I am just wondering about how the Republican Senators are explaining their actions to their children (or, given the age of most of them, their grandchilden).
I don't for a moment think that most of them believe that Donald Trump is an innocent man, but they are willing to support him because the alternative - the impeachment of a Republican president, and potential years in the political wilderness for the Republican party - they see as unthinkable. Even those who hate the guy will not vote to impeach him, and precious few will even vote to allow the semblance of a fair trial, with witnesses and all the other trappings of a normal court case. If their grandkids, then, ask them why they would do that, what do they say? Do they just take a deep breath and say that the success of the party is more important than the truth?
Consider something else: how does Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz explain to his grandkids the morality of his argument that a president can do pretty much anything to get re-elected so long as he believes that his re-election is in the public interest of the country. This is such a shocking statement that even small children will see how wrong it is, and what a precedent it would set for the future. Dershowitz too must be aware of how wrong, and how dangerous, it is. What, then, does he say to said grandchildren if the subject comes up at the dinner table? That the law is all about winning at any cost, and that morality just doesn't come into it? Or does the whole family just know not to bring the subject up.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs, and you have to feel for the moral agonizing these people have to deal with. Ha!
Friday, January 31, 2020
Christine Sinclair's achievement in perspective
Shout out to Christine Sinclair, Canada's soccer superstar, as she breaks the record for all time international goal-scoring.
Notching up goals 184 and 185 the other day in a 11-0 rout of St. Kitts & Nevis, she beat out American Abby Wambach to become, not only the highest scoring woman in international soccer, but the highest scoring person. Period.
For perspective, the highest scoring male is still Ali Daei of Iran (who? you say) with a paltry 104. For even more perspective, Ms. Sinclair has scored more international goals than Pele (77) and Cristiano Ronaldo (99) combined!
Notching up goals 184 and 185 the other day in a 11-0 rout of St. Kitts & Nevis, she beat out American Abby Wambach to become, not only the highest scoring woman in international soccer, but the highest scoring person. Period.
For perspective, the highest scoring male is still Ali Daei of Iran (who? you say) with a paltry 104. For even more perspective, Ms. Sinclair has scored more international goals than Pele (77) and Cristiano Ronaldo (99) combined!
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Donald Trump's wall is falling down
Trump's wall: winds blow over sections of US-Mexico border fence.
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
A pair of criminals propose a "peace plan" for Palestine
It makes quite a picture: two old white guys in black suits blithely shrugging off serious threats to their credibility and integrity, and making totally impractical and already discredited plans for the fate of a whole country, thereby throwimg the entire region into yet more instability and violent turmoil.
Looking through that sentence, I could probably have been referring to any number of personages throughout history. But, as it happens, I am referring to Benjamin Neyanyahu and Donald Trump - one newly indicted on corruption charges and one in the middle of an impeachment trial - as they propose a "peace plan", which just happens to be exactly what Israel has been calling for for decades, and which takes into account the Palestinian viewpoint not a whit.
Should these characters even be out in public, never mind be making pronouncements that affect the lives of millions of people?
Looking through that sentence, I could probably have been referring to any number of personages throughout history. But, as it happens, I am referring to Benjamin Neyanyahu and Donald Trump - one newly indicted on corruption charges and one in the middle of an impeachment trial - as they propose a "peace plan", which just happens to be exactly what Israel has been calling for for decades, and which takes into account the Palestinian viewpoint not a whit.
Should these characters even be out in public, never mind be making pronouncements that affect the lives of millions of people?
What to drink instead of milk
I know I should be drinking less milk, and I do drink less than I used to (not so with cheese however). For one thing, a glass of cow's milk produces about three times more greenhouse gases than any plant-based milk. But I have found it a hard habit to kick, despite strong provocation from my daughter.
But it seems like most milk substitutes have their own problems. So, what's a well-meaning, right-on guy to do? Let's look at the alternatives (thank you, Guardian):
But it seems like most milk substitutes have their own problems. So, what's a well-meaning, right-on guy to do? Let's look at the alternatives (thank you, Guardian):
- Almond milk: uses less farmland than most alternatives, but a lot more water (130 pints of water to produce a single glass of almond milk!). Almond trees also require pollination by bees, and almost 70% of California's commercial bee population are pressed this service every year, stressing them out and apparently killing a good percentage.
- Coconut milk: poor and underpaid pickers from Indonesia, Philippines and India are exploited for coconut production, and rainforests in Indonesia are being clear-cut at a rate of three acres every minute to make way for coconut plantations.
- Rice milk: less nutritious than other alternatives and a real water hog, rice milk also produces more greenhouse gas emissions than other plant-based alternatives, mainly due to methane produced by bacteria breeding in the rice paddies.
- Hazelnut milk: a reasonably good and tasty alternative, although not as easily available as many others, hazelnuts do not require bees for pollination like almonds do.
- Hemp and flax milk: milk alternatives produced from seeds are not as widely available as nut milks, and their relatively small production means less monoculture farming.
- Soy milk: the only plant milk that comes close to the protein content of dairy, soy was the first plant-based milk alternative to be commercially available, and it remains one of the best. Concerns about human-type hormones in soya are overblown (it would require a huge intake of soy milk to create any hormonal problems, and recent studies give it a clean bill of health). The main drawback of soya is that it is used so ubiquitously for animal feed that vast swaths of rainforest in the Amazon and elsewhere have been razed to make way for soya production, so the sourcing of soy milk becomes important.
- Oat milk: rapidly becoming more popular, oat milk is perhaps the best plant-based milk alternative available. Oats are grown in cooler climates and so avoid the problem of tropical deforestation, although they are grown in vast monocultures (again largely for animal feed), and are often produced using the carcinogenic Roundup pesticide, which has even been found in a third of products made from supposedly organic oats!
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
A map of non-English non-Spanish languages spoken in the USA
Somebody has done some grunt work and produced a map of the USA that shows the most commonly used language in each state other than English and Spanish. The results make for some interesting, not to say bewildering, reading, and are a testament, I suppose, to the lesser known immigration history of the United States.
For example, the cluster of Vietnamese speakers in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, the cluster of Philippino (Tagalog) speakers in California and Nevada, and the cluster of Koreans in Alabama and Georgia. Then there are two clusters of German speakers, a mid-West one comprising Ohio, Indian and Kentucky, and another in the Rockies, in Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The Portuguese clearly settled in the New England states of Massachussetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, but it's news to me. Chinese states, on the other hand, seem to be spread pretty much at random across the country.
French makes sense in the New England states bordering Quebec, and in ex-French colony Louisiana, but North Carolina? Likewise, Haitian Creole perhaps belongs in Florida, but Delaware? There are a surprising number of states with a plurality of Arabic speakers (despite Donald Trump's best efforts), including West Virginia, Tennessee and Michigan, none of which I think of as particularly progressive states. And then there are the outliers: Nepalis in Nebraska, Somali in Minnesota, Hmong in Wisconsin, Gujarati (not Italian!) in New Jersey. Inexplicable!
And finally, it's interesting to see that some native languages remain strong: Navajo in New Mexico and Arizona, Dakota/Lakota/Nakita/Sioux in South Dakota, Aleut-Eskimo in Alaska, Ilocana in Hawaii.
Kobe Bryant was no angel, whatever the eulogies might suggest
The eulogies are flooding in for Kobe Bryant, dead after a helicopter crash the other day. In fact, the eulogies are flooding in from people who used to hate the guy back in his playing days. Which is just the way it goes, I understand - you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead.
But from what I can glean, and contrary to the eulogies, he was not a very pleasant guy at all. Here's a less-than-flattering article by a Lakers fan from 2010, during Bryant's heyday, and here's one of the very few eulogies-tempered-with-realism I could find.
Clearly, Bryant was a good basketball player, that much is not in dispute. But apparently he had few friends, and made plenty of enemies both within basketball and within the press corps and fan base with his snide and destructive comments about others. He was undeniably a ball- (and glory-) hog and a thoroughgoing individualist in a team sport. And then there was the whole rape allegation thing, not ultimately proven in court as the victim chose not to testify, but pretty damning from what evidence did come out.
And who takes a helicopter to a basketball game anyway? Apparently, he would take a helicopter to games and even practices, which seems just bizarre to me The fact that his helicopter was flying on a foggy day when most other helicopters (including police helicopters) chose not to is still being investigated, and more details may yet surface. The press has been widely reporting that Bryant's 13-year old daughter was also killed, but let's not forget that so were 7 others.
Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead either. It's just interesting how people's tones change after someone died. The same thing happened with Toronto ex-mayor Rob Ford, villified and widely disliked during his life, but raised almost to sainthood after his death. I guess that's just the way it goes with polarizing individuals.
But from what I can glean, and contrary to the eulogies, he was not a very pleasant guy at all. Here's a less-than-flattering article by a Lakers fan from 2010, during Bryant's heyday, and here's one of the very few eulogies-tempered-with-realism I could find.
Clearly, Bryant was a good basketball player, that much is not in dispute. But apparently he had few friends, and made plenty of enemies both within basketball and within the press corps and fan base with his snide and destructive comments about others. He was undeniably a ball- (and glory-) hog and a thoroughgoing individualist in a team sport. And then there was the whole rape allegation thing, not ultimately proven in court as the victim chose not to testify, but pretty damning from what evidence did come out.
And who takes a helicopter to a basketball game anyway? Apparently, he would take a helicopter to games and even practices, which seems just bizarre to me The fact that his helicopter was flying on a foggy day when most other helicopters (including police helicopters) chose not to is still being investigated, and more details may yet surface. The press has been widely reporting that Bryant's 13-year old daughter was also killed, but let's not forget that so were 7 others.
Anyway, I'm not here to speak ill of the dead either. It's just interesting how people's tones change after someone died. The same thing happened with Toronto ex-mayor Rob Ford, villified and widely disliked during his life, but raised almost to sainthood after his death. I guess that's just the way it goes with polarizing individuals.
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Canadian craft breweries - too much, too fast
If you're having trouble keeping track of all the new microbreweries in your city, you're not alone. There was a time when a new craft brewery was a big event; nowadays, it's hard to even try out the new ones before they disappear. There are four or five craft breweries within a few kilometres of our house that have sprung up in the last couple of years alone, and we still haven't got around to visiting them. Occasionally, we will try out new names while in a bar or restsurant, but it's easy to lose track of who's who and who's good, what with all those wacky names and hyperbolic descriptions.
So, it probably doesn't come as too much of a surprise to read in the Globe and Mail that, over the last decade, the number of breweries in Canada has burgeoned from a little over 200 to nearly 1,000, the majority of that increase occurring between 2013 and 2017.
Neither does it surprise me greatly that funding for new breweries, which at one time was an easy sell, is much harder to come by these days, as investors see a market which is starting to look over-saturated. We are starting to see breweries closing down or being put up for sale (often with the Labatts and Molsons of the world snapping up some of their smaller competitors). According to Statistics Canada, only about 50% of Canadian breweries were actually profitable in 2017, with most of the others being labours of love. It can take 5 to 7 years for a craft brewery to generate cash flow, and many just don't make it that far.
It almost makes me want to go out right now and visit a couple of my local watering holes. But then I look out and see it is raining, and put it off for another day.
So, it probably doesn't come as too much of a surprise to read in the Globe and Mail that, over the last decade, the number of breweries in Canada has burgeoned from a little over 200 to nearly 1,000, the majority of that increase occurring between 2013 and 2017.
Neither does it surprise me greatly that funding for new breweries, which at one time was an easy sell, is much harder to come by these days, as investors see a market which is starting to look over-saturated. We are starting to see breweries closing down or being put up for sale (often with the Labatts and Molsons of the world snapping up some of their smaller competitors). According to Statistics Canada, only about 50% of Canadian breweries were actually profitable in 2017, with most of the others being labours of love. It can take 5 to 7 years for a craft brewery to generate cash flow, and many just don't make it that far.
It almost makes me want to go out right now and visit a couple of my local watering holes. But then I look out and see it is raining, and put it off for another day.
Homero Gómez's kidnapping just the latest of many in lawless Mexico
You would think that being a butterfly conservationist would be a relatively serene and safe vocation, would't you? Not in Mexico, apparently.
Homero Gómez, an outspoken environmental activist and manager of the world-renowned Rosario monarch butterfly sanctuary in Michoacán state in the mountains of central Mexico, has been reported as missing, almost certainly kidnapped by illegal logging interests in the area. Local loggers have been incensed at Mr. Gómez's constant activism against logging for some years. He was last heard from on January 13th but, according to the usual MO of these incidents, he is unlikely to ever surface again.
Rosario is a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve, and its pine forests are critical for the survival of the monarch butterflies that we see migrating south from Canada every fall. Logging in the region is mainly clear-cutting for the establishment of cash crops like avocados - you might want to think about that the next time you buy Mexican avocados, I know I will. Much of it is run by criminal gangs and cartels, the likes of which are rife in increasingly lawless rural Mexico, and their activities range from drug and human trafficking to extortion, logging and mining. An estimated 60,000 people have disappeared in Mexico since 2006, mainly due to drug cartels and organized crime groups, but also apparently to the security forces themselves. Western Michoacán state - where we are due to visit just next week in order to see those very same monarch butterflies - is described by the BBC as "notorious for its violent criminal gangs". Could be an interesting trip.
Homero Gómez, an outspoken environmental activist and manager of the world-renowned Rosario monarch butterfly sanctuary in Michoacán state in the mountains of central Mexico, has been reported as missing, almost certainly kidnapped by illegal logging interests in the area. Local loggers have been incensed at Mr. Gómez's constant activism against logging for some years. He was last heard from on January 13th but, according to the usual MO of these incidents, he is unlikely to ever surface again.
Rosario is a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve, and its pine forests are critical for the survival of the monarch butterflies that we see migrating south from Canada every fall. Logging in the region is mainly clear-cutting for the establishment of cash crops like avocados - you might want to think about that the next time you buy Mexican avocados, I know I will. Much of it is run by criminal gangs and cartels, the likes of which are rife in increasingly lawless rural Mexico, and their activities range from drug and human trafficking to extortion, logging and mining. An estimated 60,000 people have disappeared in Mexico since 2006, mainly due to drug cartels and organized crime groups, but also apparently to the security forces themselves. Western Michoacán state - where we are due to visit just next week in order to see those very same monarch butterflies - is described by the BBC as "notorious for its violent criminal gangs". Could be an interesting trip.
Wild animal markets in south-east Asia must be closed down
As yet another potential global epidemic makes its way out of China and into the rest of the world, the elephant (almost literally) in the room is the issue of wild animal markets.
After the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak of 2003, China imposed a temporary ban on wildlife markets, when they were fingered as the probable source of the outbreak, and health officials and scientists both in China and elsewhere issued grave warnings about the risks involved in allowing the trade and consumption of wild meat. (Remember, ebola also came from the consumption of wild monkeys in Africa.) But the ban was temporary, for some reason, and it wasn't long before wild animal markets opened up again in China, Vietnam and other parts of south-east Asia.
And so, here we are: the latest outbreak of a coronavirus very similar to SARS has been traced back to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, which also has a substantial wild animal section where live and slaughtered animals were for sale. There you could buy wild wolf pups, golden cicadas, scorpions, bamboo rats, squirrels, foxes, civets, porcupines, salamanders, turtles and crocodiles. And the diseases come for free.
Wild meat is an expensive, luxury item in China. Rich businessmen take their colleagues to wildlife restaurants. Some people think it has some ill-defined health benefits, and the rarer the animal the better.
The longer China (and the rest of south-east Asia and Africa, for that matter) panders to these obscure and benighted tastes, the more it puts its own population at risk, not to mention the populations of some animals. In our rapidly shrinking, ultra-connected world, the rest of us do not want to share those risks either, thank you very much.
After the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak of 2003, China imposed a temporary ban on wildlife markets, when they were fingered as the probable source of the outbreak, and health officials and scientists both in China and elsewhere issued grave warnings about the risks involved in allowing the trade and consumption of wild meat. (Remember, ebola also came from the consumption of wild monkeys in Africa.) But the ban was temporary, for some reason, and it wasn't long before wild animal markets opened up again in China, Vietnam and other parts of south-east Asia.
And so, here we are: the latest outbreak of a coronavirus very similar to SARS has been traced back to the Huanan seafood market in Wuhan, which also has a substantial wild animal section where live and slaughtered animals were for sale. There you could buy wild wolf pups, golden cicadas, scorpions, bamboo rats, squirrels, foxes, civets, porcupines, salamanders, turtles and crocodiles. And the diseases come for free.
Wild meat is an expensive, luxury item in China. Rich businessmen take their colleagues to wildlife restaurants. Some people think it has some ill-defined health benefits, and the rarer the animal the better.
The longer China (and the rest of south-east Asia and Africa, for that matter) panders to these obscure and benighted tastes, the more it puts its own population at risk, not to mention the populations of some animals. In our rapidly shrinking, ultra-connected world, the rest of us do not want to share those risks either, thank you very much.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Rugby star Sonny Bill Williams' bizarro religious beliefs
The Toronto Wolfpack rugby league team has been super-succesful in their unlikely foray into the top British leagues, achieving-to-back promotions over the last two seasons. They now find themselves in the "big league", the Betfred Super League, along with the best of the British rugby league sides.
Instrumental in their success have been their two superstars, New Zealander Sunny Bill Williams and Australian Ricky Leutele. Sunny Bill, however, has been a bit of a prima donna since he got religion some ten years ago - or, more specifically, since he converted from Christianity to Islam. And the way he manifests his deep spirituality is to refuse to wear the team's jersey because it bears the logo of Betfred, a major British bookmaker, which just happens to be the league's main sponsor.
So, it sems that Williams is happy to play in the Betfred league, and to take Betfred's money. He just doesn't want to wear a rugby jersey saying so. The Toronto Wolfpack management, desperate to retain his services, is tying themselves in knots trying to accommodate him, talking about him maybe wearing an alternative jersey, or just covering up the offending logo in some way. Could he not have figured this out when he joined the club this last year? Why did he even agree to play in the Betfred League if he is so philosophically opposed to gambling?
Apparently, he has done this kind of thing before, when he was playing rugby union for the New Zealand All Blacks, and with the Aukland Blues. He refused to wear a jersey with the logo of the Bank of New Zealand, because banks are, well, they're evil, arent't they? I'm sure he didn't mind investing his substantial earnings in a bank, but apparently he had a "conscientious objection" clause in his contract, which he explained as follows: "My objection to wearing clothing that markets banks, alcohol and gambling companies is central to my religious beliefs".
I'm sure Mohammed would be proud of him, but everyone else finds it downright puzzling, especially the apparent double-standards he seems able to reconcile in his mind.
Instrumental in their success have been their two superstars, New Zealander Sunny Bill Williams and Australian Ricky Leutele. Sunny Bill, however, has been a bit of a prima donna since he got religion some ten years ago - or, more specifically, since he converted from Christianity to Islam. And the way he manifests his deep spirituality is to refuse to wear the team's jersey because it bears the logo of Betfred, a major British bookmaker, which just happens to be the league's main sponsor.
So, it sems that Williams is happy to play in the Betfred league, and to take Betfred's money. He just doesn't want to wear a rugby jersey saying so. The Toronto Wolfpack management, desperate to retain his services, is tying themselves in knots trying to accommodate him, talking about him maybe wearing an alternative jersey, or just covering up the offending logo in some way. Could he not have figured this out when he joined the club this last year? Why did he even agree to play in the Betfred League if he is so philosophically opposed to gambling?
Apparently, he has done this kind of thing before, when he was playing rugby union for the New Zealand All Blacks, and with the Aukland Blues. He refused to wear a jersey with the logo of the Bank of New Zealand, because banks are, well, they're evil, arent't they? I'm sure he didn't mind investing his substantial earnings in a bank, but apparently he had a "conscientious objection" clause in his contract, which he explained as follows: "My objection to wearing clothing that markets banks, alcohol and gambling companies is central to my religious beliefs".
I'm sure Mohammed would be proud of him, but everyone else finds it downright puzzling, especially the apparent double-standards he seems able to reconcile in his mind.
Wanted (desperately): a leader for the Conservative Party of Canada
Three prominent names have now dropped out of the running to replace the hapless Andrew Scheer as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada: Rona Ambrose, Jean Charest, and now Pierre Poilievre.
After the surprise announcements earlier this week by Ms. Ambrose and M. Charest, M. Poilievre was seen as the best, and perhaps only, challenger to the rather unpleasant Peter Mackay, who now looks to have a straight path the leadership. The only other challenger is Ontario MP Erin O'Toole, who is not expected to show very strongly in the vote.
But it's interesting to see just how little interest there is in being boss of the Canadian conservatives.
After the surprise announcements earlier this week by Ms. Ambrose and M. Charest, M. Poilievre was seen as the best, and perhaps only, challenger to the rather unpleasant Peter Mackay, who now looks to have a straight path the leadership. The only other challenger is Ontario MP Erin O'Toole, who is not expected to show very strongly in the vote.
But it's interesting to see just how little interest there is in being boss of the Canadian conservatives.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Israel, under pressure from the ICC, falls back on charges of anti-semitism
Benjamin Netanyahu is playing the anti-semitism card yet again.
Fatou Bensouda, the Gambian chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has declared that there is a "reasonable basis" on which to proceed with a war crimes case against Israel for various of its military actions in the Gaza Strip and the construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.
Netanyahu is clearly incensed by this, especially given that he has been personally responsible for most of the said actions, and he has been looking for support from his "friends"in the international community. Donald Trump has spoken up (no surprise there). But there has been a deafening silence from most other quarters. Natanyahu's specific appeal to Justin Trudeau - based on the supposed "special relations" between Israel and Canada - has met with a notable silence, unlike the much more sympathetic hearing he was used to from Stephen Harper and the previous Conservative administration (what is it with Conservatives and Israel?)
So, of course, Netanyahu has fallen back on the tried and trusted ploy, which has worked for him so often in the past, of calling the court - which Israel does not recognize anywhere, not being a member of the organization (I wonder why?) - anti-semitic.
Ms. Bensouda has reacted with admirable phlegmatism, calling the assertion "particularly regrettable" and "without merit". But what a tired old trope that is, calling any action or comment even slightly critical of Israel anti-semitic. Netanyahu (and why is he even still there, for God's sake?) debases and degrades the whole concept every time he over-uses it.
Fatou Bensouda, the Gambian chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has declared that there is a "reasonable basis" on which to proceed with a war crimes case against Israel for various of its military actions in the Gaza Strip and the construction of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.
Netanyahu is clearly incensed by this, especially given that he has been personally responsible for most of the said actions, and he has been looking for support from his "friends"in the international community. Donald Trump has spoken up (no surprise there). But there has been a deafening silence from most other quarters. Natanyahu's specific appeal to Justin Trudeau - based on the supposed "special relations" between Israel and Canada - has met with a notable silence, unlike the much more sympathetic hearing he was used to from Stephen Harper and the previous Conservative administration (what is it with Conservatives and Israel?)
So, of course, Netanyahu has fallen back on the tried and trusted ploy, which has worked for him so often in the past, of calling the court - which Israel does not recognize anywhere, not being a member of the organization (I wonder why?) - anti-semitic.
Ms. Bensouda has reacted with admirable phlegmatism, calling the assertion "particularly regrettable" and "without merit". But what a tired old trope that is, calling any action or comment even slightly critical of Israel anti-semitic. Netanyahu (and why is he even still there, for God's sake?) debases and degrades the whole concept every time he over-uses it.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Tax the rich! - the rich say it's OK
Here's something you don't see every day: a bunch of rich, old, white guys who want to pay more tax.
As a movement, the Patriotic Millionaires still in its infancy, but in the wake of this year's Davos meeting, they are becoming more vocal. It's an American operation - hence the "patriotic" part - this far, but they want to go international.
So, these are people who have made it, and who want to give back. Examples include Disney heiress Abigail Disney, ex-Blackrock managing director Maurice Pearl, Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer, real estate developer Jeffrey Gural, Oscar Meyer heir Chuck Collins, MOM's Organic Market co-founder Scott Nash, etc, etc.
Some of them just feel that it is unpatriotic for rich people to evade taxes; some see the growing inequality as a threat to a healthy society (what you might call "enlightened self-interest"); some want to see a wealth tax, some just an increased income tax on the rich; some think it is just plain wrong for rich people to salve their consciences by making splashy charitable donations, because spending priorities should be set by the people (or at least their elected representatives) and not by rich folk who want to see their names up in lights; and some see a huge irony in the fact that "the Trumps, the Zuckerbergs, the Buffets of this world pay lower taxes than the teachers and secretaries".
In 2018, American billionaires paid 23% of their income in federal, state and local taxes, while the average American paid 28%. If you were wondering how, there are several different ways in which billionaires can reduce their tax burden: by mainly taking their income as lower-taxed capital gains rather than as earned income, by taking tax write-offs for charitable donations, by employing highly-paid tax lawyers and accountants to look for loopholes and schemes, by taking advantage of tax breaks for job creation, and by voting in fellow billionaires like Donald Trump, who substantially reduced corporate taxes and introduced billionaire-friendly perks like the bonus depreciation of fixed assets.
So, while "Patriotic Millionaires" doesn't immediately sound like something I would approve of, it actually sounds like a worthy enterprise, and long overdue.
As a movement, the Patriotic Millionaires still in its infancy, but in the wake of this year's Davos meeting, they are becoming more vocal. It's an American operation - hence the "patriotic" part - this far, but they want to go international.
So, these are people who have made it, and who want to give back. Examples include Disney heiress Abigail Disney, ex-Blackrock managing director Maurice Pearl, Men's Wearhouse founder George Zimmer, real estate developer Jeffrey Gural, Oscar Meyer heir Chuck Collins, MOM's Organic Market co-founder Scott Nash, etc, etc.
Some of them just feel that it is unpatriotic for rich people to evade taxes; some see the growing inequality as a threat to a healthy society (what you might call "enlightened self-interest"); some want to see a wealth tax, some just an increased income tax on the rich; some think it is just plain wrong for rich people to salve their consciences by making splashy charitable donations, because spending priorities should be set by the people (or at least their elected representatives) and not by rich folk who want to see their names up in lights; and some see a huge irony in the fact that "the Trumps, the Zuckerbergs, the Buffets of this world pay lower taxes than the teachers and secretaries".
In 2018, American billionaires paid 23% of their income in federal, state and local taxes, while the average American paid 28%. If you were wondering how, there are several different ways in which billionaires can reduce their tax burden: by mainly taking their income as lower-taxed capital gains rather than as earned income, by taking tax write-offs for charitable donations, by employing highly-paid tax lawyers and accountants to look for loopholes and schemes, by taking advantage of tax breaks for job creation, and by voting in fellow billionaires like Donald Trump, who substantially reduced corporate taxes and introduced billionaire-friendly perks like the bonus depreciation of fixed assets.
So, while "Patriotic Millionaires" doesn't immediately sound like something I would approve of, it actually sounds like a worthy enterprise, and long overdue.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Some of Australia's most valued nature has been razed, but some survived
I've written very little about the Australian wildfires, except to remark on how large an area was affected, relatively speaking. No diatribe on climate change, no character assassination of Scott Morrison.
But I did read an article today cataloging some of the natural devastation it has wreaked. Specifically, at least 80% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Site has burned, which may have impacted the diversity of eucalypts for which it received its WHS designation. Also, at least 50% of the Gondwana World Heritage Site, with its pristine protected rainforest, has also been torched.
On a brighter note, Wollemi National Park was miraculously saved, after some sterling work by firefighters. Just 100 miles from Sydney, the park protects a rare species of pine that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs. Just 200 of these "dinosaur trees" exist in their natural habitat, and they were thought to be extinct until as recently as 1994. A muted cheer for the wollemi trees (and the firefighters)!
But I did read an article today cataloging some of the natural devastation it has wreaked. Specifically, at least 80% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Site has burned, which may have impacted the diversity of eucalypts for which it received its WHS designation. Also, at least 50% of the Gondwana World Heritage Site, with its pristine protected rainforest, has also been torched.
On a brighter note, Wollemi National Park was miraculously saved, after some sterling work by firefighters. Just 100 miles from Sydney, the park protects a rare species of pine that dates back to the time of the dinosaurs. Just 200 of these "dinosaur trees" exist in their natural habitat, and they were thought to be extinct until as recently as 1994. A muted cheer for the wollemi trees (and the firefighters)!
Putin goes full dictator mode
Vladimir Putin continues his trajectory towards dictatorship, and the Russian government apparently aids and abets him all the way.
In his latest state-of-the-nation speech, Putin proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would effectively allow him to retain power even after term limits disallow him from another term as President in the next election in 2024. Not content with 20 years in power, the increasingly unpopular Putin wants more, and has proposed giving parliament, which is controlled by his party, more power, and the incoming President (which will not be him) less. He is also calling for unspecified additional powers to be given to the Politburo-style State Council, which Putin just happens to chair.
While this should set alarm bells clanging for most people, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev responded by announcing that he and his whole cabinet would be resigning in order to "provide the president of our country with the ability to make all necessary decisions for this", i.e. they are going to abdicate all responsibility and just let the power-mad Putin do whatever the hell he wants. Putin's pick for Prime Minister to replace Medvedev, Mikhail Mishustin, a hockey buddy of Putin's with no real top-level political experience - was sworn in with no dissent (a few abstentions, but not a single vote against) from the State Duma.
Opposition activists are calling this "a full-fledged constititional coup d'état", and it's hard to see it any other way. Putin, who clearly hankers for the glory days of the Soviet Union, may have been technically voted in by the people again in 2018 (although with the main opposition politician under arrest on trumped up charges, and a atmosphere of fear and distrust permeating the whole election, it was hardly a democratic vote). But I'm pretty sure that the people did not vote for this outcome.
In his latest state-of-the-nation speech, Putin proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would effectively allow him to retain power even after term limits disallow him from another term as President in the next election in 2024. Not content with 20 years in power, the increasingly unpopular Putin wants more, and has proposed giving parliament, which is controlled by his party, more power, and the incoming President (which will not be him) less. He is also calling for unspecified additional powers to be given to the Politburo-style State Council, which Putin just happens to chair.
While this should set alarm bells clanging for most people, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev responded by announcing that he and his whole cabinet would be resigning in order to "provide the president of our country with the ability to make all necessary decisions for this", i.e. they are going to abdicate all responsibility and just let the power-mad Putin do whatever the hell he wants. Putin's pick for Prime Minister to replace Medvedev, Mikhail Mishustin, a hockey buddy of Putin's with no real top-level political experience - was sworn in with no dissent (a few abstentions, but not a single vote against) from the State Duma.
Opposition activists are calling this "a full-fledged constititional coup d'état", and it's hard to see it any other way. Putin, who clearly hankers for the glory days of the Soviet Union, may have been technically voted in by the people again in 2018 (although with the main opposition politician under arrest on trumped up charges, and a atmosphere of fear and distrust permeating the whole election, it was hardly a democratic vote). But I'm pretty sure that the people did not vote for this outcome.
Rogers rolls out 5G tech - where is the opposition?
As Rogers Communications announces its initial rollout of its 5G network in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver, I'm still surprised at just how little opposition there is to 5G.
Apparently there is some opposition, but this is almost all on health grounds (or in some cases aesthetic grounds!), and the tech companies just respond that there is as yet no scientific evidence that the millimetre (and close-to-millimetre) wave radio waves present a danger to human health, although it should be noted that this is not at all the same thing as saying that there is definitely no risk from the technology, new as it is.
As I have already argued elsewhere in more detail, my opposition is more on grounds of economics and need. 5G networks would require an unprecedented investment by tech companies in new infrastructure - all those thousands of new cell towers are expensive, even if they are smaller than the current 4G ones - and you have to know that it will be us schmucks who will end up paying for it, not Rogers, BCE and Telus, whether we use the new facilities or not. Plus, we'd also need to buy new phones in order to use it anyway!
Moreover, the improvements in service will be marginal at best, and we probably won't even notice the difference. This is because the superfast service that has all the technophiles salivating would require millimetre wave technology that even the aficionados admit would require boosters on literally every street corner, and even then would be prone to interruptions and blockages from every tree, building and passing bus. And do you really think that reducing transmission latency from 100 milliseconds to 1 millisecond is going to change your life?
Rogers have apparently opted for the mid-range 2.5 GHz spectrum for now, which is expected to offer users speeds "a little bit better than they have at 4G", while many US cities are using even more conservative spectrums in the 600-800 MHz range, which offers very little advantage over 4G networks. Rogers say they will probably also gravitate towards the 600 MHz spectrum later this year, as this will carry wireless data across longer distances and through denser urban areas. Net result? Next to no difference in service, big investment.
Rogers has chosen to use Swedish supplier Eriksson for its 5G network equipment in order to avoid the contention of using Chinese company Huawei, which the Canadian government has not yet decided to allow (for security reasons). BCE and Telus have made no secret of the fact that they would prefer to use the cheaper Huawei, but how long will they wait to find out whether they will be allowed?
And anyway, why do we even need faster service in the street? Remember, we are not talking here about wifi in homes and offices, which is where most of out internet usage takes place, but service out in the street, outside of wi-fi. When was the last time you felt the need for a faster connection while making a phone call or checking emails in a taxi?
To my mind, this is a prime example of technology for technology's sake - we have it so we'll use it, even if we don't actually need it - otherwise known as the tail wagging the dog. But also, these decisions are being made without anyone asking us consumers whether or not we want them. Come on people, where's the opposition?
Apparently there is some opposition, but this is almost all on health grounds (or in some cases aesthetic grounds!), and the tech companies just respond that there is as yet no scientific evidence that the millimetre (and close-to-millimetre) wave radio waves present a danger to human health, although it should be noted that this is not at all the same thing as saying that there is definitely no risk from the technology, new as it is.
As I have already argued elsewhere in more detail, my opposition is more on grounds of economics and need. 5G networks would require an unprecedented investment by tech companies in new infrastructure - all those thousands of new cell towers are expensive, even if they are smaller than the current 4G ones - and you have to know that it will be us schmucks who will end up paying for it, not Rogers, BCE and Telus, whether we use the new facilities or not. Plus, we'd also need to buy new phones in order to use it anyway!
Moreover, the improvements in service will be marginal at best, and we probably won't even notice the difference. This is because the superfast service that has all the technophiles salivating would require millimetre wave technology that even the aficionados admit would require boosters on literally every street corner, and even then would be prone to interruptions and blockages from every tree, building and passing bus. And do you really think that reducing transmission latency from 100 milliseconds to 1 millisecond is going to change your life?
Rogers have apparently opted for the mid-range 2.5 GHz spectrum for now, which is expected to offer users speeds "a little bit better than they have at 4G", while many US cities are using even more conservative spectrums in the 600-800 MHz range, which offers very little advantage over 4G networks. Rogers say they will probably also gravitate towards the 600 MHz spectrum later this year, as this will carry wireless data across longer distances and through denser urban areas. Net result? Next to no difference in service, big investment.
Rogers has chosen to use Swedish supplier Eriksson for its 5G network equipment in order to avoid the contention of using Chinese company Huawei, which the Canadian government has not yet decided to allow (for security reasons). BCE and Telus have made no secret of the fact that they would prefer to use the cheaper Huawei, but how long will they wait to find out whether they will be allowed?
And anyway, why do we even need faster service in the street? Remember, we are not talking here about wifi in homes and offices, which is where most of out internet usage takes place, but service out in the street, outside of wi-fi. When was the last time you felt the need for a faster connection while making a phone call or checking emails in a taxi?
To my mind, this is a prime example of technology for technology's sake - we have it so we'll use it, even if we don't actually need it - otherwise known as the tail wagging the dog. But also, these decisions are being made without anyone asking us consumers whether or not we want them. Come on people, where's the opposition?
Monday, January 13, 2020
Iranians always seem to be wishing death to somebody-or-other
It's funny how Iranian demonstrations are reported from time to time, and they always seem to involve frenzied chants of "Death to..." (fill in the blank here). It used to be "Death to Israel" or "Death to America, the Great Satan".
Most recently, they have turned on their own administration for a change, and the chant is "Death to the liars", "Death to the leader" and "Death to the dictator".
Don't get me wrong, this is an almost unprecedented volte face to be sure, for them to be openly questioning the ruling theocracy, and I welcome it. But the form is always the same: death, death, death. Maybe they are just excessively passionate people - they certainly seem that way - or maybe the Persian language lacks subtlety, or maybe they are just missing a little imagination in their sloganeering.
But, really, can we talk about this? Can we not have at least a little build up? Do we have to go straight to the ultimate death penalty? It all seems a little black-and-white.
And so much for Islam being a religion of peace and compassion...
Most recently, they have turned on their own administration for a change, and the chant is "Death to the liars", "Death to the leader" and "Death to the dictator".
Don't get me wrong, this is an almost unprecedented volte face to be sure, for them to be openly questioning the ruling theocracy, and I welcome it. But the form is always the same: death, death, death. Maybe they are just excessively passionate people - they certainly seem that way - or maybe the Persian language lacks subtlety, or maybe they are just missing a little imagination in their sloganeering.
But, really, can we talk about this? Can we not have at least a little build up? Do we have to go straight to the ultimate death penalty? It all seems a little black-and-white.
And so much for Islam being a religion of peace and compassion...
Tuesday, January 07, 2020
Sorry Republicans, Obama never actually met Iranian leader Rouhani
As US Republicans sink to ever more abysmal depths amid the Trump impeachment circus, here is a Republican political tweeting out fake Photoshopped pictures to support their narrative and "prove" their point, namely that everything wrong with the world, and with America, is Barack Obama's fault.
Republican Representative Paul Gosar tweeted out this picture, showing a smiling Obama shaking hands with Iranian leader, Hassan Rouhani. The text reads, "The world is a better place without these guys in power". Except that, as the Washington Post explains, Obama never actually met Rouhani, and actually Rouhani is still in power in Iran...
It turns out that the image was actually produced by a Republican superpac backed by Senator Ron Johnson back in 2015. The real photo was of Obama and then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
And, anyway, as the Twitter feed points out, what actually would have been wrong with Obama meeting with Rouhani, as part of ongoing negotiations around the Iranian nuclear program? It woumd certainly have been better than Trump's policy of effectively declaring war.
And how is it any worse than Trump shaking hands with a certain murderous North Korean dictator?
It turns out that the image was actually produced by a Republican superpac backed by Senator Ron Johnson back in 2015. The real photo was of Obama and then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
And how is it any worse than Trump shaking hands with a certain murderous North Korean dictator?
Monday, January 06, 2020
Now I understand just how big the Australian wildfires really are
An article in the Globe and Mail brought home for me in a very graphic way the extent of the Australian wildfires.
I knew they were bad, but a map of the extent of the fires really struck me. And, even more so, the graphical representation of the Australian fires as compared to previous American and Canadian forest fires puts them well and truly into perspective. For example, the current Australian fires are about three times larger than ALL of the wildfires in the United States in 2019, nearly six times ALL of the Brazilian fires in 2019 (and remember how much we panicked about those), and over eight times larger than the horrendous Fort McMurray fires of 2016.
Wow, the power of a simple graph.
I knew they were bad, but a map of the extent of the fires really struck me. And, even more so, the graphical representation of the Australian fires as compared to previous American and Canadian forest fires puts them well and truly into perspective. For example, the current Australian fires are about three times larger than ALL of the wildfires in the United States in 2019, nearly six times ALL of the Brazilian fires in 2019 (and remember how much we panicked about those), and over eight times larger than the horrendous Fort McMurray fires of 2016.
Wow, the power of a simple graph.
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Shootings in Toronto reach an all-time high, although deaths don't
Another violent year in Toronto comes to an end. There were a record 490 shootings in Toronto in 2019, and a record number of shooting-related injuries at 248. This compares to 428 shootings and 185 injuries in 2018. Interestingly, though, the number of deaths resulting from those shootings actually went down in 2019 to 44, from 51 in 2018.
For another comparison, the oft-quoted "Year of the Gun", 2005, resulted in 53 deaths (still the highest on record, just!) from 262 shootings.
The conclusions are inescapable: Toronto criminals are much worse shots than they used to be.
For another comparison, the oft-quoted "Year of the Gun", 2005, resulted in 53 deaths (still the highest on record, just!) from 262 shootings.
The conclusions are inescapable: Toronto criminals are much worse shots than they used to be.