Different attitudes of US hockey players to Trump's politicization

It's well-known that Doanld Trump has no shame, no compunction, and these days neither does anyone else in his administration nor his social media team. They seem to think that anything goes, no limits, because that's the way Trump thinks. It's hard to know if Trump says "make me something like this", or if the functionaries come up with the daft ideas themselves (my guess is the former: Trump instigating but avoiding direct culpability).

So, since the unfortunate win by the USA men's and women's hockey teams over Canada in the Winter Olympics - against the run of play, agianst the skill levels - Trump has made a point of weaponizing the national hockey teams against Canada, partly because he's only seven years old (so there!) and partly because, well, because he can. Some of the team members seem into it, but some are distinctly uncomfortable at being used in this way.

For example, Brady Tkachuk - US star player and Ottawa Senators captain - is distinctly angry at being used in an AI-doctored anti-Canada video. "I would never say that. That's not who I am", he says, defensively. Now, I have little love or respect for either of the Tkachuk brothers - they are skillful but sneaky and nasty players - but to have your words twisted in that way is tough. And he has to work in Canada, with a demanding and censorious home crowd. 

He also tried to distance himself from Trump's tasteless locker room call after the gold medal match, and insisted that the call "close the northerm border" was definitely not him.

Auston Matthews, captain of the very Canadian Toronto Maple Leafs apparently didn't think twice about accepting the invitation to Trump's White House swagger-fest - that part is pretty traditional, after all, for better or worse - although he did draw the line at appearing at the much more political State of the Nation address.

A bunch of the American men's team did think twice about attending Trump's politically-charged schmooze-a-palooza. Five members of the gold medal-winning US team skipped the traditional White House invitation. Coincidentally (or probably not), a majority of these men had Minnesota connectioms.

The US women's team, on the other hand, declined the White House en masse, unwilling to be used by Trump for his own nefarious political purposes. They also reacted publicly to Trump's objectionable joke about his "having to" invite the women's team, suggesting that they are much inferior, despite their just-as-valuable gold medal, calling it a 'distasteful joke".

Team USA Women 1 : Team USA Men 0.

But, more to the point, why does Trump have to be so divisive and offensive and so totally tone-deaf. He didn't have to make (or rather, have made, because I'm pretty sure he's not capable of doing it himself) an anti-Canada video with fabricated audio using one of America's top sportsmen without his permission. He didn't have to make tasteless macho jokes at the expense of one of the world's most dominant sports teams. But he does it anyway, because ... what? Because he childish and shallow? Is that all that's going on? Because he thinks it will play well with his far-right voting base? Who knows?

Canada agonizes over Winter Olympics performance - again

It's pretty widely agreed that Canada didn't have the Winter Olympics it wanted in Milano-Cortina 2026.

Canada ended up with 21 medals in total, substantially less than the 26 it earned in Beijing 2022 and, at eighth place, the first time the country has finished outside the top five since 1994. Listed according to gold medals won, we are even further down the table. The 29 medals of 2018 and the 14 golds in 2014 seem like a distant memory.

Predictably, the outcry is that Canadian sports is underfunded. The boss of the Canadian Olympic Committee was of course one of the loudest whiney voices: "Canadians deserve a sports system that is properly funded. National sports organizations are stretched unbearably thin." It happens every time. (Actually, it happens even if the country does well!)

But it's hard to blame it on funding. Nathan MacKinnon didn't miss an open goal becuase of underfunding. Funding issues didn't cause Cassie Sharpe to crash and injure herself in the freeski halfpipe, or Mark McMorriss to miss the whole Olympics due to injury. And you can't blame underfunding for all the times Canada came fourth not third. These things happen. And even if they seem to happen disproportionately, you still can't blame it on funding.

Adam van Koeverden, an Olympic multi-medalist himself and now the Liberals' minister for sports, denies that Canadian sports are underfunded, pointing to a 45% increase in the athletes' assistance program since 2018, and a more than doubling of the government's sports budget over the last 20 years. Like everything else, sports are competing for scarce government funds.

It's hard to quantify the effect of, and the need for, funding for Olympic performance. For that matter, it's hard to know how important a goodbye showing at the Olympics actually is, in the scheme of things. Maybe that money is better spent elsehwere? But those who really care are convinced that it's critical. 

Here's an eye-opener, though: fifteen out of the twenty-one medals Canada won at the latest Winter Olympics were won by people who are funded through an organization called Great To Gold, a project estsblished by two Toronto business leaders which canvasses funds from private and corporate backers for Canadian athletes who have been handpicked as having Olympic medal potential. But there's the rub: if they had medal potential anyway, maybe they didn't need the extra funding, maybe it made no difference. Like I say, this stuff is really hard to quantify.

Likewise, many countries offer substantial incentives from medal wins. That's nice for successful athletes, but it's hard to believe that it has an appreciable effect on performance. Surely, all athletes at the Olympics Games are going for gold. Italy had by far the biggest incentive payout, and they did do very well. But they were also the host country, which must factor much more highly in performance.

Sure, Canada is no Norway, a winter sports powerhouse despite its tiny population. This is not so much due to funding, but perhaps more to the way winter sports are an integral part of Norwegian culture, although funding too has escalated in the country and Norway's results have spiked accordingly. Furthermore, although Norway has a tiny population, it has one of the world's highest standards of living, with good healthcare and education. All of this helps.

Neither is Canada the USA, the richest country in the world with one of the world's largest populations. But, in the scheme of things, we really don't do that badly. Yes, we should have won the men's hockey gold, after outplaying the Americans for almost 60 minutes. But we didn't and maybe that's OK.

Trump's "great hospital boat" is a joke ... right?

I thought this was precious. Just when you thought he had finally understood the situation in Greenland, Donald Trunp has despatched "a great hospital boat" to Greenland to service the many Greenlanders he says are "not being taken care of". This is presumably his idea of a PR coup of some sort.

In fact, Greenlanders have pretty good healthcare, provided free by Denmark. There are five regional hospitals across the island to care for the scattered population of 56,000. Any more complex cases that cannot by dealt with by the main hospital in Nuuk are sent for treatment in Denmark, also free of charge. Denmark has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, better than countries like the UK, France and Spain.

Coincidentally, just this weekend, Denmark's Arctic Command revealed that it had evacuated a crew member of a US submarine off the coast of Greenland, who required urgent medical attention, for treatment in Nuuk.

It all sounds like a comedy sketch to me.

What is Influenza D, and should we be worried about it?

Influenza D has, historically, mainly affected farm animals like cattle and pigs, but there is evidence that it is now spreading through the human population. It has been found among farm workers, in hospitals, and even in airports. It spreads stealthily and quickly, barely triggering immune alarms. Infectious disease scientists are concerned that it might mark the start of the next global pandemic, and some are calling it "a legitimate pandemic threat requiring immediate surveillance".

Researchers have found that Influenza D replicates in human lungs just as efficiently as seasonal flu, but it had learnt to suppress the cellular alarm systems that normally alert the immune system to viral infection, allowing it to take hold and start replicating before normal defences can kick in.

Thing is, though, unlike the usual symptoms of seasonal flu - fever, aches, cough, runny nose - Influenza D has very mild or even no symptoms at all. So, people can go about their normal business while potentially spreading the virus to others unknowingly - ideal pandemic conditions.

But, if it usually has few or no symptoms why should we even worry about it? Well, scientists worry that it could learn to exchange genetic material with other viruses, allowing it to mutate into something more concerning for humans, and it could evade immune responses and antiviral interventions.

Well, maybe. But this is still very much in the realm of "what if". It may spread widely with little or no injurious symptoms. Or it may mutate, a little or a lot. Or an entirely different virus may appear on the scene with much greater pandemic potential. It's good that scientists are monitoring these things, but to call Influenza D the next big pandemic threat is probably a stretch.

Supreme Court's defiance of Trump changes little

So, the US Supreme Court finally got around to announcing their ruling that Trump's "emergency" tariffs were in fact illegal. His imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unconstitutional and must stop, they concluded. This came as no surprise to anyone - including Trump, I imagine - although the 6-3 ruling did mean that three of the Republican justices on the court (including two that Trump himself appointed) voted against a core precept of Trump's protectionist policy. The Republican members of the Court usually make a habit of voting along party lines, not according to the actual legal logic of the case, but this time they made an exception.

Predictably, Trump was apoplectic, bad-mouthing and slandering the judges who voted against him. At one point, he went full Ozymandias, crowing that he could, if he wanted, completely destroy whole countries and their economies. It was hard to see it as anything other than an old washed-up guy shaking his little fists at the heavens.

The reaction among American businesses and abroad was largely muted, even wistful. People, even many Republicans, are just so over Trump. Dealing with a fractious toddler, day in, day out, is just exhausting and soul-destroying. People are just trying to remain patient - and hopefully solvent - trusting that, eventually, this too shall pass. 

Although technically a big blow to Trump's agenda, the Court decision will probably have few real-world implications, and Trump has vowed to find other ways to achieve the same ends. It's more of a moral victory than anything else. International trade is still in disarray, and uncertainty has, if anything, increased not decreased. The ruling does not affect sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and lumber, which are levied under Section 232 of the 1974 Trade Act, tariffs that affect Canada's more than any others. And few people really expect to see any of the $130 billion or so in refunds - Trump vows to tie such remedies up in court for years to come, a common ploy of his.

Tellingly, Trump already had a new tariff plan ready, albeit a less drastic and flexible one, utilizing other obscure US laws. Most people understood well that the court ruling did not mean that tariffs would suddenly go away: tariffs are the be-all-and-and-all of Trump's policy. At this point, I'm not even sure he remembers why they are important to him - they have become a matter of principle, a knee-jerk reaction to anything he doesn't like.

It would be fascinating to know how all this will be remembered by future historians. It's hard to fathom, even for us - imagine how future generations will look back on it.

Why does Trump want regime change in Cuba?

After Trump's quick and painless (for him at least) invasion of Venezuela, most commentators believe that the hapless Caribbean island of Cuba is next on his list. Except, hold on, Venezuela has oil, lots of it; Cuba has a few bananas and some tobacco. What's in it for America?

Whether it makes sense or not - and, let's face it, much that Trump does makes no sense at all - Cuba does seem to be in his sights. Trump toy boy Marco Rubio, who also happens to be his Secretary of State, has been carrying on secret negotiations with figurehead Raúl Castro's grandson, who is also called Raúl Castro. We can call him Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro to distinguish, or, better, "Raúlito", or Little Raúl, or even "El Cangrejo", the Crab, (due to a deformed finger, apparently). Take your pick.

Raúlito is a much more Americanized individual than most figures of any power in Cuba - young, business-minded, and sufficiently distanced from the revolutionary attitudes of his older family members, much like Marco Rubio himself. And there's the rub. You can see why Rubio is so driven to change the old Communist regime in Cuba (his parents fled the island, just before Fidel Casto's revolution), and you have to assume that Rubio is the one behind the push to make Cuba yet another American state (unofficially), with Trump just coming along for the ride. 

Rubio's negotiations with Raúlito (or "discussions", as officials insist they are better described) are not official policy, but Trump does openly talk about regime change in a Cuban context. Modern American hegemony, however, is much more about control than it is about conversion to democracy and regime change per se. As an authoritarian himself, Trump is much more comfortable dealing with other authoritarian states than with democratic ones that are beholden to the whims of their electorates.

It's noticeable that, in Venezuela, Trump left the Chavista totalitarian regime in place, rather than open it up to democratic elections. So long as he has effective control, that is the way Trump prefers it, and that is the way he would prefer it in Cuba. So, break the economy, soften up the people, groom a potential leader who could control the locals: that seems to be the plan. If "regime change lite" can be effected with a minimum of American official involvement, all the better.

As for why, most people have long since stopped trying to understand Trump and his motivations. Yes, he would like to assert control over a Communist island just 90 miles from Florida. That's all part of the Monroe (Donroe) Doctrine. Not that Cuba is in any shape to threaten the US in any way, nor are they a conduit for Russia (or China?), and haven't been for decades. I sometimes think that these are just games for Trump, little challenges he likes to amuse himself with, cheap thrills he derives from his ability to control the levers of power.

The US has kept up sanctions on Cuba for most of the last 70 years, and Trump has only strengthened them. Trump now controls Venezuelan oil flows and he has stopped Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba, and threatened sanctions on Mexico, Cuba's other major supplier, if they continue to export to the island (and on any other country that has the temerity to oppose his will). It's power grid is failing, hospitals are in disarray, food and fuel are scarce, garbage fills the streets, inflation is rampant, tourists are staying away, and those that can are leaving the island in droves. 

The island is on the edge of collapse and a humanitarian crisis, all thanks to this ideological action by the USA. Things are almost as bad as they were under the Washington-backed Batista regime back in the 1950s, conditions that led to Castro's revolution in 1959. Trump is banking on most Cubans blaming the current "revolutionary" regime, not the USA, for the country's precipitous decline, and anecdotally that does seem to be happening. A Trump-led regime change (of some sort) can only be just around the corner. 

Whether you like Cuba's political system or not - and there's a lot to dislike - Trump must be discouraged from his games. Any ideas how we do that?

Why is chocolate STILL so expensive?

It seems like just a few months ago that everyone was kvetching about the record prices of cocoa and chocolate, and now a slump in prices has left warehouses in major producers  Ivory Coast and Ghana full of unsold and mouldering bags of cocoa beans.

Cocoa prices reached historical highs of $12,000 per tonne at the end of 2024, almost doubling during the year and raising Christmas chocolate prices to unheard-of heights. This was due, we were told, to diseased trees in West Africa, adverse dry weather conditions (and, of course, speculation). Demand fell precipitously as prices peaked, and the industry was in panic mode.

Now, we are told that prices have slumped to below $5,000 per tonne in early 2026. African cooperatives can't sell their stocks, partly due to falling demand, because the prices were so high just recently(!), but partly due to excessive supply, because the weather has improved, because the effects of swollen shoot virus are passing, and because of the explosion of Ecuador as a chocolate producer. Ecuador is now the No. 2 producer of cocoa globally. It has high-quality cacao varieties, sustainable and relatively equitable agricultural practices, and high yields, and it is rapidly leaving West Africa in the dust.

However, don't expect the price of your favourite chocolate bar to come down any time soon. Demand is on the increase again, particularly in Asia and the EU, and particularly for premium products - ethical, fair-trade, traceable, organic, low-sugar, etc - and that in itself would be enough to keep prices high. But also commercial chocolate-makers have long lead times and buy through long-term contracts, so their costs may still be relatively high. Furthermore, as they watch world prices slew around wildly, they will charge a premium for that uncertainty.

And anyway, the likes of Hershey, Mondelez and Mars are not charities, and if it looks like consumers are content to pay the higher prices, then those prices are not going to come down, ever. Super-premium brands like Lindt and Ferrero Rocher didn't really increase their already-high prices when cocoa prices went up, and by the same token they will not be reducing them now.

In fact, when was the last time you noticed the price of ANYTHING going down? That's not the way the world works.

Go ahead, coffee is probably good for you

Coffee must be one of the most-studied substances on earth. There are no end of articles and studies claiming to provide proof that coffee is good for this or that, or bad for the other. Often these claims are in direct conflict with each other, so we still don't really know if it's good for you or bad for you on balance. Most people probably have a vague idea that it's slightly bad for you, but not so bad that you need to give it up (maybe just limit it a bit). And that may be just about right.

While it's pretty much uncontested that coffee, and specially caffeine, stimulates the central nervous system and increases alertness, there is also some pretty convincing evidence that coffee is also good for long-term brain health and cognitive function and as protection against dementia. 

A recently-published large longitudinal study and meta-analysis out of Harvard suggests that a daily intake of two to three cups of caffeinated coffee or one to two cups of tea have a protective effect on the brain and result in statistically-significant reduced dementia risks and improved cognitive function. Decaffeinated coffee had no such benefits. Note that these are just observational studies, and so can only uncover associations and not definitive proof, but they are consistent with many previous studies and meta-analyses.

So, unless you suffer from caffeine sensitivity or acid reflux or are excessively prone to sleep disruptions, go ahead have a couple of cups of java (or tea). Don't get carried away, of course, but equally don't be swayed by some of the reports of coffee's more iniquitous effects.