Strange character accent choices in The Game of Thrones

I don't often frequent the media and entertainment website Mashable, but I was quite interested in an article on the various English accents in the TV adaptation of The Game of Thrones (I say that advisedly, lest we forget that there was actually a series of books too at one time).
The most prominent accent in the series as a whole is the gritty, down-to-earth, northern tones of Yorkshire. This is the accent employed by Ned and Robb Stark and Jon Snow (perhaps as close to the "good guys" as The Game of Thrones gets), by Robert Baratheon, Theon Greyjoy, Bronn, and pretty much all the northern lords, as well as Mance Rayder, Ygritte and the other wildlings. However, although Sean Bean (who plays Ned) and Mark Addy (who plays Robert) are native Yorkshiremen, most of the others sporting the accent are not: Richard Madden (who plays Robb) is Scottish, Alfie Allen (who plays Theon) is a Londoner, Kit Harrington (who plays Jon) is a posh Londoner, Jerome Flynn (who plays Bronn) is from the southern county of Kent, and Rose Leslie (who plays Ygritte) is Scottish but speaks naturally with a posh English accent. It's a credit to the series' actors and language coaches that I, who was brought up about 10 miles from the Yorkshire border, had no idea that they were not "real" Yorkshire dudes. Indeed, I remember being impressed that they had found so many native Yorkshire speakers for the series!
The "posh" English accent - otherwise known as "received pronunciation", "BBC English", or "the Queen's English" - is mainly reserved for the arrogant and aristocratic Lannisters (Cersei, Joffrey and Tywin) and the equally aristocratic Daenerys and Viserys Targaryen, but also Brienne of Tarth, Gendry, Varys, and, perhaps strangely, the Stark women, Catelyn, Sansa and Arya, as well as the younger, less-macho Stark boys, Bran and Rickon, all of whom clearly take after Catelyn's social-climbing side of the family, not Ned's. There is perhaps a trace of northern-ness to the Starks' posh, as opposed to unadulterelated posh of the Lannisters: Michelle Fairley (who plays Catelyn) is actually Irish, Maisie Williams (who plays Arya) is originally from the West Country, and Sophie Turner (who plays Sansa) is a Midlands girl.
Interestingly, other than a bunch of soldiers and guards who serve merely as cannon-fodder in the series, the only Cockney among the main(-ish) characters is Stannis Baratheon, although I must confess I don't remember it being that obvious. Stephen Dillane (who plays Stannis) naturally has a very posh English accent, so why someone decided he should add in a Cockney twang is a mystery. Likewise, the only Geordie in the series is Ser Davos Seaworth, who is played by Liam Cunningham, an Irishman (although I have to say he does a very convincing job with the Geordie accent). Were these casting decisions, directorial decisions, or just no decision at all (random)?
Several characters, mainly those from Essos and the more distant, "foreign", regions of Westeros like Dorne, have what might be described as "vaguely Mediterranean" accents, perhaps designed to indicate a generalized "foreignness". This includes Melisandre the Red Lady (who is actually played by Dutch actor Carice van Houten), and Syrio Forel (played by British-born Greek-Cypriot Miltos Yerolemou).
The only outliers among the Lannisters, both in terms of accent and character, are Jaime and Tyrion. Jaime is played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, who hails from Denmark. Like many Danes, he has a ridiculously good English accent, but it is noticeably not a Lannister accent, and that may be deliberate, to separate him a little from the stain of malice and evil that marks most Lannisters. Tyrion is played by Peter Dinklage, who gets all the best dwarf parts these days, and does a pretty good job with them, it must be said. Dinklage is American, though, and his super-aristocratic accent comes over as almost a parody and, as the Mashable writer points out, prone to wander a little.
The other actor with a wandering accent is Irishman Aidan Gillen, who plays the devious Lord Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish, whose on-screen accent can be anywhere from Cockney to Welsh to mild Irish, depending on the scene. Why was he instructed to speak with anything other than his natural Irish lilt, which would have suited his character perfectly?
So, there are definitely some interesting casting and directorial choices. But, when push comes to shove, I'm not sure that the characters' accents are that important to the series. The mish-mash of different strong accents is probably more confusing to North Americans than it is to Brits, who are more used to coming across different and/or displaced regional accents. I have a suspicion that many North Americans are probably looking for deep meaning and significance in the accents used, meaning that is not even there.

LGBTQ2? QUILTBAG? A quick guide to politically correct initialisms

As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to make a historic apology later today to all those who have been discriminated against due to their gender and/or sexuality, you might, like me, need a little clarification on some of the labels being bandied around. LGBT is a common one, LGBTQ just about as common, but LGBTQ2 appears to be an increasingly-used all-inclusive version. There are also versions like LGBTQI (where I is for Intersex), LGBTQIA (where A is for sexual), and many others. One group even uses the rather unwieldy LGBTTQQIAAP, but let's not go there...
So, what does it all actually mean?
L for Lesbian and G for Gay are easy and pretty well-understood by all. Except ... isn't a lesbian just a gay woman? Why the need for a separate word? A bit of research suggests that lesbians (or gay women) really don't mind being called one or the other, and the minority that does have a preference are not actually offended in any way by the alternative. So, yes, we could probably dispense with the L. B is for Bisexual, but probably not for Bi-gender, which comes more under the heading of transgender (see below). So, L, G and B (LGB is, historically, the oldest initialism) are all about sexual attraction, or sexual orientation, as it is usually termed.
T, though, is for Tricky, because it is normally considered to stand for Transgender, but it could equally stand for Transsexual, Transvestite, and probably any number of other variants. These are not the same thing at all: transgender refers to people who do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, or brought up as; transsexual means transgender people who have undergone sex reassignment procedures, and have thus physically changed their gender; transvestite is a (usually) heterosexual male, who just enjoys dressing as a woman. The umbrella term trans or trans* covers (at least according to some): androgyne, agender, bigender, butch, CAFAB, CAMAB, cross-dresser, drag king, drag queen, femme, FTM, gender creative, gender fluid, gender non-conforming, genderqueer, gender variant, MTF, pangender, questioning, trans, trans man, trans woman, transfeminine, transgender, transmasculine, transsexual, and two-spirit. Phew!
Then things get really complicated with Q for Queer. I always thought that queer just meant "all of the above", i.e. anyone other than the straight, boring, heterosexual, traditional types. And in a way it does. It is another umbrella term, referring to anyone who is not heterosexual or cisgender (i.e. accepting of the gender identity assigned at birth), and it is an in-group term reclaimed from its previously pejorative meaning. Q, though, can also stand for Questioning, i.e. those still in the process of exploring their gender or sexuality. So, does Q add anything to the L, G, B and T that went before. Maybe, at least in its "questioning" guise, but maybe also in its "queer" meaning: some would argue that queer is a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to LGBT.
And what about that 2? 2 stands for Two-Spirit, a term used by some indigenous North Americans to describe certain individuals who fulfill a traditional "third gender" role within some Native American cultures. It is not necessarily equivalent to "LGBT native" (or, worse, "gay Indian"): it is properly used in a sacred, spiritual or ceremonial context. But it is pretty obscure and abstruse, and I would have thought that including it along with LGBTQ is perhaps taking inclusivity a little far. After all, there is a separate designation for the traditional Hindu transvestites, who are known as hijras - should we then include an H in the list?
I don't know, it all seems like a lot of pigeonholing to me, something I would have thought that sexual and gender minorities would prefer to avoid. Hell, there are even comprehensive online glossaries out there, to help you pigeonhole yourself with ever greater accuracy. But I'm not really sure what useful purpose they serve.
As for initialisms, personally I quite like QUILTBAG (queer/questioning intersex lesbian trans/two-spirit bisexual asexual/allied gay/genderqueer), as it at least has a bit of character and shows some evidence of a sense of humour. Apparently, it is accumulating quite a following online. Me, I will probably stick to the good old-fashioned LGBT. Or possibly LGBTQ if I am feeling particularly inclusive.

More Tory smoke and mirrors, with the welcome addition of a carbon tax

In a rather cynical exercise in sleight of hand, Patrick Brown and the Ontario Conservatives have issued a "People's Guarantee", after their latest party conference, and in preparation for next year's provincial election.

In it, Brown, who is still struggling with issues of name recognition and public perception, vows that, if he is elected and then doesn't deliver on his five main platform promises, then he will not stand again for a second term. Well, thanks for that, Patrick, but frankly you would be unlikely to be re-elected anyway, so it's a bit of a redundant guarantee.

The Conservatives are promising the moon - tax cuts for the middle class, spending increases in transit and mental healthcare, an even bigger subsidy for electricity prices than the Liberals are currently inadvisably proposing, and a few sweeteners for special interests, along with no apparent reductions in services - which just doesn't add up fiscally, until you take into account the huge increase in the provincial debt it would necessarily entail, and the fact that in future years we will all be paying more in taxes for it.

Interestingly, though, part of the funding for all these promises, albeit a relatively small part, is to come from abandoning Ontario's cap-and-trade commitments, instituted by the current Liberal administration, in favour of a simple carbon tax. Brown has been attacked by the traditionalist wing of his party for his espousal of a carbon tax of any sort, but this move appears to be part of his attempt to appeal to everyone, to be all things to all people. It's also an indication of just how clustered in the middle Ontario politics is these days. But what's interesting is that I find myself supporting the substitution of a carbon tax for the current cap-and-trade system (which is a very complex, opaque and difficult-to-understand system, open to abuse and pressure from lobbyists, and unlikely to lead to changes in people's energy use behaviours). Now, it's not enough to make me vote Tory - heaven forfend! - but it would be nice to see the other parties respond in kind.

Faith in faith has no place in sports

Well, who knew? It has been brought to my attention that Canadian Football League (CFL) teams have their own designated chaplains, employed to impart spiritual succour to those big rough, tough bruisers, before and after they knock the crap out of each other on the gridiron.

It's the kind of thing I can imagine happening in the States, where they are much more into that kind of thing, but I am shocked - shocked I tell you! - that it goes on in relatively secular Canada. Apparently, all CFL teams have them, and even some hockey teams.

A bunch of players sit, or kneel, around in prayer circles before a game, and a chaplain intones a prayer and some kind of spiritual pep talk (although they insist that they are not actually praying to God for a win). Many of the players will also engage in a post-game huddle as well, often with members of the opposition team they have just finished mauling, which is even more bizarre. Apparently, people of different faiths are welcome to participate, although I don't imagine there is much demand for Hindu or Muslim prayers. The chaplains also act as counsellors, even though most professional teams will also have a team psychologist on the payroll.

Now, I know that many professional sportsmen are intensely superstitious, and they have their odd pre-game rituals and habits. For many, this manifests as a rushed sign of the cross, even though probably very few of them are actually Catholic, and for most it is almost certainly more of a nervous tic than an expression of a deeply-held inner faith. Most of the crucifixes being worn are fashion accoutrements and obligatory bling rather than objects of veneration.

But somehow I can't imagine European soccer players, many of whom come from countries and backgrounds which are intensely religious, gathering for mass prayer meetings before a game. I can only think that this is some kind of American tradition that has been passed down to Canada, rather like the playing of national anthems before a game (and don't get me started on THAT!) I don't have much faith in supertitions before a sports contest; I have even less faith in faith.

Real-life bio-hackers are trying to beat the medical establishment to cures

You can, if you are so inclined, watch Tristan Roberts inject an untested gene therapy into his own stomach fat, an event that was live-streamed on Facebook. You can also watch a live video feed of him receiving the news a few weeks later that the therapy has not worked, and the developer of the "therapy" quipping, "We didn't kill you!"

It's perhaps difficult to believe, but there are real live "bio-hackers" out there, willing to experiment on themselves. Sometimes they might do this for reasons of personal gain (some have tried to make themselves stronger, or to live longer, for example); some just want to push the development of new therapies and new drugs ahead faster than the usual glacial pace of mainstream regulated medical advances, in search of cures, and mainly in order to help others in a similar situation. Mr. Roberts' motivation was probably a combination of the two: he is 28-years old and HIV-positive, and stopped taking his anti-viral drugs a couple of years ago, partly because of the side effects, and partly because of the depressing prospect of having to take medications for the rest of his life. He is desperate for a cure. A self-confessed risk-taker, living on the fringes of mainstream society, he jumped at the chance to by-pass the medical system to take his own chances in search of a "moon-shot" cure.

The cocktail of plasmids Roberts injected himself with is designed to trigger production of the antibody N6, which in theory acts to neutralize the HIV virus, at least in lab conditions. The test was overseen by Aaron Traywick, head of a start-up company called Ascendance Biomedical. Traywick himself is not a scientist, and refers to himself as a "community organiser", although there are scientists among the team at Ascendance that developed the treatment.

Many others in the scientific community argue that these kinds of experiments are too amateurish and uncontrolled to yield meaningful results, even should they appear to work, and that the dangers of self-experimentation outweigh any benefits that might accrue. Epithets like "fringe", "risky", "frightening" and "delusional" have been directed towards them by otherwise circumspect scientist and bio-ethicists. This kind of bio-hacking is not technically illegal, although there are substantial legal grey areas around it.

After a rather alarming period in which his skin broke out in angry red bumps, and he became feverish and lost appetite, Mr. Roberts' symptoms subsided. When the blood test results came in, though (live on the internet, of course), his viral load was seen to have increased, not plummeted as had been hoped. The experiment appeared to have failed. That was the point when Traywick mumbled, " More data is necessary ...  we didn't kill you". Roberts himself limited his response to, "I'm a little bit let down ... It's hard".

Ascendance Biomedical will be trying a second attempt, with many times the number of plasmids, and Tristan Roberts will, once again, be the guinea pig. He remains confident in the process and the eventual success of the therapy, and he still refuses to take his anti-virals. In the meantime, official human trials of N6 injections will proceed as planned in early 2018. Slow, but perhaps more sure.

Wanted: bilingual indigenous female western judge for Supreme Court duties

With the imminent retirement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has two big decision to make by December 15th, decisions that will affect the administration of justice in this country for years to come. He needs to appoint a new judge to replace Justice McLachlin on the 9-person top court, and he also need to appoint someone to take over her role as Chief Justice.

Trudeau doesn't necessarily need to steer the court in a "liberal direction" - even Stephen Harper's appointees were relatively liberal in their outlook (as he found to his own chagrin), and Canadian judges tend to be much less political than American ones. But the Prime Minister is hamstrung and constrained by decades of precedent, tradition and convention.

Traditionally, the court has to have three members from Quebec, three from Ontario, one from Atlantic Canada and two from the West (of which one should really be from British Columbia). Note that this is just a tradition, not a legal requirement, presumably roughly based on populations at the date of confederation. If it were to be based on the relative provincial populations today, the regional representation would be more like: four from Ontario, two from Quebec, one from British Columbia, one from Alberta, and half each from the prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces (meaning, presumably, an alternating arrangement). But Mr. Trudeau tampers with tradition at his own political risk, and he is under a lot of pressure to appoint a Westerner, preferably from British Columbia (which is where the retiring Ms. McLachlin is from). Added to that, the appointee should be female, to maintain the approximate gender balance of the court (four women and five men), and she should be functionally bilingual or at least fluent in French, because Canada has two official languages. You can see that the pool of eligible candidates is already starting to look smaller and smaller.

Then there is also pressure to appoint an indigenous judge, something Canada has never seen, and that really dries up the pool. There is no convention that dictates this pressure, but Mr. Trudeau clearly sees himself as a champion of indigenous rights, and this would be a perfect opportunity to earn some serious Brownie points on the issue. Highly qualified indigenous candidates, though, are few and far between. Two or three possible names have been put forward: John Borrows, who is a member of Ontario's Chippewa First Nation, although he has lived and worked in BC for some years (he has spent the last year learning French on a sabbatical in Quebec, but is definitely not bilingual, and definitely not female); Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who comes from the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, but has worked in BC for the last ten years, although not as a practising judge but as a Representative for Children and Youth (she is bilingual, and is definitely female); and Todd Ducharme, who is a Métis Ontario Superior Court justice, but has worked in all three Territories, and who is considered an outsider in the race.

None of the candidates tick all of the boxes, so somebody somewhere is going to have their nose put out of joint, and there will be complaints from some quarters whatever Mr. Trudeau decides.

As for appointing a new Chief Justice, these are usually chosen from the remaining sitting justice of the Court, but again convention comes in to play: Chief Justices almost always alternate between a judge from Quebec and one from the rest of the country. So, in theory, it should be a Quebecker this time, although the Prime Minister's father Pierre Trudeau did dare to make an exception to that rule some thirty-odd years ago. Ms. McLachlin is well-loved and respected, and is going to be a hard act to follow for anyone.

Tricky decisions, and Mr. Trudeau cannot fail but offend someone somewhere. And almost nowhere in these considerations does the requirement for the best and most experienced candidate appear. Convention and tradition appears to trump all.

Should we throw out the good art with the bad artists?

Globe and Mail arts critic Russell Smith, always an interesting and challenging commentator, has produced a particularly brave and provocative piece in today's paper.
In it, he asks whether we should ignore or shun works of arts - be they in the sphere of film, literature, painting or indeed any artistic field of endeavour - just because the creative force behind it was criminal, immoral, offensive, or just plain politically incorrect. It's a perennial thorny problem, but all the more pertinent in recent days with the ongoing revelations of the sexual assaults and inappropriate habits of filmmakers, media personalities and prominent sportsmen. Smith, though, holds nothing back, and comes out swinging.
He begins by asking whether we should blacklist the sublime work of Renaissance sculptor Benvenuto Cellini on the grounds that the artist was a double murderer and probably a rapist. What about Caravaggio (also a murderer)? Egon Schiele (abuser of teenage girls), Marquis de Sade (rapist), Ezra Pound (anti-Semite), Martin Heidegger (Nazi sympathiser), etc, etc? Should Adolf Hitler's youthful watercolour paintings be destroyed? What, then, about art by more or less good people on unpalatable subjects, like some of the films of Lars von Trier and Michael Haneke, uncomfortable books like Nabokov's Lolita, or the performance art of Zhu Yu, who photographed himself eating what is purportedly a human fetus?
Does it make a difference if the artist gains financially from his or her art? We then get into the realm of filmmakers with checkered pasts like Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, et al. Some of these people will probably never make a film again (although some seem to perennially escape public censure). But should their back catalogue be destroyed as well? Should they effectively be erased from history?
Russell Smith takes the outspoken view that art is completely divorced from the personal life of the artist. Indeed, he goes further to say that he actively seeks out art by bad boys. He argues that we should be curious to see how beauty is perceived by a violent person, and that great art is often about badness, at least in part. He further asserts that, by "consuming" art, we are not necessarily perpetuating the ideas behind it, or validating the beliefs of the individuals who created it. He positively expects that good art be about moral danger, that art should be troubling and uncomfortable, even unpleasant, that it is there to challenge the viewer, not just to be "enjoyed".
This is probably an extreme, purist view of the sanctity of Art-with-a-capital-A, and I'm not even sure that I subscribe to it. But kudos to Smith for having the cojones to publicly espouse it, particularly in the current charged environment.

Is the word "marijuana" racist?

I was at a talk recently on the purported beneficial effects of medical marijuana for Parkinson's Disease sufferers. It was an interesting enough exposition of the various products available, how to obtain them here in Ontario, and what benefits there may be for PD sufferers (not much, it seems, unless you have a good deal of pain, cramps, or severe sleep problems).

But what really struck me was the speaker's branding of the name "marijuana" as "racially charged" and to be avoided, in preference for "cannabis". She effectively said that we were being racist to use the word "marijuana", which made no sense to me. Since then, a Hamilton councillor has publicly vowed to stop using the word marijuana because of its race connotations, creating something of a firestorm of comments on the subject.

Now, the plant has any number of common labels (pot, weed, dope, ganja, hemp, herb, hashish, reefer, bud, etc, etc), and I had always assumed that marijuana and cannabis were just two more such labels, albeit slightly more "official", correct or formal ones. Well, it turns out there is a whole lot of rather unsavoury history behind the use of the word "marijuana", which does not apply to the word "cannabis".

Up until the beginning of the 20th century, the plant (and its various derivatives) was almost exclusively referred to in North America as cannabis (which is the proper Latin name of the genus, the most common species being Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica and Cannabis Ruderalis), or sometimes hemp (after its popular industrial use). After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, up to a million Mexican immigrants and refugees flooded north, leading to a good deal of hostility, discrimination and prejudice among the locals, and the Mexican peasants' drug of choice, at least at this time, was cannabis, rather than the more socially-acceptable American drug of alcohol.

Some of the more Machiavellian American lawmakers and organs of the press, made use of the widespread dislike and fear of the incoming Mexicans by exaggerating their iniquities and dangers, and also by conflating the Mexican crime-wave with their pot-smoking habits. The idea was to use the Hispanic label marijuana or marihuana to demonize Mexicans, and to underscore that the dangerous habit of smoking marijuana was a Latino, even a specifically Mexican, vice. Sensationalist stories of pot-crazed Mexicans carrying out horrific crimes abounded in the early decades of the 20th century, peaking during the prohibition mentality of the 1920s and 1930s. A 1925 New York Times headline was typical: "Mexican, crazed by marihuana, runs amuck with butcher knife". Interestingly, such accounts were also quite common in Mexico, where there was also a prohibition movement around this time.

It's not even entirely clear where the Mexican word marihuana came from in the first place (the spellings marihuana and mariguana were used interchangeably, and it was only later that the word was Anglicized - or perhaps "Spanishized" - to "marijuana" in America). The plant was introduced to Mexico by the Spanish conquistadores, but mainly for use as hemp and not for its drug properties. It has been cultivated all over the world, though, and there are at least three theories about where the name marihuana came from: the Chinese phrase for cannabis, ma ren hua; the African Bantu word for the same plant, makaña; and the colloquial Spanish word for "Chinese oregano", mejorana. Take your pick.

Particularly important in the trend for using "marihuana/marijuana" as a pejorative term in America was Henry Anslinger, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He was a zealot on a crusade to ban any and all intoxicants, from alcohol to cocaine to opium to cannabis. He used his 1937 congressional hearing testimony to establish the largely spurious connection between cannabis and crime, and to popularize the use of the Spanish label marihuana to refer to this Mexican "killer weed". At one point, he stated, rather disingenuously, "We seem to have adopted the Mexican terminology, and we call it marihuana", thus helping to associate this name with the plant's recreational use (as opposed to its medical or industrial applications), and particularly to its criminal Mexican reputation. He went on to link poor black people, jazz musicians, prostitutes and the criminal underworld, among whom cannabis was also a popular recreational drug: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use ... this marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others". And, just for good measure, here is another gem from Anslinger: "Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men … the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." Ouch!

Whatever its history, marijuana remains one of the most universally recognized and used term for the herb in the English-speaking world. Its history is clearly seeped in race and iffy politics to some extent. But is not in itself a racist term, and, moreover, the label predates this embarassing episode in American racist propaganda. It is merely the latest example of the politically correct language revisionism that is currently going on in Canada (see the article on UoT's attempts to ban the word "master" for another such example), a trend that I confess I am not entirely comfortable with. Do we need to start saying "the M-word"? Are Mexicans and blacks now the only people who can say "marijuana" in polite society? Aren't we over this by now, and hasn't the word lost its prejudiced bite?

Now, I am not black or Latino, and I know that I have had a very different life experience. But I have at least tried to put myself - hypothetically, of course - in their position, and I'm afraid I still don't see such things as that important in the scheme of things. Maybe I'm just insensitive, or maybe I have just signally failed to put myself in a black person's position, to see things more from their perspective. I don't know. It just seems to me that there are much more important things we should all be doing and thinking about to combat systemic racism than these kinds of diversions.

Loblaws signs up for Tesla electric delivery trucks

Good old Loblaws is doing its bit and ordering 25 of Tesla's new Semi all-electric delivery trucks, even though they are not even expected to start shipping until 2019 at the earliest, and the final price tag is still not clear.
I have always wondered why so little attention has been paid to making trucks more efficient and climate-friendly, when so much progress is being made in the field of electric cars. Not many people are aware of it, but delivery and freight trucks generate a surprising (and increasing) proportion of our greenhouse gases, almost as much as cars. It is rare to even hear mention of it, but Tesla, perhaps predictably enough, seem to be on top of the problem.
The Tesla Semi truck promises to save companies a substantial amount of money in the long run, even if the initial price will almost certainly be high. However, at this point, we only have Tesla's word to go on. The truck will have a 500 mile range, and it will boast faster acceleration, a much lower drag coefficient, a lower centre of gravity to avoid the risks of rollover and jacknifing, go much further without breaking down, and make much less noise, than conventional diesel trucks. Tesla has also tweaked the whole design of a truck, making them easier to get in and out of, allowing the driver to stand fully in the cab if needed, centring the driver's seat in the cab (there is a removable jump seat if needed), and adding in a whole host of fleet management, trip logging and routing tools, as well as not one but two touch screens. Indeed, they seem to have thought of just about everything, and its specs are impressive. It even looks cool.
Loblaws is following in Wal-Mart's footsteps in ordering the trucks - Wal-Mart has already ordered 15 as a trial - and all credit to them. Like Wal-Mart, Loblaws has an ambitious greenhouse gas reduction plan, and it hopes to have a fleet of at least 350 electric trucks operational by 2030. Go, Loblaws!

Carding? Street check? Well-being check? Racial profiling? Who knows?

Matthew Green, Hamilton's lone black councillor is kicking up a fuss after being questioned by the police while waiting for a bus in the city's downtown. Mr. Green sees the exchange as an example of racial profiling or "carding". The police are claiming that it was just a regular "well-being check", a regular and necessary part of normal policing.
The police officer in question is being charged with "discreditable conduct" under the Police Services Act, for conducting an "arbitrary or unjustified" street check against Mr. Green. It is alleged that the questioning was aggressive (at least until Mr. Green mentioned that he was a city councillor), and that he felt "psychologically detained" by the exchange. The lawyer acting on behalf of the police officer points out that the officer was in his cruiser, some 8-12 metres away, and that he thought Mr. Green appeared suspicious, standing as he was in a puddle of mud near a judge and near a group home. Mr. Green counters that he was just checking emails and waiting for a bus.
There are clearly some issues of fact to be sorted out here. But all sides will be watching the case closely for its implications on the difference between a street check and a well-being check, and on how the new Ontario regulations on street checks (introduced earlier this year) are being implemented.
Between 11% and 14% of street checks in Hamilton are done on black people, a demographic which makes up just 3% of the population, proof, activists claim, that racial profiling is still rampant. Similar stats and similar claims are regularly quoted elsewhere too. But I always wonder, when I see such assertions, what are the relevant percentages for the numbers of people hanging around on street corners at 2 o'clock in the morning? Now, I'm not saying that black people are specifically disposed to al fresco inner city nocturnal assemblies - although they may well be (or not) for all my paltry experience of urban nightlife goes - and neither am I saying that all black people are criminals. But the police obviously tend to focus on times and places where experience tells them that crimes are often committed.
Don't get me wrong: the Hamilton incident occurred in late afternoon, not at 2 o'clock in the morning. But I've no reason to believe, perhaps in my naivety, that the Hamilton police officer would not also have challenged a white guy in the same situation.

UPDATE
Many months later, and two years after the actual incident, the police officer has been officially exonerated, and the judge has ruled that he was not guilty of discreditable conduct, that his actions were not arbitrary or racist, and that he acted correctly in the circumstances.

How "terrific" came to mean "terrific"

I've often wondered why the word "terrific" came to mean something good. "Horrific" still retains its original (unfavourable) meaning, as does "terrible". Why, then, has "terrific" come to mean "great" or "wonderful"?

Back in the day, "terrific" did in fact mean "frightening" or "terror-inducing", similar to "terrible". It was first used as such in the mid-17th century - it appears in Milton's Paradise Lost in 1667 - and was occasionally still used in this original context into the early 20th century.

In the 19th century, though, its meaning began to gradually change, through a process of semantic shift or, more specifically, amelioration, where a previously bad word takes on a good connotation ("tremendous", "awesome", "luxury" and "wicked" are a few other examples). Thus, by the early 19th century, there was already evidence of "terrific" being used to mean "severe" (as in "a terrific headache") or "very great" (as in "a terrific thunderclap"). This probably arose out of poetic exaggeration or hyperbole (i.e. so painful or so loud that it was actually terror-inducing). Gradually, it came to be used, by the 1870s and 1880s, to indicate intensity in general, and to be applied to positive experiences like "terrific beauty" or "terrific joy". From there, it is not such a great leap to its modern-day meaning.

All part of the terrific (in all its senses) English language.

Are you one of the Canadian 1%?

Statistics Canada has just released new data on what it takes to be considered part of the 1% in Canada.

The threshold for 1%-dom in 2015 was earnings of $234,700, up from $227,100 in 2014. There were 270,925 such individuals in Canada (the biggest increases over the previous year coming in Ontario and British Columbia). If you are interested in being part of the 0.1% Club, you would need to earn $826,800, and there were 27,095 others in the club. Aiming for the 0.01%, the top 10,000th of earners? The threshold was $3,636,000 in 2015, and you would be in the rarefied company of 2,710 other tax filers.

Well, all of this puts me well away from danger of being a 1%-er in wealthy Canada, although I am probably still a 1%-er worldwide (at least in terms of accumulated wealth, rather than annual earnings), which is a much lower hurdle, and has cheaper club fees.

The other interesting factoid coming out of the StatsCan data is that the top 1%'s earnings as a share of Canadian national total income actually took a little hop in 2015, to 11.2%, after remaining stable for a few years at just under 11%. To be fair, this was the last year of Stephen Harper's Conservative administration, and it is to be hoped that, in the last couple of years under the Liberals, this has fallen. But we are still going to be a long way from the 7% levels of thirty years ago.

When is a coup not a coup?

When it is in accordance with the will of the people, perhaps? After 37 long years of chaotic, despotic and largely unpopular rule, 93-year old President Robert Mugabe is currently under house arrest by the Zimbabwe military. With the economy in tatters, unemployment and inflation rampant, and human rights violations a regular part of daily life, Zimbabwe has clearly limped along under Mugabe for far too long, and change is long overdue. But a coup?

Top army general Constantino Chiwenga and the military insist that this is not a coup, merely what some are describing as a "bloodless correction of gross abuse of power", and that they will soon return the country to "a dispensation that allows for investment, development and prosperity" (i.e. not necessarily democracy). But others have called this merely "putting lipstick on the pig": the President some of his senior ministers and possibly his wife, are all under arrest; military police and tanks are on the streets of Harare; the state television company has been seized - yes, it's a coup (albeit largely bloodless), whatever kind of a spin you like to put on it.

As far as can be discerned at this early point, the military have chosen this moment to act against a perennially unpopular and increasingly erratic leader mainly because Mugabe has been showing distinct signs that he intends for his wife, the equally disliked Grace Mugabe (disliked by both the people and the military), to take over the reigns of state. With this in mind, he recently dismissed his vice-president and once putative successor Emmerson Mnangagwa, who has close ties to General Chiwenga and the military, on flimsy charges of plotting to overthrow him through witchcraft(!) This was just the latest of Mugabe's increasingly frequent crackdowns on political dissent, but the speculation in relation to this particular action was that he would then appoint his 52-year old wife as vice-president, with a view to grooming her for the leadership.

Thus is a once-admired liberation leader brought down: partly due to his own arrogance and hubris, and partly due to the machinations of his overly ambitious young wife. It's kind of like a Greek tragedy.

Mnangagwa is currently in hiding in South Africa, but it seems likely that he may well be installed as transitional leader, which will probably not help the country much: 75-year old Mnangagwa is a fellow veteran of Zimbabwe's war of independence, operated for years as Mugabe's spy chief, and has his own well-earned reputation for ruthlessness. He is also accused of masterminding various atrocities during the country's civil war, as well as attacks on opposition supporters.

Mnangagwa would probably be the closest thing to business-as-usual that the army can stomach. There is even a possibility that Mugabe himself can sweet-talk his way into staying in power, at least as a ceremonial figurehead if nothing more (he is currently reported to be in talks with the army over his future). There is technically an opposition party in Zimbabwe - the Movement for Democratic Change party (MDC) was established in 1999 - and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai has come out swinging, calling for Mugabe to resign immediately. Tsvangirai was defeated by Mugabe in the 2013 elections, in a poll that, like many before it, was marred by violence and (largely unproven) allegations of rigging. Tsvangirai and war veteran leader Christopher Mutsvangwa have both just flown in from South Africa to insert themselves into the swirling chaos that is Zimbabwean politics.

So, coup? I guess so. But definitely a popular coup. At this point the people will take any change over more of Mugabe. Public dissent has been conspicuously absent, and there have even been celebrations and dancing in the streets of Harare - not the usual response to an army coup. Most people are just breathing a sigh of relief that Mugabe has been taken out of the equation (or has he? don't rule him out just yet). As with the Egyptian coup against Mohamed Morsi in 2013, it is a crying shame that democracy has to take a back seat to power politics. But sometimes, it seems, democracy needs just a little shove.

UPDATE
A week later, and Mugabe has finally resigned - to the delirious joy of most of the Zimbabwean population - and Mnangagwa has officially taken office in his place.
Known as "The Crocodile" for his heavy-lidded eyes and his sly and vicious working methods, Mnangagwa is another veteran from Zimbabwe's independence struggle, but, like Mugabe, he is not known as a big fan of democracy, and the beleaguered Zimbabweans could yet live to rue the development.

Iceland's recipe for teen success

Here's a fascinating glimpse into social engineering in one country. Twenty years ago, Iceland had a huge problem with underage drinking, smoking and drug-taking. Over the last 20 years, though, the country (and, in particular, its capital Reykjavik, where the vast majority of the country's population lives) has completely turned the situation around, and changed from Europe's worst to Europe's best. In 1998, 42% of 15-16 years old routinely got drunk; now that percentage is 5%.

So, how did they achieve this? Well, it's a pretty draconian recipe, but you have to admit it has been effective:

• Firstly, they brought in a curfew whereby all children under 16 must be indoors by 10pm, a curfew that is often policed by voluntary groups of parents ranging the streets after dark.
• Parents sign a pledge to control their children's drinking and to increase family time, and groups of parents get together to agree rules for their children's behaviour.
• School children get a $500 voucher each year for after-school activities, particularly sports (one politician credited the program for Iceland's surprising soccer success as well as their international success in pop music).
• All teens have to fill in a detailed Youth In Iceland survey every year, which covers aspects like their relations with their family, their feelings, and their habits, the results of which are reported back to the local communities and schools so that they can see what needs to be addressed. This evidence-based approach is seen as key to the program's success.
• They got their politicians actively involved in the process, and took measures to fund the program effectively (for example, Reykjavik spends over $100 million a year on youth activities).

One parent joked, "we are a boring country", but you can see that the Icelandic people are actually pretty proud of what they have achieved. Now, 35 other cities across Europe are adopting programs based on the Icelandic experience to address their own teen problems. All in all quite impressive, although I really can't see it working in a city the size of Toronto.

How effective is mandatory sensitivity training for judges?

As yet more Canadian judges are being accused of a less than fair and sensitive approach to sexual assault cases, there are increasing calls for mandatory training in such cases for ALL judges, not just newly-appointed ones as is currently the case, and a bill is being introduced in the Ontario legislature to that effect.

I have to say, though, that I don't have much confidence that this kind of sensitivity training is likely to have much effect on the type of people we are talking about here. Just imagine a judge who is capable of suggesting that a victim should have kept her knees together or that she was probably flattered by the attentions of her attacker attending sensitivity training. At the very least, I can imagine a good deal of eye-rolling and yawning.

Sure, it can't do any harm, and it may be a reasonable first step, but don't expect it to change the philosophies of these dinosaurs overnight. Probably more effective is the kind of public shaming Justice Camp received after his bad behaviour. But then public shaming is not considered very politically correct either these days, is it?

Ontario still taking advantage of omnibus bills

The issue of omnibus bills raises its hoary head once again, this time in Ontario provincial politics. The ruling Liberals have introduced a bill that combines two entirely unrelated issues: a bill to clamp down on drivers illegally passing school buses, with new cannabis legislation.

Now, why would they do that? The Conservatives call it a "blatant and dishonest a use of the legislative process"; the Liberals counter that "this is just conspiracy thinking", claiming that it is merely a way of a getting a busy legislative agenda through to a final vote in an expedient manner.

I hate to say it, but I'm with the Conservatives on this. This kind of convenient bundling is inexcusable, and the Bill should be split up into its it's constituent parts so that each issue can be voted on independently. Or, at the very least, the speaker should have the power to split up voting in such combined bills, as is now the case at the federal level.

"So" - a little, annoying, but defensible word

So, the little word "so" is apparently becoming a bit of a bugbear for some people.
I refer to the use of the word "so" at the beginning of a sentence or explanation or story. I don't think anyone objects to its use within a sentence as a conjunction or "discourse connective" - along with words like "and", "or", "but", "because", etc. In this context, it means "therefore" or "with the result that" or "in order that". Neither are people objecting to its use as an adverb, meaning "to such a great extent". In these contexts, it is a terse and economical alternative to a much longer phrase.
What people are complaining about is the use of "so" at the start of a sentence, where it does not relate to anything that has gone before. In this context, it is known as a "discourse marker", other examples being "oh", "well", "now", "then", "you know" and "I mean", and it has to be admitted that they don't actually add anything to the substance of the sentence. They are a kind of conversational affectation, I suppose.
Now (see what I did there?), it has to be said that most of the people who are doing the complaining are Brits. I am aware that I use it quite a lot myself - me, who would never consent to intersperse extraneous "like"s into my conversation! - and when I visit family in England it has been commented upon. It is clearly something I have picked up in Canada, and I have noticed many times my friends and acquaintances here using it (and, I must confess, it has never particularly annoyed me).
I kind of see it as a way of marking the beginning of a story or explanation or personal narrative. It sets the stage for an extended conversational interlude or monologue or even a snippet of gossip. It gathers the attention of the other person(s), and it prepares them for a shift or a new topic in the conversation. "So" - shifts in position, leans forwards confidentially - "this is the way I see it..." So (in the conjunctional sense), you could say that it does serve a purpose of sorts. But equally, I have to admit, most times it could be omitted with nothing lost. I'm not convinced, though, that it really merits the complaints of an irate British public (c.f. "get a life").

Nine ways to save the world

15,364 eminent scientists have published an open letter to the world - the most scientists ever to co-sign a published journal article - in which they detail the things we need to attend to in order to avoid global catastrophe. What they suggest is simple and straightforward, and for the most part common sense. But it is nice to have it set out in such a clear and concise form, and we should sit up and take note (and, ideally, act upon in, with some sense of urgency).
So what are their nine calls to action?

1. Control our fertility - limit our reproduction to "replacement value at most" (i.e. one or two kids per family).
2. Eat better and waste less food - given the environmental impact of current food production, we should waste less and move towards "mostly plant-based foods".
3. Buy green - we need to pay more attention to tbe overall environmental impact of everything we buy, not just food.
4. Appreciate and engage with nature - this is particularly important for city dwellers, and should include outdoor nature education for children.
5. Make our economies more equitable and environmentally aware - move to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices and taxation take into account all environmental externalities.
6. Establish more nature reserves - to protect all animals in the sea and fresh water, in thr land and in the air, and make sire they are well-funded and well-managed.
7. Stop wiping out whole ecosystems - like forests, grasslands and other native habitats, and work to re-wild some existing ones and to restore native plant communities.
8. Stop wiping out animal species - avoid a sixth mass extinction by controlling poaching and the exploitation and trading of threatened species.
9. Invest in and adopt green technologies - including renewable energy sources, and stop subsidizing older dirty technologies like coal, oil and gas.

Wise words to save a planet indeed. And, as I mentioned, simple and straightforward. But easy? Not so much.

Can we blame smartphones for our teen suicide epidemic?

We're currently going through something of an epidemic of teen suicides, and related symptoms. And the most likely reason might surprise you.
In the five short years between 2010 and 2015, the number of American teens who felt useless and joyless (classic symptoms of depression) spiked by 33%, teen suicide attempts increased by 23%, and teens between 13 and 18 years old who actually succeeded in committing suicide increased by 31%. This is affecting teens from every background, rich or poor, black or white, and in all geographical areas (this research is American, but I'm guessing that things are not dissimilar in any developed country).
So, what was causing such a drastic deterioration in teen mental health during a period of steady economic growth and falling unemployment? Income inequality continued to rise during the period, but no more so than before. Academic pressures piled up on kids, but again this was nothing new , and teens spent hardly any more time on homework than they did before.
The study authors pinpointed the most likely cause on the boom in teen smartphone ownership among teens during this period. In 2015, 73% of teens owned and used a smartphone, up from less than 50% just three years earlier. So, the spike in teen depression and suicide is closely mirrored by the use of smartphones.
This is not in itself evidence of a causal link, but further research shows that the length of time that teens spent online was linked to mental health issue: teens who spent five or more hours a day online (and there are more than you might think!) were 71% more likely to exhibit at least one suicide risk factor (depression, thinking about suicide, making a suicide plan, and attempting suicide). Now, being cautious, this does still not prove causality. But the evidence does not stop there. Two studies have shown that social media uses causes unhappiness, but that there is no causal link the other way around (i.e. unhappiness does not lead to increased social media use), and another study showed how giving up Facebook for just a week resulted in fewer feelings of depression.
Maybe all of this still does not amount to bullet-proof evidence of causality, but it is all part of a mounting body of evidence. And it kind of makes intuitive sense: for teens, more smartphones = more time on social media = less time interacting face-to-face with real friends and acquaintances (social isolation is a known major risk factor for suicide, and face-to-face social interaction is well proven to be a source of happiness and emotional wellbeing). Add to this another equation - more cellphone time = less sleep = more depression - and the picture starts to make a whole lot of sense, even if the research is not definitive.
Of course, what can be done about the problem, if problem it is, is another matter entirely. The smartphone genie is well and
truly out of the bottle (the cat is out of the bag, the can of worms is opened, etc, etc).

Saudi Crown Prince taking his cues from the Trump family?

It seems to me no coincidence that Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner visited Saudi Arabia just days before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's recent ill-advised and contentious moves at home, in Yemen and in Lebanon, moves that have alarmed the international community, and further destabilized an already rocky region.

The fiery and impulsive young 32-year old prince has clearly taken a hard line in Saudi Arabia's perennial war of influence against Iran. His role in cutting off already hard-pressed Yemen from the world, his probable involvement in the chastisement of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, and his recent purge of princes, officials, businessmen and military officers (involving the detention of over 200 people and the freezing of 1,200 bank accounts in a sweeping ""anti-corruption" probe), all seem pretty clear. And his headstrong, devil-may-care, act-first-think-later approach is so much like that of a certain American president is surely no coincidence.

Trump himself is, for reasons that remain vague to me, adamantly anti-Iran, and is, probably for that reason alone, doggedly pro-Saudi in all his pronouncements. He strongly endorsed the corruption crackdown on individuals who he accused of "milking" the regime for years. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, on the other hand, has been much more guarded in his comments.

It is looking as though the Prince has overreached himself, though, and he is now frantically backpedalling in the face of sharp criticism from human rights, humanitarian and aid agencies, from the United Nations as a whole, and even from the USA itself. Thus, al-Hariri is returning to Lebanon with a markedly more conciliatory tone than before being summoned to Riyadh; Yemen's shuttered airports and seaports are to be reopened; and Saudi Arabia's UN ambassador has promised that those arrested in the anti-corruption purge will be granted due legal process.

Perhaps the Saudis will take this as a wake-up call that a Trump-style approach is not necessarily advisable or acceptable, that the US administration is not just Trump (and Kushner) alone, and that they still need the goodwill of the international community not just a few American mavericks.

As for what Kushner and the other senior White House advisors who visited Riyadh recently actually talked about, well, like so many of these things, we'll probably never actually know. But Trump's modus operandi was all over the Crown Prince's cack-handed machinations of recent weeks.

Canada's racial earnings gap is not due simply to discrimination

There was an interesting article about the widening racial earnings gap in Canada in today's business section. When I spotted that it was written by a C.D. Howe Institute staffer, I was immediately suspicious and on guard for bias, but it is at least written by an immigrant (born and educated in Iran), even if not a particularly visible one.
So, yes, according to the stats, the earnings gap between Caucasian and non-Caucasian is growing, as the Canadian workforce and its population as a whole becomes more diverse, although only very slightly: visible minorities earned just 81.2% of what "non-visible minorities" earned in 2015, down from 83.8% in the year 2000. And this is clearly not a good thing. But Ms. Mahboubi delves further into the stats in order to unpack these bare figures a little.
It seems that discrimination is not necessarily the major player here, even if it almost certainly plays some part. Place of birth, education, language fluency, work experience and occupation all have an influence on the earnings outcomes of visible minorities. For example, immigrant visible minorities earn substantially less  than Canadian-born visible minorities. Some four-fifths of immigrants to Canada are visible minorities, and they arrive facing challenges like language barriers, lack of Canadian work experience, and lack of recognition of foreign education and experience, all of which necessarily affect their employment prospects. Interestingly, even immigrants with apparently good educations often lag behind Canadians in both literacy and numeracy skills.
Studies differ as to whether visible minorities who live in cities - and bear in mind that 56% of Canada's visible minorities live in just three cities, Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal - benefit or suffer vis a vis earnings. Earnings disparities also vary substantially between different ethnicities: for example, Chinese employment earnings are 91% of non-visible minority earnings, while black earnings are as little as 73% (the main visible minority groups in Canada are South Asian: 25%, Chinese: 21%, and Black: 16%).
Canadian immigration is set to increase in the coming years in order to maintain long-term economic growth in a rapidly-ageing demographic, and most Canadians are on-board with that. The visible minorities earnings gap problem needs to be addressed (as does the gender earnings gap). But let's not pretend it is a simple problem of racial discrimination.

Professor Peterson's crusade against postmodernism

The controversial University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, is a strange body, to be sure.

Professor Peterson is well known for his beliefs that the university's teaching staff and students are dominated by Marxist, socialist and postmodern ideas. He already has an online video empire, through which he makes thousands of dollars out of criticising the university's system, and he has been accused multiple times of encouraging the harassment of his critics through tweets and social media postings. His extra-curricular speaking engagements are frequent flashpoints for campus protests.

Now, he is threatening to launch a website that would specifically identify faculty and course reading lists that are what he calls "postmodern" (read, "leftist"). And "threatening" is the word, because even he admits that it could lead to chaos and possibly even violence. A similar website in the USA has resulted in death threats to at least one professor who was flagged as harbouring a "radical agenda".

Now, I know: that is the USA, this is relatively sensible Canada. But there are plenty of unstable, right-wing wackos here too. The university's faculty association claims that the project would create "a climate of fear and intimidation" and a "threat to ... the academic mission of the University", and has taken the unprecedented step of calling for an emergency meeting with the school's Provost over the issue. UoT's Women and Gender Studies Institute warns that the establishment of such a website would present "a serious case of harassment, fostering unsafe work and study conditions for students, faculty and staff". Peterson himself admits, "I've had qualms about whether or not to do this ... I think it's wrong to increase polarization, because it's dangerous."

According to Prof. Peterson, the disciplines of social sciences, law and humanities, at UoT and elsewhere - as well as, of course, women's studies and ethnic and racial studies - have all been "infected" by postmodernism, and what he calls "corrupt ideology" (meaning, presumably, anything left of centre). He believes that the poor, unsuspecting students should be warned about this clear attempt at subliminal radicalization.

Setting aside Peterson's tendencies towards patronization and perhaps paranoia, I think his use of the term "postmodernism" in this little crusade of his is disingenuous, to say the least. Postmodernism merely means anything that departs from modernism, usually referring to the spheres of art, architecture.and philosophy. In practice, and more broadly, it tends to encompass skepticism, irony, irreverence and moral relativism. What postmodernism is not, is (as Peterson seems to believe it to be) the same thing.as anti-rationality, or an abdication of concern with the truth.

But, in reality, Prof. Peterson is not objecting to the philosophies of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. He is more objecting to the leftist politics that these philosophers also espoused, and which so often comes with a postmodern outlook, even if the two things are not necessarily connected. If Peterson means "leftist", then he should say so, and not obfuscate and pussyfoot around it. If he means that he wants to out "political correctness" in all its insidious forms and disguises - and most of his recent obsessions and diatribes against ideas like white privilege, cultural appropriation, preferred gender pronouns, etc - suggest that that is where he is really coming from - then, again, he should say so.

I'm sure the University of Toronto would dearly love to get rid of this troublesome guy, but as a tenured professor, they will have real difficulty doing so. Eventually, he will probably do or say something that is beyond the pale. But, in the meantime, they are stuck with him.

Soulpepper's production of The Goat is challenging but edifying

A quick plug for Soulpepper's production of Edward Albee's 2000 play The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia (or as the Soulpepper program had it, The Goat or, Who Is Sylvia, but then what's in a comma).
Written decades after Albee's heyday in the swinging 60s, and following an extended hiatus in his writing career, The Goat sees Albee continuing to push the envelope. He was always outspoken and often outrageous both as an author and as a person, and was for many years a champion of gay rights (although he did not want to be thought of as an "gay writer").
The Goat tackles subject matter like bestiality, incest and pedophilia in the most forthright of manners. The main plotline concerns a famous and sucessful architect who, at the height of his success and after 22 years of apparently happy marriage to a fiercely intelligent professional woman, falls in love (both physically and emotionally) with a goat called Sylvia.
Although there are elements of the Theatre of the Absurd of Albee's earlier works, and although there certainly is some comedy and witty wordplay, much of the play is devoted to the architect's attempts to get his family and friends to take his disquieting news seriously. And always, below the surface, there are more generalized questions asked about how even supposedly broadminded and liberal individuals can close their minds off to social taboos and moral grey areas. The difficulties faced by the couple's gay son is an obvious parallel.
So, what could have been an absurd, even farcical, story, actually turns out to be a poignant, at times harrowing and downright tragic, tale of a misunderstood societal outcast. There are distinct elements of Greek tragedy in the play, especially in the shocking final scene. Although there were a few members of the audience who insisted on giggling every time the architect's wife called him a goat-fucker, there wereay others who were clearly on the verge of tears, and there were quite a few sharp intakes of breath and sotto voce exclamations of "oh, God". Alan Aykbourne this is denitely not.
The Soulpepper production is, as usual excellent, and the two main characters are superbly played, one with judicious understatement and the other with extravagant vitriol and physicality. It's not an easy play, and one leaves the theatre feeling quite drained. But, hey, who needs Alan Aykbourne on a Thursday night?

An oh-so-honest exploration of issues of consent and sexual assualt

It's the second time I've listened to it, but the CBC Out in the Open documentary on sexual consent is, I think, terrific, and worth sharing.

The first part is a candid description of the 1996 rape of a drunk and incapacitated 16-year old Icelandic girl by an 18-year old upper middle-class Australian boy. It is a fascinating, revealing and oh-so-honest exposé of the kind of entitlement many young men feel, and the kind of denial (or at least time-lag in comprehension) that often occurs after a rape, both on the part of the victim and the perpetrator.

What is particularly poignant about this story is that, some nine years after the occurence, the victim reached out to the rapist, mainly as a way of processing the events for herself, little expecting a response to her email. What followed, though, was an eight-year email correspondence between the two, in which the rapist (now humbled, remorseful and full of guilt) and the victim (angry, confused and irreparably hurt) attempted to work out their feelings, and to come to grips with the forces and circumstances that could allow such a thing to happen.

While not expecting, or even asking, to be let off the hook, the honesty of the rapist is both touching and affecting, and he is eloquent in his public prostration. Here is a particularly poignant passage:

"I'm not offering this as an excuse, but it's the case that I was part of a social grouping of young men that's often unseen and unscrutinized, but very privileged and not questioned. And these notions of masculinity that you have a right to a woman's body, that misogynistic notion that women are of less value, and that you have a privilege that is almost a birthright, that you are deserving, or that you can have these expectations that are hugely damaging and destructive. And if I were to ask myself who am I speaking to as I am discussing this problem publicly sitting in this chair today, I would certainly like to reach young men who might harbour such damaging notions of entitlement to a woman's body that I did ... and say that this is just simply wrong."

The second section of the documentary is an interview with a Calgary man whose job it is to talk to talk to 14-year old school kids about sexual assault and, particularly, about consent. In it, he explains how "yes-means-yes-and-no-means-no" might seems clear and black-and-white enough, but in fact there is greyness even within that. He argues that just a "yes" is not enough, that an "enthusiastic yes" is needed. He also explains how communication between partners can take many forms, and the process may be different every time; the important thing is to take the time to go through the process, and to take nothing for granted. One little nugget from this section: "If it's not consensual, its's not sex, it's sexual assault".

The whole program is pretty heavy going at times, but it's thought-provoking, even enlightening. It should probably be mandatory listening for all school kids of a certain age.

'Tis the season ... for snow tires

There may not be any snow around here in Toronto, although Northern Ontario and points further west have already had a few dumps. But it is nevertheless time for the annual debate over the need, or otherwise, for winter (or snow) tires.

Now, I must confess I've never bothered with winter tires before, always relying on the tired old argument that I have an all-wheel drive car so I don't also need to invest in an expensive set of snow tires. But now, with a new two-wheel drive Prius, I can't even fall back on that argument, threadbare though it is (effective though all-wheel drive may be when accelerating, it won't help at all when braking on snow or ice). So, I have bitten the bullet and ploughed $900 or so into my very own snow tires.

The research and the studies on the subject are unanimous and definitive. "All-season" tires are fine for most purposes but, in Canada at least, they are really only three-season tires. When the temperatures dip below the magic threshold of 7°C, the rubber used for all-season tires suddenly becomes harder, and its grip on the road poorer. Winter tires, on the other hand, are made of softer rubber mixed with silicon, which is able to retain its road grip down to -40°C. They also have "biting edges" that improve grip on ice still further.

With winter tires, which are marked with a little snowflake and mountain logo, acceleration in bad conditions is improved and, critically, braking distances are hugely superior to those of all-season tires (and even of "all-weather" tires, a kind of intermediate compromise category between the two). Some more expensive snow tires may be better than other cheaper ones, but all of the tires tested were significantly better than no snow tires at all.

Quebec is the only province where winter tires are mandatory, so take up there is 100%. Usage in the rest of Canada tends generally to decrease from east (about 80% in the Maritimes) to west (49% in British Columbia). Canada-wide the percentage is about 68% and, here in Ontario, an estimated 57% use snow tires. Just as an aside, most insurance companies give a discount for snow tire users.

So, the jury is out and the verdict is in: snow tires are a must in Canada for anyone who can afford them. I have just joined the ranks of the sensible.

A cautiously optimistic view of the fight against climate change

The Guardian has identified what it calls "the seven megatrends that could beat global warming", and only one of them is currently going in the wrong direction.

Our global lifestyle and technology needs to change drastically if we are to keep global warming down to below the 2°C increase that climatologists tell us is essential to avoid some of the more existential threats of climate change. But in many respects things are actually going surprisingly well, even if we do need to ramp up the speed of change (oh, and replace a certain president and his government...)

So, what are those seven megatrends?

• Renewable energy uptake continues apace, and is one of the best-developed and most promising aspects of the fight against climate change. Costs of solar and wind power in particular have plummeted in recent years (and continue to fall), and the future for the industry looks rosy.
• Coal, one of the most climate-damaging ingredients of our modern lifestyle, has peaked, and is declining rapidly in what looks like a death spiral. World coal production peaked in 2013 - largely a result of the improved costs of renewable energy - and continues to decline, despite the best efforts of a certain D. Trump.
• Electric cars are finally being taken seriously, and the EV market is surging (although still in its early phase), spearheaded by China. Virtually all major car-makers have committed to an electric future, and, although the EV market share is still tiny overall, projections of growth rates suggest that 80% of new cars will be electric by 2030. Hybrids, and a general improvement in fuel efficiency, are also contributing to weaning us off our oil dependency.
• Batteries, both for electric cars and for storage of intermittent renewable power, are essential to a green future. Costs of lithium-ion batteries (which are still expected to be the main battery technology for the foreseeable future) have tumbled in recent years, and look set to continue. New technologies are also being developed all the time.
• Good progress is being made on energy efficiency - in homes, transport and industry - particularly in the EU, where overall energy efficiency has improved by about 20% since 2000. Much more work remains to be done, though, especially in the industrial sector.
• Curbing our planetary meat addiction is essential if we are to reduce methane production from livestock farming. There have been recent advances in lab-grown meat, and a steady increase in demand for vegetarian/vegan meat and dairy substitutes, although, realistically, both of these developments are still in their infancy.
• The megatrend that is not yet pointing in the right direction concerns the destruction of forests, which contributes an estimated 10% of global GHG emissions: annual tree loss has roughly doubled since 2000. Stopping deforestation and plating new trees is potentially the cheapest and fastest way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but, despite good progress in China, India and South Korea, investment in trees is severely underfunded compared to other efforts, and the need is becoming urgent.

So, the overall report card reads like a typical "good work, but can do better". Former UN climate chief Cristina Figueres and several other influential commentators remain staunchly optimistic, or at least cautiously optimistic. But it does sometimes seem like we are pointed in the right direction but barely moving.

Governor General's speech used as political football

Canada's latest Governor General, Julie Payette, has ruffled some feathers with one of her very first speeches, one she gave to the Canadian Science Policy Convention just the other day.

Ms. Payette is an engineer by training and made her name as an astronaut. She is therefore a scientist through and through - as well as a multi-lingual, all-round over-achiever - and her speech was being made to a bunch of scientists. So, when she broached the subjects of man-made climate change, evolution by random genetic changes, the shortcomings of astrology, and science-based medical procedures, she was very much preaching to the choir. She merely layed out the facts - hardly controvesial ones - and her audience lapped it up.

What has rankled with some conservatives and religious people, though, was the tone of her delivery, which has been described as "incredulous" and "pointed". For example, she employed phrases like "can you believe...?" and "lo and behold!" This has resulted in her speech being characterized as "mocking" those of a religious or non-scientific persuasion. Frankly, I find this an exaggeration (watch that part of the speech for yourself, most people have not even bothered to go that far before commenting), but I know that many religious people seem to have taken the gibe very personally, even if at no point did she mention or attack religion as such.

And then, of course, the politicans got involved and things immediately got much worse. Federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, careful to attack Justin Trudeau for his support for Ms. Payette and not the GG herself, blustered: "It is extremely disappointing that the prime minister will not support indigenous peoples, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and other faith groups who believe there is truth in their religion ... Justin Trudeau has offended millions of Canadians with his comments."

Cobblers! All the man said was that "We are a government grounded in science", and that he "applaud[s] the firmness with which she stands in support of science and the truth". What else was he going to say? That everything Ms. Payette said was garbage, and the the small percentage of religious types who believe that life on Earth arose due to "divine intervention", or who believe that sugar pills and crystals can cure cancer, are right? Would that have satisfied Mr. Scheer? Of course not. He was just responding with the knee-jerk reaction that everything that Mr. Trudeau says or believes must be wrong, hoping, as ever, to score some cheap political points.

Well, I guess that Ms. Payette will learn from this experience. Maybe she will modulate her tone so as not to offend the easily-offended. Maybe she will get used to the idea that everything she says is on the public record, and that someone somewhere is always going to be looking to score points and make political hay from it. It's a sad truth, but a truth nevertheless. But let's not confuse this with the idea that anything she said in her speech was wrong, or even particularly controversial (there was nothing that is not already taught in Canadian high schools), or that religious beliefs somehow trump the truth.

Artybollocks Generator

If you've ever been to an art exhibition or a modern dance performance, you'll know exactly what we're talking about when we say "artybollocks": those bombastic, pretentious and often largely incomprehensible descriptions and artist's statements that usually accompany artistic displays or performances.

Suffused as they are with jargon, "artspeak" and obscure abstract concepts, I've been reading these things for years in performance programs and gallery fliers. But I find my patience with them significantly diminished in recent years, particularly as I struggle with the artfully dim lighting we are usually provided with. They do seem to be something of an artform of their own, and they often appear to follow a kind of template or proforma, into which various stock phrases, and wilfully obscure, difficult or bewildering words can be inserted.

Well, now you can generate your very own, thanks to the Artybollocks Generator. Here's a random example:

"My work explores the relationship between the tyranny of ageing and life as performance. With influences as diverse as Derrida and Roy Lichtenstein, new combinations are manufactured from both constructed and discovered structures.

"Ever since I was a postgraduate I have been fascinated by the essential unreality of the mind. What starts out as triumph soon becomes finessed into a hegemony of temptation, leaving only a sense of unreality and the chance of a new order.

"As subtle derivatives become clarified through diligent and personal practice, the viewer is left with an epitaph for the darkness of our condition."

Yes, that sounds famliar. I think maybe I saw that show.

There's also a handy Twitter-friendly abbreviated version:

"What starts out as vision soon becomes debased into a cacophony of lust, leaving only a sense of dread and the unlikelihood of a new reality."

Quite.

#MeToo - why now?

I have been trying to figure out, to my own satisfaction, just why the outpouring of #MeToo allegations of sexual harassment and rape has taken so long to come about.

Because outpouring it most definitely is: women are contributing to the hashtag by the thousands, and there are now numerous equivalents in other languages. The problem is a well-know and well-documented one. An Abacus Data survey released just this week suggests that 53% of Canadian women have experienced "unwanted sexual pressure" in the workplace, and about 12% (10% of men and 14% of women) say that sexual harassment in their workplace is "really quite common".  Perhaps even worse, nearly three-quarters (63% of men and 77% of women) felt that harassers would face no repercussions. These figures tally quite closely with other studies from the UK and elsewhere.

So why, then, all these #MeToos all of a sudden? It took the Harvey Weinstein allegations to galvanize women into action, and then it took celebrities to give those allegations teeth. It took Tarana Burke to come up with the #MeToo Twitter campaign in the first place, and Alyssa Milano to popularize it. But then - it's sad but true - it took the attentions of people in power (the Angelina Jolie's, the Gwyneth Paltrow's, the Rose McGowan's) to attract serious media attention to the reported abuses of those other people in power.

After that, it was just the power of a successful social media viral campaign that carried it along, and the feeling that, "well, if so-and-so is willing to go public, then maybe so can I", a feeling sufficient to overcome any residual shame or legal/financial intimidation the survivors may feel. Clearly, the need to speak out is juxtaposed with the career challenges it could create, whether it be in show business, politics, professional sports, firefighting, or just in an office cleaning job

Now, though, there is a palpable feeling of solidarity, of the-time-is-come-the-time-is-now. For example, there has been a spike in women seeking legal advice about pursuing sexual harassment claims since the #MeToo campaign. Although the show business cases have received the majority of the media attention, predictably enough, sexual harassment is probably even more rife in male-dominated fields like engineering, construction, the military, finance and transport, as well as in minimum wage work, like care-workers, cleaning staff, bar staff, shop assistants, etc, and these often-overlooked victims are also taking to #MeToo and making their voices heard.

Another question that occurs top me is: what is the the value of airing allegations that go back 20 years or more? Well, sometimes it's hard to see, but things have changed, certainly since the 1970s, when sexual harassment was a widely tolerated part of working life, a kind of "occupational hazard" for women. In those days, women were very reticent to report sexual abuse, and those that did often ended up regretting the ridicule, retaliation and discrimination that resulted (this also persists today, but to a lesser degree). Someone who might not have felt comfortable admitting or calling out an impropriety 20 or 30 years ago, may feel able do so now, particularly as part of a groundswell like we are currently experiencing . Also, some of these encounters can take a long time to work through psychologically.

There is a force in numbers, and (at least in theory) the more perpetrators that are called out for abusing their power, the less likely it should become in the future. Yes, there are still risks to pursuing a case, and the process can be protracted, expensive and unpleasant: it is probably not for everyone. And yes, the onus should be on men to improve and to make amends (hopefully, that is happening too). But the more the issue hits the mainstream media - whether it relates to something 20 years ago or 20 minutes ago - the more likelihood there is that change will actually occur. This is not just about individuals like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey - attitudes across the board need to change.

As Montreal writer Toula Drimonis puts it, the "culture of silence and complicity" has been shattered. And that's just as it should be.

How do animals survive the Canadian winter?

While walking through a Toronto ravine in all its fall glory recently, I got to wondering how animals survive the harsh Canadian winter. Now, I knew the answer would be, "it's complicated" - I've seen my share of nature documentaries - but I still wasn't prepared for just how complicated.

First off, it depends on the distinction between endothermic (warm-blooded) and ectothermic (cold-blooded) animals, although even then some ectotherms are able to produce some heat thermogenically (by basking in the sun, for example).

Mammals and Birds

Endotherms like mammals and birds employ a variety of different mechanisms to survive the sub-zero winter temperatures. Many birds simply migrate to warmer climes as the cold weather approaches, and even some mammals migrate - barren-ground caribou trek from the open arctic tundra to the more protected boreal forest; whales and some bats also migrate south; deer and elk move down the south-facing slopes of the mountains to warmer elevations.

Some animals are just so well-insulated and -adapted that they can survive even extreme temperatures. For example, the arctic fox can remain thermoneutral in temperatures as low as -80°C. Predators like polar bears and lynx are supremely well-adapted to the cold, to the extent that winter is their main hunting season. Even animals like deer and moose are surprisingly adept at foraging in the winter snow, and so do not need to hibernate.

Many animals and birds grow more and thicker fur or feathers to help them survive the winter, and some are able to fluff them up to increase the insulation. Grey wolves have two separate layers of fur to help them stay warm. Many mammals (and even some birds) huddle together to keep warm, and they may also curl up, draw in their legs, or cover their faces with their tails to help conserve heat. Many small animals, like squirrels, chipmunks, pikas, weasels, etc, store and hide food in the fall for the cold days ahead, as also do beavers and some birds like chickadees, blue jays and owls. All animals that have to survive the winter spend the fall eating extra food and storing it as body fat. Voles, mice and shrews take advantage of the warmer and more protected subnivean (under the snow) spaces, where food is relatively easily to obtain and the temperatures are more consistent and manageable. Grouse also sometimes dig themselves snow refuges for much the same reason.

Some animals, like deer for example, can reduce their metabolisms during cold spells so as to require less food, while others can voluntarily reduce blood flow to their skin and extremities. Some birds like chickadees lower their internal temperature and shiver durimg the cold of night to generate heat from their flight muscles, in a kind of controlled hypothermia. Some wading birds and gulls have complex vascular systems that operate like heat exchange systems, moving heat from warmer arteries to cooler veins (caribou also employ a similar vascular mechanism, as do the tails of beavers).

The best-known over-wintering technique is hibernation, in which the animal's metabolism is reduced down to 5% or less of normal, and respiration and heartbeats are reduced to very low levels. Groundhogs, for example, may breathe as little as 10 times per hour during hibernation, their heartbeats fall to 4-5 per minute, and their internal temperatures fall to just a few degrees above freezing. During full or true hibernation, an animal will probably not wake even for a loud noise or if moved. They use energy-rich brown fat for internal energy production during their dormant periods.

More common than full hibernation, though, is torpor or light hibernation. In this state, animals like bears, racoons, mice, shrews, chipmunks, ground squirrels, skunks, etc, sleep deeply, with a reduced heartbeat, but, unlike with true hibernation, their core temperatures remain quite high. These animals tend to wake quite often on milder days to search for food or change dens, etc. Their body temperatures may fall several degrees each night in order to conserve energy.

Reptiles Amphibians and Fish

The hibernation equivalent for cold-blooded animals like reptiles and amphibians is known as brumation. The condition can last for months during he cold weather, but the animals often wake up briefly to drink water or to shift position before returning to sleep.

Amphibians and reptiles typically lie dormant under decaying logs or in rock crevices, caves or the burrows of other animals. Snakes, many of which are freeze-tolerant (see below), gather in protected rock dens, often in multi-species groups. Toads burrow down into the soil, but some amphibians remain above ground, protected only by moss, ground litter and snow. Many amphibians, turtles and salamanders over-winter in the mud at the bottom of swamps, ponds and lakes (they can absorb oxygen from the water through their skins).

Some reptiles and amphibians are able to reduce their metabolisms enough to remain active in water throughout the winter. Many frogs are still capable of swimming in water that is almost freezing, provided it is deep enough to have enough oxygen. Some species such as wood frogs and spring peepers are freeze-tolerant, and produce extra glucose that acts as a kind of antifreeze in their extracellular spaces and prevents their cells from freezing. Once the weather warms and the ice melts, the frogs thaw and their hearts and lungs resume normal activity.

Freshwater fish are able to survive under the ice because their body fluids freeze at a lower temperature than water. Many of them hide under rocks, logs or fallen leaves. Saltwater fish typically just migrate to deeper waters, but some remain in shallower saltwater because they are able to produce chemicals with antifreeze properties.

Insects and Invertebrates

Most insects spend the winter in diapause, a hibernation-like state of dormancy when normal growth and development stops. Insects may over-winter in their egg, larva or pupa states, or in some cases even as adults, and they use a huge diversity of strategies to achieve this. A few insects like winter stone flies, crane flies and snow fleas are even able to remain active throughout the winter.

Some insects and invertebrates are "freeze-tolerant" (i.e. they can survive ice formation within their tissues, by a variety of different biological and biochemical means), while the others are "freeze-intolerant" or "freeze susceptible". Freeze-susceptible insects avoid freezing by "supercooling": they seek out dry sites for the winter, empty their guts, reduce their body water content, and pump a kind of antifreeze (like gycerol) through the anaerobic pathways of their bodies.

Freeze-tolerant insects, on the other hand, actively encourage ice crystals in their bodies, generating ice-nucleating proteins in their extra-cellular spaces (ice crystals within the cells would damage the cell walls and its organelles), and they limit total ice formation with antifreeze compounds. Many beetles, flies, wasps, moths and butterflies are freeze-tolerant, and they spend the winter in deep protected crevices in tree bark or plants. Others, along with many spiders, mites and ticks, survive in the relatively warm, protected and moist subnivean spaces. Some butterfies, like monarchs and painted ladies, are capable of long migrations to warmer regions.

Aquatic insects move from shallow pools prone to hard freezing to deeper pools or larger streams. Some over-winter out of the water completely, either as eggs or protected by cocoons like butterflies.

So, as I say, it's complicated - to put it mildly!