USA goes out on a limb over ICC

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has been won, not by Donald Trump (shock! horror!), but by the South African judge Navi Pillay, for her indefatigable work with the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and as a staunch defender of the international rule of law.

The Trump administration is, of course, apopeplectic, not just for the snub to their Glorious Leader, but also because of Ms. Pillay's and the ICC's votes against best American buddy Israel, and its characterization the Israeli war in Gaza as genocide and accusing it of multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Just hours after the Nobel announcement, Marco Rubio announced sanctions on the ICC, preventing American companies from providing services to it (a largely symbolic gesture), calling it a "rogue court". He says, "we will dismantle the ICC - brick by brick, if necessary", and went further to threaten other countries (i.e. most of the world) that continue to support the organization: "Nations that refuse to reject the ICC's false authority while relying on US assistance are likely to come under increased scrutiny".

A fiesty Ms. Pillay clapped back in no uncertain terms: "Clearly, the fact that he [Trump] never got the Nobel Prize, and never will, is an indictment agaist him ... He doesn't like someone or their ideas, then he goes out to sanction, punish, forcibly deport, wrongfully invade, and arrest leaders of other countries. These are threats to international law." Ouch.

Ms. Pillay has the wholehearted backing of most of the civilized world, with the notable exception of the United States, Israel and a few other maverick states that have been the victims of the ICC and ICJ's decisions over the years, and which have therefore never been official member of the international courts (the US signed the Rome Statute establishing the court, but has never ratified it). 

But then, of course, it depends on your definition of "civilized". The USA is now so far from civilized norms, and has lost so much respect in international circles, that it's hard to see a way back. They are so far out on a limb there's no limb there any more.

The second Chow - is he a plant?

There's a second Chow on the ballot form for the upcoming Toronto mayoralty election.

Braeden is an unknown guy off the street, with no real platform or campaign, one of 53 names on the busy ballot. Because Toronto lists the candidates in alphabetical order (unlike many jurisductions, which list the names in random order or include thumbnail pictures to avoid any confusion), he actually appears just above incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow, who is in a tight race for re-election.

My theory is that the guy is a plant or a decoy installed by Ms. Chow's main rival, Brad Bradford, in the hopes of syphoning off a few of Chow's votes by inattentive voters. (The race is close enough that it could make the difference.) I figure that Bradford, who was our local councillor for four years, would not be above that kind of stunt: I would not trust the guy even if I could throw him. 

It will be interesting to know if my theory is correct, or if we ever find out.

The Myth of the Deal

President Trump has struck a deal! Yay. And it's the "best deal ever". Again. If Americans are not thoroughly over this stuff by now, then I despair of them.

This time he has stuck a "deal" with Russia to import large quantities of embargoed Russian diesel, despite his signing into law just last month new sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Quite where President Putin is going to find all this diesel to export to the US is another mystery: Russia is already suffering from severe fuel shortages internally after an extended barrage of Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil depots and processing facilities.

Details of the "deal" are predictably sparse. It was after all a more or less random suggestion during a phone call on a completely unrelated subject. Trump doesn't involve himself in the tedious details of making his "deals" somehow work. 

Reactions from both the right and the left of the political divide have been almost universally condemnatory, particularly as the sanctions bill was passed so recently and with such fanfare. Analysts say that the amounts involved are not likely to have a significant effect on diesel prices, so Trump may not even get the cost-of-living boost he so desperately needs before the US mid-terms

I put the word "deal" in quotes throughout because these are not really deals at all, just Trump expressing his aspirations and flexing his (or rather America's) muscles. How many times has he announced a deal with Iran, or Ukraine, or Canada for that matter, only to have it changed/scrapped/reversed. 

I truly believe that he just likes hearing himself say "I made a deal"; the content and the wisdom of the agreement is entirely secondary or even moot. This is not the Art of the Deal, it's the Myth of the Deal.

New White House Press Secretary looks familiar

That Mr. Trump has just appointed a new White House Press Secretary, Katie Zacharia.

She looks kind of familiar. You don't think he has a type, do you?

Why is the bond market in rurmoil?

I keep reading articles about bonds without really understanding them. "Spiralling chaos from the bond market", we are told, "yields and bond prices move in inverse directions", "sharp increases in yields have produced losses for many fixed-income investors", "bond market fears are reaching fever pitch", yada yada.

Clearly, all this is a big deal for financial types, so I figure it behooves me to find out what it all means.

I mean, I get the basics: when you buy a bond you are making a loan to a company or government for a specific period of time, after which you expect to get your full principal back. The company or government can then use this money to fund projects, operations or infrastructure. In return, the company or government pays you iterest at a predetermined rate (the "coupon rate") every six months. It is thus a fixed income investment, much like a bank deposit.

Alternatively, you might look to sell the bonds before their natural expiry date, in which  you might get more or less than you originally invested, depending on how the market values that bond at the time. (You get to keep any interest earned to date of course.) So, you can look on a bond investment as pretty safe interest stream, or as a more speculative asset that might (or might not) appreciate in value.

After this, things get a little murkier. What affects the market value of a bond? The actual market price of a bond depend on the issuer's credit quality, the time left until maturity, and the interest rate it carries (compared to other interest rates in the market). 

But bond prices are also affected by changes in  interest rates in the market as a whole. When interest rates go up (e.g. when the central bank announces an increase in its index rate, such as at a time of high inflation),.bond prices tend to fall to equalize the bond's interest rate with the prevailing rates in the market. Conversely when general interest rates fall, bond prices in the market tend to rise. 

The coupon rate of a bond is also affected by the credit rating of the issuing.corporation or government, and the time to maturity. An issuer with a poor credit rating has a greater risk of default (i.e. not being able to pay back the principal at maturity), so it must attract investors with a higher coupon interest rate. Also, bonds with a long maturity date are more exposed to interest rate and inflation risks for an extended period, and so must offer a higher coupon rate to attract investors.

So, what is causing all the turmoil in today's bond market? In recent months, bond yields (basically the inteeat rates they offer) have been rising, which in turn pushed the price of bonds down. The increase in yields is widely believed to be a result of a whole complex cocktail of factors: strong economic growth expectations, high inflation worries (which causes investors to require their interest rates to compensate for their loss of purchasing power), high government borrowing, high funding levels for AI development (with all the uncertainty that entails), and general uncertainty about the rationality of the US government and the Federal Reserve's ability to function independently and rationally.

Almost all of this relates directly to the USA, but America's influence is so strong that is repercussions on the bond market are being felt worldwide.

Except, of course, it's not even that simple (of course it's not!) There are others who believe that a different cocktail of factors is responsible: some suggest that bond rates merely reflect nominal GDP growth in the US; some that they are directly related to oil prices; some geel that they are more dependant on announcements from the US Federal Reserve than anything else. None of these suggestions hold water on their own.

But, whatever the cause, it's undeniable that bond ownership is changing. Long-term holder like pension finds and central banks have increasingly abandoned bonds, like rats from a sinkimg ship. The vacuum has been at least partially filled by hedge funds, which are buying and selling bonds aggressively, but on a much more short-term basis.

Where all this will end is anyone's guess. But it probably won't be pretty.

Nuclear fusion no closer to a working model, but generating lots of spagghetti

I have always been, and I remain, skeptical about the dramatic claims made by nuclear fusion energy developers. From time to time, a glowing announcement appears in the news promising unlimited cheap energy just around the corner, merely because some company or other has managed to squeeze a little bit more energy out of a hot mess of plasma, usually neglecting to mention that they are still decades away (if ever) from making it cost-effective or sustainable.

The latest such announcement comes from BC company General Fusion Group Ltd. Accompanying the article is a photo of the inside of the General Fusion lab where the fusion beast is being tamed.

It's a scene of such disorder and messiness that it's hard to take seriously. There are huge knots of pipes and cables, random canisters and frames, all jammed into a small room It's certainly not the sleek, gleaming machinery of Star Trek, more like a Heath Robinson construction.

Now, of course, I know nothing about the subject, and this is clearly still early days in the research. Maybe eventually all that spaghetti will be hidden inside a neat brushed-steel box with multicoloured lights and switches and dials. But right now it has the look of a school science experiment, and does not inspire confidence.

Revelations of separatist leaders' deals with America rattles Albertans

As Quebec votes in a separatist government (albeit only a minority government, with a much weaker mandate than was widely expected), Alberta's secession movement also receives another set-back.

Revelations in the Globe and Mail show that some major Alberta separatist leaders have been cozying up to the US Republican Party, which, given current relations between Canada and the USA, has many Albertans pretty worried and upset.

The Globe's report details how, unbeknown to most rank-and-file would-be separatists, movement leaders have met with Republican representatives in Washington and in Calgary and have even discussed potential deals granting the US access to Alberta's land, water, oil and precious metals in return for American assistance in their secession plans. 

This is a bridge too far from most Albertans, and organizations like the Alberta Prosperity Project and Stay Free Alberta are deperately trying to limit the damage of the revelations. Some Albertans - less than a quarter, according to most polls - have a beef with Canada (or they think they do), and believe it is is Alberta's interests, in one way or another, to separate. Hardly any Albertans want to become the 51st state of America.

Trump's AI rebranding just more smoke and mirrors

As a new CNN/SSRS survey concludes that the vast majority of Americans are very concerned about AI and the way it's being developed, President Donald Trump has a solution: rename it.

The CNN survey found that 88% of Americans would be concerned rather than happy if AI were to surpass human intelligence (which it probably already has), 87% are concerned at all the data centr1es being constructed for AI, 82% think that AI is being developed too quickly, and 81% believe that it will change our way of life.(well, duh). Furthermore, 71% think that the government is not doing enough to regulate AI development, including 85% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans.

In the face of that, Mr. Trump, whose only concern seems to be whether the USA is developing it faster than China, has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) should henceforth be called super intelligence (SI). Bizarrely, he has even issued an executive order to that effect, which he considers to be "morally binding", although he can only force the compliance of government agencies.

Even more bizarrely, some of the more pusillanimous tech leaders seem to be humouring him on this, despite the fact that "super intelligence" already has a very specific meaning within the industry (meaning the point where AI exceeds the cognitive abilities of humans in virtually all aspects of thinking). Elon Musk, not generally known for his attention to morality, says he will rename his AI company SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI. Actually, he is the only one...

Obviously, Trump's order will have zero effect on the AI industry and its regulation. Like his other renaming stunts, it is just another attempt to distract Americans' attention from some of the worse developments happening under his watch, and to make it look as though he is being proactive on an issue of concern without actually doing anything at all, the old smoke and mirrors routine. As usual, an extraordinary percentage of Americans will be fooled by it.