previous Democrat administration) has taken particular exception to it because, although the tax applies to any non-Canadian tech comany, a good 90% of them just happen to be American, and the US considers it unfair and discriminatory, even if it's not. 

In the last few days, Trump seem to have belatedly discovered it and lashed out at Canada all over again, specifically ending all further trade negotiations with Canada until the planned tax is removed. Carney moved quickly to do just that, arguing that it was necessary in order to keep the negotiations going.

But many Canadians are incensed. The tax was expected to bring in about $2 billion, given its 2-year retroactive clause, and now we have nothing to show for it, no tax income and no leverage in the ongoing tariff negotiations. It does seem like we gave in to Trump's bully tactics with no advantage gained, and we are still back at square one with the tariff negotiations, but with one fewer bargaining chips.

As some of the comments express, what are we to do with our elbows now? Elbows up or elbows down or neither (just sit quietly and politely at the table)? Maybe Carey and his team know more about negotiations than we do - well, of course they do! - but what is the plan, Mark?

Hungary dares to show its Pride

Kudos to Hungary's beleaguered LGBTQ+ community for the massive Pride march they held through the streets of Budapest this weekend.

Toronto and other Canadian cities too saw huge Pride Parades, but the difference is that here such expressions of same-sex affection and trans and other queer lifestyles are allowed, even encouraged.

In Victor Orbán's Hungary, LGBTQ+ rights have been severely curtailed over the last decade or so, culminating in a law passed just a couple of months ago that explicitly "allows" cities to ban Pride marches, supposedly in the interests of protecting the nation's children and "family values".

Well, that didn't happen. Indeed, the March turned into a mass anti-government rally in the run-up to a crucial national election next year. Ignoring the potential for facial recognition technology and huge fines, and explicit warning from Orbán's justice minister that "the Pride parade is a legally banned assembly", an estimated 100,000 revellers and protesters took over the streets of the nation's capital, with the blessing of Budapest's radical Green Party Mayor Gergely Karácsony.

Are the fascist-adjacent days of Orbán and his henchmen numbered? It would be nice to think so. Paradoxocally, the main opposition to Orbán comes from the Tisza party, which has deliberately ignored LGBTQ+ issues in the country, describing them as a "trap" set by Orbán, in an attempt to gather a more broad-based opposition to Orbán's Fidesz party.

Americans not so proud to be American

America, as a country, runs on patriotism - love of country - perhaps more than any other state. The image of flag-waving patriots, chanting "USA! USA!"at any opportunity, including some quite inappropriate ones, is part and parcel of the country's image.

However, the percentage of those  who are extremely proud or very proud has been falling steadily since the start of the 21st century, regardless of which party is in power. There was a slight uptick when a thankful populace saw Joe Biden take over from Donald Trump in 2021, but even this was just a minor blip in the scheme of things.

The percentage of Americans who were "very proud" or "extremely proud" to be called Americans was over 90% in the early 2000s, particularly after 9/11. By 2023, this was down to 67%. It would be interesting to know where this stands today after a few months of Trump 2.0. Those whom are extremely proud" has fallen from 70% to 39% over that same period.

Harvard's Youth Poll of 18-29 year olds gives a window onto another facet of this trend. In April 2025, a few months into Trump's second administration, just 41% would claim to be proud to be American, while 29% say they are embarrassed to be American. As might be expected, political affiliation is the single main factor behind these figures, with 76% of Republicans saying they are pround, but only 24% of Democrats. 54% of Democrats are embarrassed to be American, but only 8% of Republicans are.

None of this is entirely surprising, at least to us Canadians, but it's nice to see it in black and white. Huh, there's a thought: pride in America broken down by race. I think we can probably guess.

Run It Straight not a sport but glorified ultra-violence

And talking of stupid, I was introduced today to the "sport" of Run It or Run It Straight. It seems to be a mainly Australia/New Zealand-based idea, and most popular among Pacific Islanders for whom rugby is just too tame. 

At its simplest, one contestant holding a rather superfluous rugby ball has to run full tilt towards a defender who is also sprinting directly towards the other. They are not allowed to duck, jump or side-step each other, so, obviously enough, there is a huge body collision, because these are big guys. One of them, of course, comes off worst, or the ball is dislodged, and the winner goes through to another round. Proponents call it a "game of strength and skill", and gush about the footwork involved. The leagues insist there are safety protocols in place to minimize injuries (blood tests and a physical exam - what are they going to help?), but essentially it is just glorified ultra-violence.

It grew up in the back streets of poorer neighbourhoods, where there is nothing better to do that doesn't cost money, but there are now full-blown leagues, principally the Run It Straight Championship League, where the prize money is up to A$200,000. It has also attracted sponsors, and a rabid following, both live and on the Internet. Here's some footage on YouTube.

See what I mean about stupid? Each run take about 2 seconds, and one is pretty much identical to the next, except where there is a serious injury, which incites the crowd to deranged baying. It's not a great spectator sport if you ask me, but those that like it like it a lot. And to be fair, I probably wouldn't find a Roman gladiator contest particularly good spectating either. Ditto boxing. Ditto professional wrestling. Ditto mixed martial arts.

Certainly, it attracts a similar macho, testosterone- and adrenaline-fueled fanbase. And now there is a backlash from the medical community. Because, obviously, there are injuries - broken bones, concussions, longer-tern brain injuries, and yes, even deaths. Mental health workers have warned about the culture of toxic masculinity it encourages, and the lifestyle of violence and toughness it promotes. The leagues say that this sport is "not for the backyard, not for the streets", and caution "do not try this at home". But what do they really think is going to happen?

Possibly the biggest stupidest lie in American military history?

Few people outside of President Trump's closest aides expected the appointment of a Fox News host with an alcohol problem to be a solid performer in the position of Secretary of Defense of the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Pete Hegseth has met most people's expectations.

It's uncertain whether he still has an alcohol problem, although he clearly has an anger problem, and is modelling himself on his idol, Donald Trump, in the way he treats the national and international news media (his latest outburst being an example). When he appears with Trump, he gives the impression of an insecure dog, desperate for his master's approval. Elon Musk - another Trump experiment doomed to failure from the get go - didn't last long, and it's hard to see Trump being able to stand Hegseth for much longer. My guess is he will be a convenient scapegoat to be sacrificed for the next major gaffe by the administration.

But you can't fault the man for effort and for throwing himself into his role with gay abandon. In defence of Mr. Trump's bombing raid on Iran (in which Iran's entire nuclear program was obliterated - obliterated, I tell you! - or possibly not), Hegseth came out with one of the howlers of the entire Iran débacle:

"President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history."

OK, so not the Battle of Waterloo, not the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the D Day landings in Normandy, not the US bombing raids over North Vietmam, not the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, not even Mossad's coordinated exploding pager operation of last year. No, the most complex and secretive military operation ever, in the view of Mr. Pete Hegseth was a single bombing run through a non-existent Iranian air defence, which was broadly warned of and broadcast in advance.

Poetic license? Not really. Hegseth is perhaps the least poetic politician I can think of. An excess of nationalistic fervour in the heat of the moment? Well, probably. 

But to attribute the directing of this awesome military achievement to Donald Trump is rich indeed. The US military probably bristled a bit when they heard Hegseth say this, having had such a plan designed and rehearsed for many months, probably years. Even I have seen it discussed and described in the media for some weeks before the event. Trump's contribution may have amounted to one word - "Go!" - or possibly two or three, in his usual eloquent and loquacious style.

The biggest stupidest lie by a Secretary of Defence in American history? Ah, now we might be getting close.

Bezos' Venice wedding - much ado about very little

I'm not sure that I should be elevating this to the heady heights of "important news", but Jeff Bezos' inpending wedding to Lauren Sánchez has captured the public's attention, mainly for all the wrong reasons. 

When I first heard about it, it was couched in terms like "Jeff Bezos has booked all of Venice for his wedding", and I too was suitably incensed (well, slightly annoyed, truth be told). It seemed cheesy, over-the-top, and just the kind of stunt you would expect a billionaire recently-converted Trump-lover to pull.

There have been the predictable protests against the Amazon boss and his journalist/newscaster fiancée, including by Greenpeace Italy, Everyone Hates Elon, and a new group calling itself No Space For Bezos. There are threats to fill the canals with inflatable crocodiles. Venice is already a city suffering from over-tourism, and the locals are quite sensitive on the subject.

Most recently, these groups are boasting of an "enormous victory" when the venue for the culminating event was suddenly moved from the sumptuous Scuola Grande della Misericordia to the Arsenale, which is supposedly further from the centre. How this is an "enormous victory" I'm not sure, and on consulting a map of Venice, I'm not even that sure it's further from the centre, if the centre is defined as the Piazza San Marco and the Palazzo Ducale (the Arsenale looks closer to me, if anything). It may be more easily secured, but that's another matter.

That being said, the wedding seems to be far from taking over the whole city, as we have been led to believe. Yes, private jets are expected to jam up the city's airport and mega-yachts to block the harbour for a day or two, and five whole hotels have been booked out in their entirety, even though the guest list is limited to a relatively modest and exclusive 200 guests (including the usual famous-for-being-famous types, like Kim Kardashian, Mick Jagger, Ivanka Trump and Leonardo diCaprio, who are almost certainly not bosom buddies with either spouse-to-be). There are unconfirmed reports that Bezos has booked ALL of the water taxis in town for the event, which could be a bit awkward for other visitors, I guess.

Local officials and councillors actually seem to be quite favourable towards the weddding, which they say will bring major economic benefits to the city, adding that the events are all being held in privately-owned venues, not in publicly-owned palaces or galleries.

Now, I'm no fan of Mr. Bezos, and I routinely try as much as possible to avoid Amazon (which, as an organization, has a whole bunch of legitimate concerns). But it's kind of hard to object too strenuously to a 200-person wedding held on private property, which most of the locals seem generally in favour of. Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing was actually set in Messina, Sicily, not Venice, but I think the sentiment probably still applies.

The lime green apparition

Who was that green apparition at the NATO summit photo op the other day?

Rocking a lime green jumpsuit with a plunging neckline, that was Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, 54 years old and Argentinian by birth.

Talk about standing out from the crowd!

Canada will struggle to meet its new NATO defence spending committments

With military hawks like Donald Trump and Mark Rutte in charge (Rutte is a big Trump fanboy, his cringey fawning performance at the NATO summit has to be seen to be believed), it's no surprise that NATO is now calling for members to spend 5% of their GDP on military and defence spending (3.5% on direct, or core, military spending, and 1.5% more on industrial and infrastructure-related military investments). 

This is partly to counter the treat of Russian expanionism, but it is mainly to keep Donald Trump happy, and to keep the USA in NATO. So, 5% is the new 2%. It is due to be reviewed in 2029, the year Trump's presidential term comes to an end.

A few members, like Spain and Slovakia, are balking at that, saying out that such a target is just impractical and unachievable. In fact, Spain has bravely drawn a line in the sand at 2.1% and, amazingly, obtained an exemption from the 5% target. Slovakia has gone down another route and basically declared that neutrality is a better option for it than bankrupting the country with a 5% promise (other NATO members are still trying to process what that actually means). But there is a lot of pressure on countries to go along with it.

Canada's Mark Carney may be trying a perilous third route, and is apparently relying on some creative accounting to get the country through it. Canada - which has only just accepted the need to achieve the old 2% target, and still has one of the lowest defence expenditures in NATO - has in fact signed up for the 5% target, to be reached by 2035, which would amount to a massive $150 billion bill each year that the country can ill afford. 

But it seems that Mark Carney thinks that "dual-use technologies" like AI and cybersecurity will be acceptable expenditures towards the target, which would surprise me, frankly. He seems to think that much currently planned spending - on "ports, airports, infrastructure to support the development and exportation of critical minerals, telecommunications and emergency preparedness systems" - would be accepted, at least as part of the 1.5% component. But can you imagine Donald Trump (or even Mark Rutte) accepting that for one moment?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of spending such a huge amount on the military. But if we sign up for these things, we have to accept what it really means, and not just fudge our way through.