Oh, how dating has changed!

Thankfully, it's been 40-odd years since I've had to anything that might be described as "dating". I'm not sure I could bring myself to enter into the modern way of doing it (i.e. using an online app).

I was a bit taken aback, though, at an article about how many women are approaching the process these days. Maybe this is sixth-wave feminism or something (is that where we are?), but it doesn't sound particularly healthy to me.

Apparently, many women, especially financially-independent women, now expect men to pick up the tab on the first, and even subsequent, dates. Gone are the days when women wanted to be seen as equal by paying, or at least splitting, the bill. (Other research suggests that 45% of Canadians expect the bill to be split evenly, with 24% expecting the man to pay, and another 24% saying it should be whoever initiates the date.)

This is nothing to do with traditional values and deferring to the stronger, wealthier sex, or anything like that. This is a purely transactional approach about seeing "what they're bringing to the table in a potential relationship". More specifically, these women argue that there is still a "gender wage gap" where men typically earn more than women and should therefore contribute more to a relationship, and there is still a "beauty tax" where women are expected to pay more to meet societal standards of beauty. They may (or may not) pay on a second or third date to "signal my interest back to him".

Wow. Now, call me old-fashioned, but personally, I'm not particularly sure I'd wanted to be dating a women who thinks that way. I'm not really interested in a woman who feels she has to meet societal standards of beauty, and wants to be subsidized for it. It seems like a very cold and calculating approach to something that should be warm and fuzzy.

However, the article does go on to question why such an attitude has come about, and the answer is probably dating apps. The ease and availability (and also the transactional nature) of app dating has led to a sea change in attitudes, compared to the happy-go-lucky approach of my day, where you just happened on someone in a pub or a party, or you trailed after someone for months on end like a love-sick puppy.

Frankly, it doesn't really surprise me that studies show that fewer people than ever - just 8% of over-18s - are actively dating. Among the reasons put forward are a challenging job market, especially for younger people (and the concomitant decision to focus.on careers first and relationships later), the cost of living in general, a genetal sense of hopelessness about the state of the world, and, yes, "dating app fatigue and choice overload". Quite.

I know I couldn't face it. Let's hope I never have to!

US businesses and consumers are bearing the burden of Trump's tariffs

Remember, when Donald Trump first started bringing in tariffs wholesale at the beginning of 2025? It seems like a lifetime ago, I know, but we were all trying to get out heads round why he would want to do that, and how it could possibly work out the way he say it would. In the end, we concluded that it just wouldn't, and that American industries and households would end up bearing the burden of what what were essentially just taxes under another name.

A year later and Trump is still singing the praises of tariffs, although he is now using them more as bully tactics to punish any country that disagreed with him on any issue, not just trade. So, American tariffs are less about the economy and more about, well, Trump, and his political agenda. But clearly they do have an economic impact too, even if it's not the one Trump describes. And who is beating the burden? Yup, American industries and households.

A comprehensive new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that upwards of 90% of the tariffs imposed by Trump on imported goods are borne by American consumers and companies. So, unlike in Trump's version of the world, foreign exporters did not lower their prices at all, resulting in the whole incidence of the tariffs being borne by the USA. In the technical jargon of the report, "there was 100% pass-through from tariffs into import prices". 

An estimated 30% of the increases in import prices were absorbed by US businesses though reduced profit margins, but fully 70% were passed on to consumers in increased retail prices. According to Federal Reserve officials, much of the overshoot of the 2% inflation target can be laid directly at the door of Trump's tariff policy.

Surprised? Me neither.

Do Trump's disapproval ratings indicate the beginning of the end?

If you agree with those who say that all we can do with Trump is to wait him out - you may be interested in how his popularity rate is looking these days.

The Silver Bulletin agglomerates presidential approval ratings from a whole host of raw polls, and gives a good overall picture of presidential popularity and trends. Trump's overall approval/disapproval rating (approval percentage minus disapproval percentage) is currently -13.7%, very slightly better than a week ago, but still very much worse than earlier in the year. The last time Trump's approval rating was positive was back in March of last year, and approval and disapproval ratings have gradually diverged ever since, albeit with occasional blips and reversals from one week to the next.

On individual issues, the story is pretty much the same: on the economy -16.2%, on trade -16.9%, on inflation -25.2%, and on immigration -12.1%.

Do you take any comfort from that? With Republicans worried about the mid-terms in nine months time, and some Republican members of congress finally starting to question their unthinking loyalty to Trump and his policies (for example, six GOP members defected to support a Democrat motion against Trump's tariffs on Canada), is this the beginning of the end for Trump? 

Well, probably not, frankly. But we can indulge in a bit of schadenfreude if it makes us feel better, can't we?

No, there is no epidemic of trans violence

It had to happen. After the horrendous mass shooting in the small town of Tumbler Ridge in northeastern British Columbia, right-wing influencers and agitators are really pushing the transgender issue.

The shooter, a psychologically troubled 18-year old, transitioned from male to female about 6 years ago. That might just have been an incidental factoid in the case, but there is a rampant anti-trans movement, particularly in the United States, that wants to milk it for all it's worth. There is a whole load of misinformation out there about trans people, and specifically about their violent tendencies.

A common claim is that trans individuals are much more likely to be killers than any other demographic. Elon Musk on X was just one of the more influential voices sharing this view. Many previous mass killings have been blamed on trans gender identities by these anti-trans activists even when gender was clearly not an issue. Now they have a shooting where the perpetrator was in fact a trans woman, and they are making hate-filled hay. 

No doubt Donald Trump will get in on the act when he gets his shit together: the chance to bash Canada AND the trans community will be just too much for him to resist. The Trump administration is already looking into ways to ban transgender Americans from owning guns, and Trump scion Donald Trump Jr. has claimed, unscientifically and incorrectly, that: "The amount of shootings they have completed or attempted likely pales in comparison with any other radical group, based on how small a group they are. Can't be close!"

Of course, in reality, the vast majority of mass shootings are carried out by white cis men, the same demographic as most of the anti-trans social media conspiracy theorists making the claims. Studies show that about 98% of mass shootings are actually carried out by men, most of them white (in proportion to the general population). The Violence Prevention Project concluded that 97.5% of mass shooting were by cis men, 2% by cis women, and 0.5% by trans people. A Poynter analysis calculated that 0.17% of mass shootings in the USA (6 out of 3,399) were perpetrated by trans individuals. Factcheck.org arrived at an even smaller figure of 0.1%. This is much lower than the 0.5-1.6% representation of trans people in the general US public (in Canada, 0.33% of the population officially identifies as transgendered or non-binary). I'm sure there are many more such analyses if you look.

Haters will hate, as they say. This incident will probably fuel the haters for years to come.

Olympic chutzpah or hubris

Lyndsey Vonn is one of the most successful downhill skiers ever, and is looked on as almost god-like within the sport. Since her latest performance at the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics, she can now add "most controversial" to her lengthy list of achievements.

Vonn is now 41 years old and has not raced competitively for years. But, for whatever reason - call it chutzpah, or call it hubris - she wanted more. Then, she suffered a ruptured ACL ligament during practice just 9 days before her Olympic race, which would have ruled most normal people out for months. Vonn, however, chose to race anyway, and wiped out spectacularly just 13 seconds into the race, resulting in a shattered leg and requiring her to be airlifted out of the ski resort.

Cue the controversy. Many people opined that she should have known better, and had no business taking part in a top-level race with a torn ACL. Her fellow Olympic skiers, however, rushed to support her decision, arguing that she is a grown-ass woman and capable of making her own decisions, however inexplicable they may seem to the rest of us. One or two are even arguing that the crash was not due to the ruptured ACL at all, just a freak accident that could happen to anyone anytime, which seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

My first reaction was firmly in the former camp: "What the hell was she thinking?" But, on reflection, maybe her supporters are right too: it was her call, however ill-advised. Maybe she denied some young greenhorn a chance for their first Olympic experience in her solipsistic quest for vainglory. Maybe she disrupted the competition unnecessarily. But that was her right, arrogant and presumptuous though it may be.

Interestingly, there was another (similar but less dramatic) example of iffy decision-making later in the Games. Dutch speed skater Joep Jennemars was expected to medal, but was (accidentally) impeded during a crossover by a Chinese skater and noticeably slowed down, resulting in Wennemars missing out on the medals. The unfortunate Chinese skater was disqualified, but Wennemars was offered the chance to do the race again, on his own, half an hour later.

Wennemars could have declined - easy for me to say! - putting it down to experience. These things do happen in the sport; all speed skaters know that, and most have experienced it at some point in their careers (although not necessarily in an Olympic final!) But Wennemars chose to re-skate, without an opponent to pace himself against, and still tired after his first race. Predictably, his second race was even slower than his first, and everyone was left dissatisfied, especially Wennemars.

Should he have accepted the re-skate? Probably not. But it was his decision to make, and these are ultra-competitive people, remember, unwilling to accept "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". They didn't get to the elevated levels they enjoy today by giving up, on anything, ever. These are almost superhuman individuals, and they live by their own rules.

Why does Health Canada take so long to approve new drugs and procedures?

Health Canada is always very slow to approve new drugs and procedures, but in this case they have been almost criminally dilatory. 

Canada has just approved the OraQuick HIV self-test, a ground-breaking at-home oral HIV test, that doesn't require any blood testing and delivers results in as little as 20 minutes. It was approved in the United States way back in 2012, recommended by the World Health Organization in 2016, and is currently in use in 60 countries. It doesn't take the place of a definitive physician-administered blood test, but it is an easy and non-invasive initial assessment that might encourage a person to seek more official help on a timely basis.

So, why is Canada so late to the game? After all, HIV is still rife in Canada, especially among the Indigenous populations of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, even if it doesn't make headlines any more.

According to a prominent urban health scientist, suppliers needed proof that there was a market for the test in Canada (why should that be a consideration for technical approval?), and Health Canada needed assurance that it "reached its standards" (60 other countries seem happy that it is safe and efficacious). Neither of these excuses seem convincing or compelling reasons for 14 years of delay and procrastination for a valuable andcost-effective health procedure.

Trump has a hissy fit about new Canada-US bridge

Canada is the target of yet another late-night Trump outburst and, as usual, he is woefully poorly-informed and mistaken. 

This time he is taking issue with the new Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Michigan. The US$4.7 billion (C$6.4 billion) bridge, that Trump himself fast-tracked, is now very close to completion and opening. The Windsor-Detroit crossing is the busiest international border between the two countries, and the new bridge will ease border snarl-ups, particularly as the ageing Ambassador Bridge is no longer up to dealing with such a volume of traffic.

According to Trump, though, "they own both the Canada and the United States side and, of course, built it with virtually no US content".  He further whined, "What does the United States of America get - absolutely NOTHING!" (Well, nothing except improved trade infrastructure, and effectively for free!) And finally, "I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them ... with all that we have given them we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset."

Prime Minister Carney had to phone the old man again to explain that, actually, Canada paid for the bridge in full, even though it is publicly owned jointly by both Canada and the state of Michigan under the Canada-Michigan Crossing Agreement. Canada is allowed under the agreement to use tolls collected from the bridge to offset its costs and, once the costs are fully recouped, subsequent toll revenue will be shared between Canada and Michigan. It has all been agreed amicably between the two parties; Trump has no need to involve himself, as several Democratic Michigan lawmakers agreed. Furthermore, Carney patiently explained to Trump, the bridge was built by Canadian and American workers using Canadian and American steel.

And, anyway, what has the United States "given" Canada (apart from a headache)? The guy lives in his own fabricated little world, doesn't he? His ignorance is mind-boggling.

Bu could Trump actually stop the bridge from opening? Probably, either by revoking the previously-granted presidential permit, or by claiming a national security emergency. US presidential powers are ridiculously broad and deep, as we have seen, although using them in this case would put Trump in direct conflict with a US state, which would lead to some stiff legal challenges. Michigan officials have indicated that they will fight any attempts to stop the bridge opening, but legal challenges have never concerned Trump before....

UPDATE

It's no coincidence that, just mere hours before Trump's objectionable and unhinged post, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick met with American billionaire (and major Trump donor) Matthew Moroun, whose family has for decades owned and operated the old Ambassador Bridge crossing, the ageing facility that will be largely replaced by the beautiful new Gordie Howe Bridge.

Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor and Detroit

Lutnick, who as we know is thick as thieves with Trump, then spoke with his boss by phone, and clearly passed on whatever incorrect story he was given by Moroun. The rest is sordid and embarrassing history. It turns out that the Moroun family have made several attempts to get the Gordie Howe Bridge construction stopped over the last few years. This is just the latest. 

The fact that Lutnick and Trump will sink to these depths of corruption should surprise no-one. Because, make no mistake, corruption it most surely is.

Meanwhile, until the new bridge fully opens, Windsor City Council is encouraging Canadians to use the Windsor-Detroit tunnel instead of the Moroun-owned Ambassador Bridge. Elbows up, eh?

Carney explains why he still considers himself a climate change leader

Apparently, Mark Carney still sees himself and Canada as a leader on climate change.

In an interview just a couple of days ago, one reporter put it to him starkly: "Along with cutting the EV mandate, you've cut the consumer carbon tax, weakened a commitment to the oil and gas emissions cap, you're exempting Alberta from clean-up energy regulations, and abandoned a promise to plant two billion trees. Do you still consider yourself a leader on climate change?" 

Yow, pretty damning stuff! How did Carney respond? "Absolutely, I consider Canada a leader on climate change, and I'm focussing on climate change results and solutions". Wow. I can feel the cognitive dissonance creeping over me as I write.

To his credit, Carney went on to enumerate what he sees as his justification for his claims, namely: tax relief and support for the entire EV production chain, incentives for consumers to adopt EVs, tightening (two-fold, he says) Canada's greenhouse gas emissions while giving the auto industry flexibility as to how they achieve that, and a plan (to be announced) to double the capacity of Canada's clean electricity system. He also said that the liquid natural gas (LNG) coming out of British Columbia, which he has been encouraging and facilitating, is among the cleanest LNG in the world (for what that's worth), and it is also being twinned with carbon capture and storage technology (albeit largely unproven and unbuilt).

So, credit where credit is due, the guy talks a good game. But let's not be fooled, what he is proposing and talking up is really not as effective or direct a solution to climate change as the various policies he has just abandoned (and even those were not sufficient). I have a lot of respect for Mr. Carney, and I believe he is doing a reasonably good job in most respects under very trying circumstances. But on the environment and climate change, he is absolutely guilty of pulling the wool over our eyes. (If you want to see what you actually need to do to make EVs a mainstream option, look no further than Norway.)

UPDATE

This also comes as the Canadian Climate Institute warns that the country is not in track to meet any of its climate change and carbon emission goals - not the 2026 interim target, not the 2030 Paris Agreement commitment, not even the long-term 2050 zero-emission goal. The reason? "A slackening of policy effort over the last year, marked by the removal or weakening of climate policies across the country". A year, let's be clear, when Mark Carney was in control.

Hard data seems surprisingly hard to find. As of 2023 (the latest data available, for some reason, and long before Carney was involved), Canada had only achieved a 9% reduction in emissions from 2005 levels, while moat other G7 nations had achieved reductions of around 30%. Even the USA managed 17%, although that was before Trump took the reins, to be fair.