Is the end of truth the end of democracy?

Here's just one example among very many of the post-truth world we live in today.

At a boat parade in Jupiter, Florida, in support of Donald Trump (yes, I know, a boat parade!), some of the boats were openly displaying swastikas and neo-Nazi insignia and changing racist slogans. When there was an outcry from Democrats about it, Trump campaign officials merely claimed, with no evidence offered or attempted, that it was a "false flag event" by "liberal activists". 

This, in spite of the positive identifications of known members of the Order of the Black Sun and the Goyim Defense League (yes, these are the names of real neo-Nazi organizations!)

This kind of spurious but effective shut-down has now become the first line of defence and attack, almost a knee-jerk reaction to any potential set-back. There is no longer any attempt at making the argument convincing, or at least partially true. It is enough to provide social media with an alternative talking point, and to parry and negate any potential political damage.

So, if all that's needed to shut down a legitimate protest is a barefaced, unfounded lie, then what is the value - what is the point - of any protest, any debate? Given that the majority of Trump's election campaign at this point is based on random unsubstantiated claims and outright lies, often, it seems, conjured on the spur of the moment, what is the point of even trying to refute them?

Trump's supporters will apparently believe pretty much anything he tells them, either out of ignorance or out of willful suspension of disbelief, there seems to be no legitimate way he can be stopped from lying. Many other populists, from Netanyahu to Orbán to Erdoğan to Poilievre, have taken this approach, often with great success. Most of them have taken their lead from Trump, who has single-handledly moved the Oveton window on what is considered politically acceptable. 

Is this, then, the end of democracy as we know it?

Another bizarre Trump town hall

Donald Trump's presidential campaign just jeeps getting weirder. At a town hall event in Oaks, Pennsylvania (no, I've never heard of it either), a couple of audience members fainted due to excessive heat in the hall. Trump too was clearly feeling the heat but, rather than cancelling the whole thing, he decided to turn it into a rather listless dance party, calling for music to be played for the final 40 minutes of the meeting.

"Who the hell wants more questions?", he quipped, requesting a bizarre mix of music to be played instead, ranging from "Ave Maria" to a medley of songs by artists who have specifically called him out for using their music for his own political purposes, including Sinéad O'Connor.and Guns n Roses.

Throughout, Trump stood there, bobbing his head, swaying gently, occasionally doing his usual grandad dance. Many among the bemused audience started to leave, but the old guy seemed to be enjoying himself.

A Trump spokesperson commented on Twitter (sorry, X) that "something very special is happening in Pennsylvania". Well, he certainly got that right.

Support for Trump increases in Canada - wait, what?

Canadians regularly poo-poo Americans and their creepy love affair with Donald Trump. We often smugly assure ourselves that it could never happen here. I do it regularly in these very posts.

But then Trump-Lite, in the form of Pierre Poilievre, turns up, and all bets are off. And now, an Environics poll has looked at Canadians' attitudes to Trump, and it is shocking to see just how those attitudes have changed in the four years since 2020.

Canadians are still MUCH more likely to prefer Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to Donald Trump, by a landslide margin of 60% to 21%. So, things haven't got THAT bad. But that 21% was 15% back in 2020, and the support for the Democrats was 67% not 60% (with Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee). So, there has been a significant shift.

Perhaps even more worrying is the breakdown of that Canadian support for Trump. It's no surprise that Conservatives are much more likely to prefer Trump than Liberals, NDP or Bloc Québécois (44%, compared to 8%, 6% and 7% respectively), and support for Kamala Harris is, unexpectedly, centred on progressive Canadians (Bloc 89%, Liberals 85%, NDP 82%, compared to a measly 36% among Conservatives).

But it is notable that support for Trump is much higher among younger Canadians: 28% for 18-34 year olds and 27% among 35-54 years olds, compared to just 13% among those over 55 (the cohort in which I am proud to number myself). I don't know any of these people, and neither does my 29-year old university-educated daughter, but clearly they exist.

Even more stark is the gender split, with 36% of Canadian men between 18-34 years old preferring Trump to Harris. That 36% was just 24% among the same demographic (young men) in 2020. Combine that with Canadian party affiliation, and we see that 48% of young male Conservatives would support Donald Trump, a truly scary statistic.

Call it the Poilievre Effect, put it down to discontent with prices and the housing situation. Explain it however you like, but it is a real thing. If Donald Trump were running in Canada today, he would still lose embarrassingly, but his star would appear to be in the ascendancy.

What really caused the Liberals' slide from grace?

Jeffrey Simpson's analysis of "the long slide of the Trudeau Liberals", which he neatly categorizes under "the four i's" - incumbency, inflation, immigration and identity - is interesting enough as far as it goes, but simplistic and insufficient.

A simple thought experiment suffices to refute much of it. Imagine if, instead of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives had been in power for the last nine years.

They would still be suffering from the incumbency curse - few governments survive more than three consecutive elections, and none since the very different world of more than a century ago. The longer you stay in power, the more people you upset: that's just the way it is, across the globe.

The spike in inflation is not a specifically Canadian thing, and not controllable by individal governments. Pretty much every country in the world has been affected by inflation in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and other geopolitical vagaries. Poilievre and the Conservatives would have been affected by it too, and any protestations that the Liberals made it worse than it should have been is little more than political grandstanding.

Immigration is a big one in the list of four factors, and who would have expected that just a few short years ago, when Canadians were unreservedly pro-immigration (I have my own views on that too). Inflation has also been a strong determinant on this issue, and it can be argued that the Liberals dropped the ball to some extent by poor regulation of immigration policies. But if Poilievre had been in charge, it's quite possible that he would have pushed things too far in the other direction: we NEED immigration to keep our economy afloat, that much is incontrovertible, although the exact level needed is a tough call.

And finally, by "identity", Mr. Simpson means that the Liberals used to be the party of patriotism. I think it's many years since the Conservatives donned that mantle. But, anyway, I'm not wholly convinced that patriotism is a huge vote-winner in Canada, nor that the Trudeau Liberals have been specifically instrumental in abandoning it.

Anyway, an interesting piece. I'm just not sure I go along with most of it.

Some long-held scientific truths are being challenged

An interesting article in today's Globe and Mail describes how some long-held scientific beliefs, particularly in the human fields of psychology, sociology and economics, are being challenged, and successfully.

For example, if has long been held that making more money does not in fact make people any happier. This is supposed to be scientifically proven, and the paper's principal author, Daniel Kahneman, went on to earn a Nobel Prize and a Presidential Medal of Freedom for his work. But a young fellow at the University of Pennsylvania published a paper in 2021 refuting that finding, and explaining why. So, it turns out that, generally speaking, more money does indeed make you more happy. Which is kind of what I always thought...

Other long-held scientific theories are also starting to topple. For example, the idea that forcing yourself to smile (e.g. by biting on a pen top) actually makes you feel better and happier - more recent data suggests that any such effect is negligible and not significant. 

In the same way, it turns out that: listening to Mozart doesn't actually make you smarter, despite some "scientific" evidence that assures us it does; posing as Superman doesn't actually make you behave more confidently; your ability to resist eating a marshmallow (delayed gratification) as a kid does not lead to success as an adult; etc.

If the results of a scientific experiment cannot be repeated and validated, then it's no longer good or definitive science. Some of the disproven spurious science was merely the result of innocent mistakes or sloppy methodology; some of the data may have been deliberately manipulated. Either way, if the results cannot be replicated, the science cannot stand.

The article, however, encourages the authors of two contradictory papers  on a subject to collaborate - "adversarial collaboration", in the jargon - rather then just butting heads, becoming sworn enemies, and never speaking to each other ever again. That way, the issue can be resolved once and for all, and better science can emerge.

Do we need a new Category 6 for unprecedented hurricanes?

As Hurricane Milton barrels toward the Gulf Coast of Florida, it has picked up speed with unprecedented rapidity (there's that "unprecedented" word again), growing from a Category 2 to Category 5 hurricane in just a few hours as it passes over the (unprecedented) warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

In fact, there is now talk of the need to establish a new category, Category 6. Currently, Category 5 is the highest level, and is defined by winds of over 156 mph (251 kph), i.e. 157 mph to infinity. Milton is currently expected to reach wind speeds of over 180 mph (290 kph). If it surpasses 192 mph (309 kph), it will be in the rarefied company of just 5 hurricanes and typhoon since 1980.

Would there be any real point in establishing a new Category 6? Possibly not. Some say that wind speeds alone do not convey the possible destructive effects of storm surge and inland flooding (some of the worst damage from the recent Hurricane Helene occurred when it had already been downgraded to a tropical storm).

Would it be a useful tool for conveying the possibly severity of the storm to an increasingly blasé populace? Maybe.

LNG is (much) worse for the environment than we thought

A new peer-reviewed study has definitively put paid to the convenient fiction employed by fossil fuel proponents that liquid natural gas (LNG) is a "good thing", because it represents a "brdge fuel" that will allow us to gradually wean ourselves (and other countries) off "dirty fuels" like coal and oil.

It's a fiction you hear often, particularly from Western Canada and the oil states of the US and the Middle East. It never did ring true to me, and now we have some strong evidence to the contrary.

The long-awaited Cornell University study, published in the Energy Science and Engineering journal, actually concludes that LNG is even worse than coal as regards climate change. 33% worse in fact, in terms of its 20-year global warming potential. Even over 100 years (which downplays the warming potential of methane, and might be considered a more "forgiving" scale), LNG's carbon footprint still exceeds that of coal. 

Part of the reason for this is that LNG needs to be supercooled to convert it to to liquid form, and then transported in large tankers to market.

So, whatever British Columbia and Alberta might tell you, LNG is not a climate solution, nor even a temporary bridge fuel. It is a dangerous distraction from serious climate action, and should not be given preferential treatment.

Israel's offensive approach to international relations

As usual, Israel's reaction to UN chief António Guterres failure to do exactly what Israel wants is excessive, combative and tone-deaf.

It seems that Guterres did not condemn Iran strongly enough or quickly enough (he actually did condemn it the next day, as it happens). But Israel's Foreign Minister Israel Katz summarily declared Guterres persona non grata, banning the top diplomat from visiting Israel, and saying that "anyone who cannot unequivocably Iran's heinous attacks on Israel, as nearly all the countries of the world has done, does not deserve to set foot on Israeli soil".

Israel has never been a big fan of the UN, which has regularly castigated it for its illegal occupation of parts of Palestine and its apartheid treatment of Palestinians. As always, it calls any  criticism of the state of Israel "antisemitism", even when it's not, because it (quite rightly) sees that as the quickest and easiest way to shut down the conversation and get what it wants. 

Israel is a very young state, but that is no reason to use childish temper tantrums as a political tactic. Right now, you'd think that it needs all the support it can get, but accommodation and compromise is not the Israeli way. Its allegations of antisemitism and prejudice are, by and large, red herrings.

Given its approach to foreign relations, it's no big surprise that Israel has so few friends, and what friends it does have are grudging ones, largely due to the threats of being labelled antisemitic.