Shells on a beach = death threat?

More US news, I'm afraid (it's hard to look away).

Soon after President Trump's initial attempt to go after ex-FBI boss and one-time nemesis James Comey fell through when the courts dismissed the case with prejudice, the man has prevailed upon his Justice Department to indict Comey all over again, this time claiming that Comey threatened his life. Because, more than anything else, Trump hates to be thwarted, and he will spend million of dollars of taxpayers' money to wreak vengeance.

And, if the last attempt at indictment was flimsy and poorly executed, this one's going to be a doozy. Comey's supposed "threat" was a picture he shared on social media about a year ago, quickly removed, of some seashells on a beach forming the numbers "8647".

Confused? So was I. Apparently, the "47" is supposed to represent Donald Trump (the 47th US president, get it?) And the "86" is apparently slang in some language or other for "remove" or "take out". (I don't know. I don't make this stuff up.) 

So, DOJ's allegation is that, by sharing the image, Comey was personally threatening to kill Donald Trump. A stretch? Just a bit. At worst, it was Comey's hamfisted attempt to call for Trump's impeachment or removal from office. It would be hard to argue that it was a call for his death. It's no secret that Comey dislikes Trump (and vice versa), but a call for assassination? Hardly.

Comey claims that he was not aware of the possible violent implications of the image, thinking it was just a political statement of some sort. (Why would a public person publicly share a political statement that they don't even understand?) He says he took it down from his Instagram page as soon as someone explained to him how it might be interpreted.

So, I guess we'll see whether putting a few shells on a beach constitutes a treasonous threat. It would be the damnedest thing, don't you think?

NASA chief wants to make Pluto a planet again

Back in 2006, poor Pluto was officially demoted from a planet to a dwarf planet. Generations of school children who had learned the mnemonic "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" have had to re-learn it as "My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nothing".

Not a big deal, you might think. But it was controversial then, and apparently it remains controversial to this day. The argument was that a planet has to fulfill three (admittedly rather arbitrary) criteria: to orbit the sun (not another planet), to be massive enough to have been made fully spherical by its own gravity, and to have cleared its orbit of debris. Pluto, they said, failed to fulfill the third criterion, sharing an orbit as it does with the asteroids, icy bodies and other dwarf planets of the Kuiper Belt. 

The curremt (Trump-appointed) NASA chief Jared Isaacman is particularly exercised by the subject, and is making it his mission to reinstate Pluto as a full planet. The odds are against it, though, as the decision rests with the  International Astonomical Union (IAU), a worldwide group of professional astronomers whose job it is to define and name celestial objects and surface features. (Isaacman, on the other hand, is a billionaire finance-bro and a "private astronaut" -  a typical Trump nominee.)

It probably shouldn't surprise us that a Trump appointee is looking to turn back progress. It won't surprise me too much if he turns out to be a flat-earther too.

Does MLS own the Vancouver Whitecaps?

Rumour has it that Major League Soccer (MLS) is considering relocating the Vancouver Whitecaps franchise to somewhere more profitable, like maybe Las Vegas. They say the "long-term health" of the league is at stake. They say that "stadium economics, scheduling restrictions and a lack of government and corporate support" will make keeping the Whitecaps in Vancouver very difficult.  

The current owners, a group of Canadian businessmen, have put the team up for sale, although they do say their priority is to keep the team in Vancouver. There are currently only two Canadian teams in the MLS league, Toronto (added as an expansion team in 2007) and Vancouver (added in 2011), and losing one would be pretty hard for the Canadian psyche. 

Although the Whitecaps had their most successful season ever last year, only falling to Miami in the championship game, and they currently sit second in the league this year, their on-field success has not translated into all-important revenue, in which stakes they sit at the very bottom of the league, trailing much worse clubs in the middle of the standings.

I confess the whole idea of "moving" a team from one city to another seems bizarre to me, coming from a British background. I can''t imagine "moving" Manchester City to Blackpool, or Chelsea to Portsmouth!? But I guess I just don't understand the franchise business model of North American sports. Certainly teams (or franchises) do get moved all the time: the Brooklyn Dodgers became the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals, the Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers, etc, etc.

But what is the role of MLS in this current case? Google AI says that "Major League Soccer (MLS) does not own the Whitecaps directly, though it operates under a single entity structure where owners are investors in the league". The best explanation I can find for this confusing claim comes from Medium.com: "Unlike the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), and National Hockey League (NHL), the MLS is considered a Single-Entity business model. This structure allow the teams to be considered "individual investors" of the league, allowing Major League Soccer to be the sole owners of all 29 teams and not be considered a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)", although the article then goes on to question the legality of this Single-Entity status.

So, clear as mud. I still don't know how it works, but it does seem that MLS somehow has "full autonomy" over business deals, exclusivity player negotiations, and many other aspects. Weird.

Yet another productivity analysis

It's a constant taunt of the Canadian right wing that, after ten years of Liberal rule, Canada's productivity is poor (the worst in this cherry-picked category, the lowest in that, you know how it goes). The unstated implication is that the Conservatives, somehow, would have done a much better job. 

Productivity - GDP per capita, or sometimes per hour worked - has become the tub to be thumped in recent years by many in the business community, one metric to rule them all. But it's a notoriously blunt instrument, open to all manner of misinterpretations and vagaries.

The redoubtable Visual Capitalist has produced an updated analysis of global productivity, which yields some eye-popping, but actually pretty explicable, results. Way out at the top are not the USA or China, or even Sweden, but Ireland, Norway and Luxembourg. But this doesn't necessarily mean that Irish workers are much more efficient or hard-working than those in the rest of the world, or even that they are better at harnessing technology.

In the cases of Ireland and Luxembourg, their productivity dominance is almost entirely due to their status as tax havens. Both countries host the headquarters of many multinational companies, particularly in the pharmaceutical and technology sectors in Ireland's case and finance in Luxembourg's, so most of the work that generates such high productivity figures is actually done elsewhere. In both cases, productivity drops dramatically when measured using Gross National Income, rather than Gross Domestic Product.

In Norway's case, it's productivity is more to do with its high-value energy industry, although some of it is "genuine" productivity efficiency, and its adoption of capital-intensive and knowledge-based work. Most of the other (mainly European and Scandinavian) countries in the top ten or twenty similarly benefit from those same choices or circumstances.  

And Canada? In this particular listing of 37 countries, which is based on GDP per hours worked in purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars, Canada comes in at a middle-of-the-road No. 18. This is above the OECD average, and about the same as the UK, Italy and Spain. It is just below Australia, although significantly above the likes of Israel, Japan, New Zealand Mexico. Canada also comes in well below arch-rivals the USA which, at No. 7 according to this metric, is the only non-European country in the top 15. (China is not included in this analysis.)

In general, countries whose economies are more reliant on agriculture, tourism, or lower-value services tend to report lower productivity levels, while those which are more based on technology, finance, pharmaceuticals and energy typically show higher productivity. So, such lists are perhaps not all that useful.

White House Press Secretary makes a strangely prescient comment

As per usual with American politics, you just can't make this stuff up.

Minutes before a gunman burst into the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington DC, guns a-blazing, a heavily-pregnant White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made some rather prescient comments:

"This speech tonight will be classic Donald J. Trump. It will be funny. It will be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight in the room."

Now, that's not just prescient, it's also a very strange choice of words. Not to say downright suspicious. In different circumstances, Ms. Leavitt might well have been bundled off in a police car for her comments, baby bump and all. As Trump's sycophant-in-chief, though, she is presumably above suspicion.

Unless, of course, the shooting was staged, and Ms. Leavitt just blurted her words out accidentally or unthinkingly. Or, conceivably, she was being too cute by half (unlikely - "cute" is not an adjective that applies to her hawkish and aggressive public persona).

How the USA thinks of itself (and everyone else)

I've lost track of how many times I have written a post criticizing the tone-deafness of the Trump administration. By which I mean not just Trump himself, but everyone who clings to his coattails, believing that Trump's influence is enough to protect them from criticism and censure, and exempts them from the need to observe common courtesy and shared values.

Case in point: an internal Pentagon email from top policy advisor Elbridge Colby outlining measures the United States could take to chastise NATO members they see as difficult or insufficiently supportive of radical US military ventures.

Thus, countries like Spain, which has been outspoken in its opposition of Trump's illegal and ill-advised forays into unilateral invasion and regime change, could, the memo suggests, be suspended completely from the alliance (actually, it couldn't legally). Countries like the UK, which had the audacity to refuse the US use of its overseas bases, could be browbeaten by a public "review" of its claims to the Falkland Islands. Etc, etc.

This shows a mind-boggling ignorance of the rules of NATO (or an assumption that the US can just flout said rules with impunity). There is no requirement for other countries to follow America into its wars of choice - Section 5 of the NATO charter (which states that an attack against one member of the alliance should be considered an attack against all) only applies where member states are attacked by outside actors, not where a member state chooses to go to war unilaterally.

But the guy, whoever he is, is a high-ranking employee of the Pentagon. He must know (mustn't he?) that what he is suggesting is wrong - morally, legally, strategically, any way you want to think of it. But the US under Trump has its head so far up its arse that it cares not a jot for such niceties and inconveniences as the law and morality. That's the only explanation I can postulate for such arrant nonsense.

Plug-in solar is coming...

Plug-in solar is coming! I've seen that headline in multiple places recently. And it is kind of a big deal, in a small way.

So, what is plug-in solar anyway? It's "a simple, reliable way to save money by generating your own electricity" from small-scale modular solar panels that connect (via an inverter) to a standard power outlet in your home. It's an easy and affordable way to get started generating your own power. 

Solar panels can be put on any accessible flat surface, such as a balcony, in a front or back yard, or on a roof deck. Unlike a full-scale roof-top grid-tied system, installation is pretty straightforward and can be done without engaging a contractor and a whole lot of bureaucracy. Even renters and apartment dwellers can now reduce their grid dependence.

Plug-in panels come in a range of output sizes from 200W to 1,600W (as compared to a typical rooftop installation of 3,000W to 9,000W), and cost from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. It's not intended to power your whole home, merely to reduce load (particularly during peak times), and to save the consumer some money. Even a small 200W unit can power a fridge or overhead lighting, or be used to recharge laptops, phones, etc, or it can be used remotely to power camping appliances, a small boat, etc. Larger units can of course power larger and more power-hungry appliances.

The average payback time right now is about 5 years, and costs are expected to continue falling as market take-up increases. Annual savings depend on available sunshine hours and the cost of locally produced electricity.

Germany has been doing it for years, since the German government streamlined the rules for power generation without needing approval from electricity utilities back in 2019. The technology is tried, tested and safe. Germany remains the largest market - about 1 in 10 households there use some form of plug-in solar panels. Now, more and more other jurisdictions are starting to cut the red tape to make it easy for consumers to install a plug-in solar system. Plug-in solar is now legal in most EU states (25 of 27), excepting Sweden (puzzling) and Hungary (not so puzzling).r

Utah was the first US state to pass legislation allowing it, and many others have followed suit.(or are in the process). Britain recently changed its rules to allow, and even encourage, it. Embarrassingly, here in Canada, the Canadian Standards Association is still "evaluating" the technology, and there are still "regulatory barriers" to overcome. 

With the crunch on gas prices caused by the US war in Iran, there has never been a better time for plug-in solar.

Don't skimp on your medications

A friend whose judgement I trust implicitly was talking recently about her niece who is a doctor in the UK. My friend also trusts her niece's judgement implicitly, so therefore so do I.

Anyway, the point is, this doctor had been kvetching about people who misuse everyday drugs (think, acetaminophen, ibuprofen) by not taking as much as they were allowed, according to the label. They may be worried about overdosing, or concerned about developing a tolerance, a dependence, an addiction, that kind of thing.

Well, my wife is that kind of cautious drug-user. So, given that she is now having to rely on extra-strength Tylenol (acetaminophen) to mask some pretty severe back pain, at least until her appointment with a pain management clinic comes through, I decided to check on the dosage rules and recommendations.

According to Harvard Health Publishing, which I'm also inclined to trust, one should "be cautious but not afraid" of Tylenol, and trust the dosage information on the label. Yes, people occasionally suffer liver damage and some even (very occasionally) die from overdoses, but you'd have to work very hard at it. Some small portion of the drug is converted in the body to a by-product that is toxic to the liver, but you'd have to take an awful lot to build up more than the body can handle. Also, unlike NSAIDS (ibuprofen/Advil and naproxen/Aleve), high doses of acetaminophen will not irritate the stomach and intestinal lining. As for President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy's conspiracy theories about Tylenol, treat them with the contempt they deserve.

The maximum recommended daily dose of acetaminophen is 4,000 milligrams (mg) from all sources, although 3,000 mg is recommended, to be on the safe side. 

So, if you are taking regular (325 mg) tablets, no more than 8 to 10 a day are recommended. The label suggests 1 or 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours, which is about at the top end of the recommended daily dosage (although few people would continue taking them every 4 hours overnight, I think).

Extra-strength tablets are 500 mg, and no more than 6 a day are recommended. The label suggests 1 or 2 tablets every 6 to 8 hours. Some extra-strength tablets (e.g. for arthritis) are 650 mg, and no more than 4 a day are recommended. The label says take 1 every 8 hours (i.e. 3 a day).

So, as can be seen, the recommended dosages are quite conservative, and you'd have to be flouting them pretty cavalierly to run any risk at all of liver damage. So, don't skimp, take the recommended doses. You'll feel better and you're very, very unlikely to do any damage to your internal organs.