Hunger stones in Germany

As Europe deals with unprecedented heat and drought conditions, you've probably read about relics of bygone ages surfacing the levels of major rivers continue to recede: shipwrecks, unexploded WWII bombs, mammoth remains, etc.

The other thing that is starting to be revealed are the so-called "hunger stones" ("Hungersteine" in German). These are messages carved onto stones on rivers' edges  during past droughts that usually remain hidden from sight, but are now starting to show

This one in the River Elbe in Germany is particularly poignant: it reads "Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine", translated as "If you see me, weep".

Carney's climate change announcent a drop in the bucket

If you are non-plussed by the Carney "Liberal" government's apparent complete abandonment of concern over climate change, as I am, you could do worse than to read a good article that appeared in the Globe and Mail last week, entitled "Not addressing climate change costs the economy more. When will we finally get this?"

It's well-written, well-argued and convincing. Unfortunately, it will have absolutely no impact on Carney's policies because, for now at least, he is focussed on fighting fires from south of the border, and he is all about short-term gratification right now.

As an indication of where his head is at, one of the very few climate initiatives he has announced - positive ones that is; he has made many announcements killing or paring back existing climate initiatives - was the recent announcement of $34 million for various projects to make Canadian communities more resilient in the face of climate change.

$34 million used to be a lot of money once upon a time. But, as has been pointed out, it amounts to one-thousandth of the money the government invested in the Trans-Mountain oil pipeline, and a similar poroportion of the proposed West Coast pipeline. Certainly puts it in perspective. 

And even this paltry amount is focussed on mitigation of damage rather than aimed at reducing the need for such mitigation

Child who caused Porter flight to be cancelled maybe not at fault

You will by now have probably heard or read the story of the Porter flight out of Victoria, BC, which was cancelled late at night after staff and parents were not able to get a young child to sit in his seat and buckle up his seatbelt. The child and parents eventually had to leave the plane, by which time it was too late for the plane to take off, and all the other passengers also had to disembark.

There have been mixed reactions to the incident, some (most) severely critical of the child and parents, some more empathetic. This eye-witness report, for example, makes.it clear that the child was clearly terrified, not just a spoiled brat having a temper tantrum.

I actually tried to find some video footage of the incident - you'd think, in this day and age, that someone would have been assiduously filming the whole thing. But all I could find was a very short clip, showing staff calmly (and obviously unsuccessfully) reasomong with the child.

My first reaction on reading about it was along the outraged "spoiled brat" lines. But, on reflection, I think the staff and parents probably did what they could, and the traumatized child probably could not help himself.

Soccer closes ranks against Infantino's vision

Football (soccer) federations across the world are closing ranks in opposition to FIFA boss Gianni Infantino. 

In an "open letter to the football family" yesterday, UEFA (representing Europe), CONCACAF (representing North amd Central America and the Caribbean) and AFC (representing Asia)  presented Infantino and FIFA with a joint declaration of solidarity and opposition to Infantino's money-grabbing vision of world football.

It took infantino's latest faux pas - his plan to sell off a large share of FIFA to private investors - to bring these disaparate federations together in joint outrage, reflecting the outrage expressed by most of the world at Infantino's excesses. His time at the helm of FIFA is surely limited.

All those e-scooters you see? They're illegal

If you are becoming increasingly exasperated recently by those annoying and apparently lawless electric scooters, you are not alone.

Stats on e-scooter crashes with pedestrians are hard to find, but accidents resulting in e-scooter rider visits to hospital, and even deaths, are increasing exponemtially, especially among children. There have been at least two deaths of e-scooter riders in July alone.

How does it make you feel, then, to know that pretty much all of the e-scooters you see zooming around our streets, sidewalks and bike lanes are doing so illegally?

Having said that, it depends where you live. You see, there are no national or even provincial rules or laws in place regulating e-scooters. What rules do exist are municipal. (And when was the last time you saw municipal laws being enforced?)

Thus, in Mississauga or Brampton or Ottawa, e-scooters my be legal due to a six-year old provincial pilot program they are part of. Even there, though, they are only legal if the scooters are unable to go faster than 24 kph (can YOU tell?) and if the driver is over the age of 15 (again, can YOU tell?) Also, you can't ride with a passenger, under-18s must wear a helmet, you can't ride them on the sidewalk, and if there is a bike lane available you have to use it. In Mississauga specifically, you can't ride them on a road with a speed limit of more than 50 kph.

So, it's complicated, and most people you see are probably breaking at least one of those rules.

In Toronto, on the other hand, it's not complicated at all. Toronto is not part of the pilot project, and you can't legally ride an e-scooter ANYWHERE in Toronto except on private property (so up and down your driveway, for example). You can buy them, but you can't use them. Once again, no-one is enforcing this ban - e-scooters are everywhere.

Outside of Ontario, it's just as confusing. In Vancouver, Halifax and Calgary, for instance, e-scooters are allowed, at least in bike lanes. In Calgary, though, e-scooters are only allowed if they are rented/shared, not if you own your own e-scooter. Plus, you can use your (shared) e-scooter on some sidewalks in Calgary but not others. Like I said, it's complicated (and unenforced).

Canadians are surprisingly cosmopolitan

Visual Capitalist does it again: produces a striking and unexpected graph, this time of the extent to which the inhabitants of different countries travel abroad.

Not unexpected: Sweden, Netherlands and Germany top the list, with 99/96% reporting having travelled abroad, with the UK not far behind at 94%. 

More unexpected: Canada comes next, with 92% reporting having travelled abroad (although most to the USA, I'm guessing). This is more than the French (90%), Australians (88%), Italians (86%), and Spaniards (84%), and significantly more than the Americans (76%) and the Japanese (65%). 

Ha! How cosmopolitan we are!

Clear up your mess, Elon

I hope Elon Musk is going to go up there and clear up the mess his SpaceX rocket made on the Moon.

Trump's hold over US Supreme Court is weakening

The US Supreme Court had a busy day yesterday, as it prepares to wind down for a long and leisurely summer break. Among its mixed bag of decisions was one particularly important one: a 6-3 decision to strike down Trump's attempts to end "birthright citizenship", the right of children physically born in the USA - even to undocumented immigrants, tourists, and people on short-term work or study visas - to have US citizenship.

This was a big deal for Trump. His executive order on this issue was one of the very first things he did on taking power. He even attended the Supreme Court's oral arguments in person, the first time a sitting president has ever done so, his intention presumably being to stare down the judges to make sure they voted with him. In the end, though, the court voted against him in one of the few checks to his many illegal attempts to re-write American law and way of life.

Perhaps the biggest surprise, though, considering how clear the wording of the American Constitution is on the matter, and the century-plus of corroborating case law and legal precedent, is that three of the Court's most conservative judges - let's name names: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas - still managed to justify dissenting against the decision. A fourth, Brett Cavanaugh, decided to prevaricate and knit-pick, concluding that Trump's order was not unconstitutional but did still violate immigration law. The other two conservatives on the Court (John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett), who have in the past been guilty of voting ideologically, voted according to the clear legal principles this time, siding with the three Democrats on the Court.

Legal scholars are at something of a loss to understand how, and on what legal grounds, the three conservatives could vote to allow Trump to force through this clearly unconstitutional measure. But it just shows the hold Trump still has over them, even if his hold over some of the others appears to be weakening.