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.

Sure, Canada is no Norway, a winter sports powerhouse despite its tiny population. Neither is it the USA, the richest country in the world with one of the largest populations. But we really don't do too badly. Yes, we should have won the men's hockey gold, outplaying the Americans for almost 60 minutes. But we didn't and 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. It's power grid is failing, hospitals are in disarray, food and fuel are scarce, inflation is rampant, tourists are staying away, those that can are leaving the island in droves. The island is on the edge of collapse and a humanitarian crisis, all thanks to ideological action by the USA. 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.

The suggestion that Canada needs nuclear weapons is ludicrous

Luckily, hardly anybody listens to retired Canadian General Wayne Eyre these days. That's just as well because otherwise we may be tempted to take his advice on pursuing a home-grown nuclear weapons program, just in case, "if we decide to go that way", as he says. He says that Canada will never have true strategic independence without it own nuclear deterrent.

Boy and their toys, eh? Eyre clearly didn't spend too much time thinking about what would be involved in such an undertaking. Others have, and it's not pretty.

To acquire nuclear weapons, Canada would need a site for enriching uranium or (more likely) reprocessing plutonium, and build hightly secure factories there. Then, it would need huge investment in delivery systems (missiles), and a remote, geologically appropriate place to test the weapons, without which it would not be a credible deterrent. All this would costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and take many years, a project comparable to a moon landing program according to one American senior official.

But that's not all. Canada is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a global reputation as an internationalist peace-keeping country. Pulling out of the NPT and developing nuclear weapons would radically re-brand the country, and put it in the company of countries like North Korea, Israel and South Sudan. Its reputation would never recover.

It's not even clear that nuclear weapons are such a good deterrent anyway. Nuclear capabilities have not stopped India and Pakistan from engaging in several border skirmishes over the years. Nuclear-armed Israel has (thankfully) not dared to use those nukes its military dealings with Palestine, Iran, Syria. All of Russia's many nuclear weapons have not stopped Ukraine from making incursions into the country, nor has it used them in Ukraine (and faced the worldwide comdemnation that would result). So, what use are nuclear arms really?

So, thanks for your input, General, but maybe in future, just keep it to yourself. And please, stay retired. Thankfully, Defence Minister David McGuinty was quick to dismiss Eyre's suggestions, and most other commentators seem to agree.