Humanity is cooler than it used to be

The conventional wisdom has always been that the "normal" temperature of the healthy human body is 98.6°F (37.0°C). In reality, this was never "normal", merely an average, which came to be used as a benchmark or target by doctors around he world. What is actually "normal", of course, varies between individuals and situations.

But 98.6°F (37.0°C) is not even the average any more. A study analyzing 200 years of data has shown that the average body temperate has been falling by about 0.09°F (0.05°C) each decade since the 19th century, an effect that researchers pin on improved living conditions, better public health, and advancements on healthcare which have reduced chronic infections and long-term health issues.

"Normal" body temperature now ranges between 97.3°F and 98.2°F (36.2°C and 36.8°C), with an average of 97.9°F (36.6°C). Not a huge difference, you might say, but the (ongoing) decline in body temperature does have implications for diagnosing conditions and symptoms like fever.

Of course, we should also take into account the fact that body temperature naturally fluctuates throughout the day, and that it is influenced by factors such as age, sex, weight and height. For example, older adults tend to have a lower body temperature (due to reduced muscle mass and slower metabolism), women tend to have higher body temperatures (due to hormonal changes like the menstrual cycle), etc.

Coetzee's Jesus trilogy is strange but compelling

I have just finished J.M. Coetzee's Jesus trilogy: The Childhood of Jesus, The Schooldays of Jesus and The Death of Jesus. And a very strange beast it is, too.

It is a late-period work (The Death of Jesus was published in 2019, and Coetzee's first novel, Dusklands, came out in 1974, some 45 years earlier), so one could perhaps expect a more philosophical approach, and maybe a more experimental one. And that's exactly what Coetzee gives us. Not content to rest on his laurels - he has the Nobel Prize in Literature and not one, but two, Booker Prizes under his belt, along with a slew of other prizes and commendations - he pushes the envelope a bit further with these spare and slightly off-kilter books.

Coetzee's writing style was always disarmingly simple, elegant but economical. That is to say, he doesn't waste words on unnecessary ornamentation and flights of fancy. The Jesus novels continue this tendency. His prose has been called "stripped-down", "disorienting" and "hypnotic", and that's as good a description as any.

It should perhaps be mentioned that these novels are not about Jesus, and there is no character in them called Jesus. The main characters are a boy known as Davíd (not his real name) and his "parents" Simón and Inés. In fact, Simón found Davíd on a refugee boat and took him under his wing, including finding him a "mother". 

There is some element of analogy, though, as people gravitate toward David, despite his outward aloofness and weirdness, and especially as the overblown mythos around him grows after his death, and reports of miracles, a mysterious "message", and more, circulate.

The three settle in an unnamed Spanish-speaking country, and try to make a life for themselves, even as their relationships gradually fall apart. Davíd - the "Jesus" of the book titles, if anyone is, although it is by no means a straightforward allegory - is fiercely bright but uncompromisingly self-centred, aggressively independent, and generally unpleasant. Inés is sharp and equally uncompromising in her own way, and definitely not natural mother material. Simón is perhaps the only sympathetic character: cerebral, self-deprecating, eminently sensible, devoted and loving, but also keenly aware of how far out of his depth he is in undertaking to bring up a child, especially a child like Davíd.

And out of this, Coetzee builds three linked novels. They do have plots, but most of the writing revolves around relationships, emotions, spirituality and ideas. How to live a good life, how to bring up a child in a changing world, how to navigate life in a new country and a new culture, the wisdom of the law, passion vs. reason, that kind of thing. Each book is that rare thing, a page-turner of a philosophical novel. Together, they have confirmed Coetzee as one of our greatest writers.

American EV sales increase while gas car sales decrease

By now, we're well used to the narrative that electric vehicle (EV) sales in the USA have sputtered to an ignominious halt in recent months and years (here's just one example, from a reasonably reputable outfit). Many, if not most, American car manufacturers are cutting back on their EV investments and production schedules, which will probably compound the problem. It's all part of the Republican-led backlash against electric vehicles, green energy and anything vaguely progressive in nature.

Except that it may not actually be true. The latest of Clean Technica's regular reports on the US automobile market show that EV sales continue to increase while ICE (internal combustion engine, i.e. gasoline-powered) cars show a slight downturn.

Quarter 3 (Q3) of 2024 compared to Q3 of 2023 shows that EVs enjoyed a healthy 8% increase in the last year, while ICE vehicles suffered a slight decline (about 1%) over the same period. Compared to Q3 of pre-pandemic 2019, EV sales have increased by a whopping 474%, while ICE cars have actually seen a 15% decline.

Not quite what we are led to believe by the propaganda. Clean Technica is not the only one to point out this discrepancy in media reporting. Yes, EVs are starting from a much smaller base (especially when considering pre-pandemic 2019, when the technology was really still in it's infancy), and yes, the rate of increase is slowing. But let's at least tell it like it is.

2025 is coming, and all bets are off

We're approaching the end of the year - and what an ugly year! - the time when the financial eggheads and whizzes at the Globe and Mail usually issue their oh-so-confident predictions for the year ahead.

This year, though, Ian McGugan is telling it like it is. After a 2024 in which most of those oh-so-confident predictions came unravelled, Mr. McGugan is throwing up his hands and making absolutely no predictions for 2025.

Basically, things are just too volatile and, well, unpredictable. As Mr. McGugan points out, four erratic and egocentric individuals - Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping - are, between them, effectively holding the whole world to ransom, and everyone is hanging on their every word, because a word from any one of them can mean the difference between success and failure, even life and death. To even try to make predictions in the face of such powerful fickleness would be pointless. All bets are off.

I think Mr. McGugan is right on the money. I don't remember a time when the future was so unpredictable, so grim, and in so many different ways. The old adage "May you live in interesting times" has never felt so sinister and portentous.

Is Amazon really evil?

I try not to use Amazon. I prefer to shop locally, where at all possible. If I have to shop online, I at least try to shop Canadian. Usually, I am successful (this Christmas, zero Amazon purchases), although I am not above ordering through Amazon where all else fails, which very occasionally it does.

As well as trying to shop locally from an environmental viewpoint, I disapprove of many of Amazon's business practices, and the way it has steam-rollered through whole swathes of perfectly good businesses and whole sectors, Canadian and otherwise.

But is Amazon actually "evil" as my daughter has it?

I remember when Amazon was just an innovative online bookshop. Now it is a global, hydra-headed behemoth - cheap, efficient, comprehensive and fast - with fingers in pies they really have no good reason to be anywhere near. It is America's second largest private employer (after Walmart), and sells over a third of all products sold online in the USA (and probably everywhere else). Its IT department powers vast portions of the Internet, from Netflix to the CIA. It is ridiculously successful. But evil? Should we be boycotting Amazon?

Billionaire owner Jeff Bezos has grown his company into a commercial titan with a reputation for abusing its workforce (long shifts for inadequate pay, enforced overtime, constant electronic surveillance, summary firings for lagging productivity, workers pressed to their physical limits, unreasonable demands for employee self-sacrifice, inadequate safety measures, propagation of the gig economy, stern opposition to unionization, etc). This is known. All of that might well be enough for you to vow not to touch Amazon with a bargepole.

But there's more. Amazon has been accused of using its market power to deliberately stifle competition, to harm small businesses, to violate anti-trust laws, and generally to take advantage of its quasi-monopolistic position. The environmental impact of its shipping operations is huge and wasteful. It has been criticized for cynically using tax loopholes to avoid paying its fair share of taxes. Its data collection and use policies have raised concerns about privacy and security. Its involvement in the shadier side of America's homeland security machine (including its facial recognition technology) has raised hackles among some. The list goes on.

I will continue to try to avoid Amazon as much as possible. We are, though, probably long past the point where it is possible to bring the company down, or even hold it to account. And the possibility remains that Amazon is just an uber-successful company with a rather more-rapacious-than-some go-get-'em corporate philosophy, and not actually evil, as The Economist argues (and others). Me, I'm inclined to go with the "evil" characterization, on balance.

Chrystia Freeland - folk hero or party apparatchik?

There is a danger that outgoing Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland comes to be seen as some sort of folk hero or avenging angel after she dramatically resigned from the Liberal Cabinet this past Monday. Let's not get too carried away here, though.

Sure, she stood up to an increasingly tyrannical Justin Trudeau, by resigning and refusing to push through the latest of his "costly political gimmicks" (the GST holiday, which will be implemented anyway, and a planned $200 per head cash rebate, which probably won't).

But Ms. Freeland has been in the country's driver's seat economically for the last four or five years, and she has willingly presided over an unprecedented government spending spree, culminating in the latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion (over 50% more than her earlier forecast of $40 billion). It's a bit rich for her to suddenly have qualms about an additional $3 billion. 

Sure, some of that unprecedented spending was necessary, and some of it was desirable. And no, it doesn't substantially worsen Canada's debt to GDP ratio, which remains the best in the G7, and certainly multiples better than the USA's. But some of it does seem to be bloat. 

So, has Ms. Freeland been a paragon of a Finance Minister, struggling to rein in the worst of Mr. Trudeau's spendthrift tendencies? Not really. She has been right there with him.

Was she, as Minister of International Affairs and Foreign Affairs, even instrumental in saving Canada from Donald Trump's worst instincts during the renegotiation of the Canada-US-Mexico free trade deal in 2018, and the catalyst for the Canada-EU trade deal signed in 2016, as I have been reading recently? Hard to say, and there are those who say her contribution has been overstated.

Whether Ms. Freeland will use this break with Trudeau as a platform to launch a Liberal leadership bid remains to be seen. Personally, I don't think I can stomach her slow-motion, explaining-to-a-five-year-old public speaking technique, however smart she may be. 

It's undeniable that Ms. Freeland is currently riding a wave of approbation and acclaim, though, not least due to the judicious early publication of a flattering biography (Chrystia: From Peace River to Parliament Hill). But I think that her reinvention as a feminist icon may be be premature, or at least hyperbolic. Rather, I see her as a loyal Trudeau acolyte, a high-level functionary, but not really a dynamic live-wire and visionary.

Granted, she has managed to avoid significant scandals, despite being at the forefront of the Liberal government for the best part of a decade, which is probably a feat worthy of celebration. But she doesn't inspire me, and I think the Liberals need a clean break with the old guard if they want to be taken seriously in a few years time. 

And anyway, who else is there to take over leadership of the Liberals? Françoise-Philippe Champagne? Anita Anand? Dominic Leblanc? Mélanie Jolie? Christy Clark? Mark Carney? None of them really inspire me, and polls suggest that they don't inspire Liberals either. There is currently no saviour-in-waiting. The Liberals are clearly toast, for a few years at least.

Breaking news: expedition to prove that the Earth is round

A group of prominent flat-earthers made a (very expensive) trip down to Antarctica to see first-hand whether there was indeed 24-hour sunlight there at this time of year.

For some reason, they seem to accept the premise that, if there is 24 hours of sun at the Pole, then that is sufficient evidence that the Earth is indeed round (spherical), not flat. Why they would accept that particular piece of evidence and not all the other evidence pointing towards a round earth is not clear. 

And why they felt the need to go to the South Pole, not the much more accessible (and much cheaper) North Pole at a different time of year, is also not clear. But then, they were not actually paying for it - some Colorado church was picking up the tab, again for unknown reasons. And why they couldn't go just partway to the Pole and see the hours of sunlight increase to arrive at the same conclusion is likewise a mystery....

There are many more baffling aspects to this expedition, which are just too depressing to go into here. But, hey, this is not a scientific endeavour after all; logic need not apply. As one of the flat-earthers explains, "Actually, what I am is somebody who has left the cult of science". Hmm. But wait, testing a hypothesis by empirical observation? Isn't that pretty much the definition of the scientific method.

You'll be relieved to know that they did indeed find 24 hours of sunlight at the South Pole, and that at least some of them now accept that the Earth is indeed round. Phew!

Good riddance to Jordan Peterson

Right-wind firebrand Jordan Peterson is leaving Canada to live and work in the USA. He says of Canada, "It's become uncomfortable for me", both in his local neighbourhood and in his work as a psychologist (the Ontario College of Psychologists has ordered him to undergo mandatory social media training or risk losing his license). Uncomfortable for YOU? How do you think WE feel?

Good riddance! One less idiot to deal with here. I'm sure he'll be much happier in Trump's America. Hell, he'll probably get a cabinet position.

Doug Ford shows us what "unhelpful" really looks like

Speaking over overreach, the Canadian premiers are once again taking aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, this time when he had the audacity to question the wisdom of electing Donald Trump.

At a gala event for Equal Voice, Trudeau declared himself a proud feminist and bemoaned the fact that America had, for a second time, failed to elect a woman to the highest office in the land (not that Canada has actually ever done that...)

In doing so, of course, Trudeau effectively dissed Donald Trump, always a dangerous tactic, but arguably one that should not be shied away from, where appropriate. Trump himself, who rarely lets an insult pass unanswered, has not bothered to respond specifically to that barb, suggesting that it's really not that important in the scheme of things. (Elon Musk did, but then he's even more anal about these things.)

But the premiers of Canada - who are supposed to be on Canada's side, but are really only on their own side - couldn't resist taking pot-shots at Trudeau, presumably to score a few cheap points towards their own re-election prospects. Ontario's Doug Ford in particular came out swinging, saying repeatedly that Trudeau's comments were "not helpful at all".

But then, in a public presser about how to respond to Donald Trump's threat to impose hefty tariffs on Canada (and everyone else), Ford blustered about how Ontario will cut off all the electrical power the province exports to the USA. "It would turn off the lights to a million and half Americans". Ooh, scary!

Talk about "not helpful"! This once again shows just how naive Ford is, even in comparison with Trump, and what a poor grasp of international relations and negotiations he has. Somewhere in the first few pages of the manual it probably says, "Don't shoot your wad in the first two minutes".  Besides, such a move would certainly risk much more economic damage to Ontario and Canada than the US would ever incur. As one public policy expert put it, "I'd be very careful about trying to get into a full war where they have a gun and we have a knife". 

Most of the other premiers quickly distanced themselves from Ford, Alberta's Danielle Smith being particularly vocal in assuring everyone that Alberta would never cut off its exports to the USA. At this point, it's mainly an exercise in damage limitation. Good job, Dougie.

Israel overreaches again, this time in Syria

I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been more push-back and outrage at Israel's latest enormities.

While Syria is going through tough times and social ructions in the political vacuum that has followed the ousting of dictator Bashar al-Assad, Israel has basically invaded the country, taking over the Golan Heights buffer zone and strategically important Mount Hermon, as well as bombing Syria's military assets, destroying an estimated 90% of its surface-to-air missiles among other targets.

Although Israel maintains the capture of Mount Hermon, which is a scant 35km from the Syrian capital Damascus, is a "temporary measure", all of its actions represent an immense overreach. Israel is not actually at war with Syria (or they weren't). So, what are they doing occupying parts of it, and destroying the miltary capability of a sovereign nation? And talk about kicking a guy when he's down!

Netanyahu intones, "We have no intention to intervene in Syria's internal affairs", but then who believes a word THAT guy says these days. Does destroying their military and occupying their territory not count as "intervention"? He further explains that the actions were necessary in order to "take care of our security". What about Syria's security? 

As usual, everyone is scared stiff of criticizing Israel for fear of being labelled antisemitic. But this is an unconscionable overextension of Israel's already excessive power.

A surprising nunber of Canadians do want to join the USA

Most people think that Donald Trump was joking when he suggested that Canada should become the 51st state of the USA, with Trudeau as its governor. But you never can tell with Trump.

Trudeau hasn't graced Trump's post with a response as yet, jokey or otherwise. But a recent Leger poll about Canadian opinions on the matter is rather alarming, to say the least. You might expect that precisely NO Canadians would want to become  minor part of the USA, but you would be wrong.

In fact, according to the poll, 13% of Canadians would apparently be quite happy being part of an American state, with 82% not. The demographic breakdown is even more alarming when you consider that 19% of men would vote in favour of such an arrangement (compared to just 7% of women). Perhaps predictably, the proportion of Conservative voters who want to be part of the experiment in neo-fascism down south is higher than Liberals (Conservatives 21%; Liberals 10%; NDP 6%; the People's Party, for what it's worth, 25%). Also not surprising, the Atlantic provinces are less enthusiastic (7%), Quebec and Ontario middling (12% and 11%), and the Prairie provinces and Alberta the most gung-ho (18% and 19% respectively).

It comes as a salutary reminder that, however much we may disdain Americans for being taken in by Trump and his nonsense, Canada too has more than its fair share of idiots.

To read or not to read

There was a brave and impassioned article by celebrated Canadian author Lawrence Hill in the weekend Globe and Mail about his use of the N-word in his books (no, I'm not going to write it out - do you think I'm stupid?)

Still perhaps the single most loaded word in the English language, Hill explains that he includes it in his novels - as do many other Black authors like Austin Clarke, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, et al - for authenticity. But it does leave schools looking to teach the books in a rather difficult position because the work can apparently be "triggering" for many young Black people, and school boards feel the need to "protect" their young people from such mental strain. Hill, on the other hand, believes that they need to "own" the word, or "reclaim" it, and that readers - Black and White - should face up to the reality of its historical use.

The article was prompted by the many letters Mr. Hill apparently receives about how various school boards have not exactly banned his books - particularly The Book of Negroes, his best known and most-awarded book - but stipulated that they should not be used for mandatory coursework, only made available for voluntary use in the school library.

Mr. Hill, however, maintains that this is tantamount to a ban - an assertion I would probably diasagree with, on balance - and that such policies are depriving students of the opportunity to read some great books by Black authors, and depriving Black authors of a valuable new young audience. 

Again, on balance, I would probably disagree. I didn't read any Black authors during my schooling in 1960s and 1970s England, but I have read and enjoyed many since then. Should students be FORCED to read Black and Indigenous authors for the good of their immortal souls? That would be a radical notion indeed. Should books by Black authors even be allocated study spots in proportion to their demographic numbers? That would also get complicated when you start trying to be inclusive of the various Asian, African, Latino, etc, sub-sets, not to mention women, queer authors, etc, who no doubt also want their share of the market.

There are so many worthy and well-written works of literature out there - most of them written by dead white guys as it happens - it's a real quagmire deciding who should be studied by Canadian students. The bottom line, though, should be that this a study of English literature, not politics, sociology or anthropology. 

My feeling is that there are many great books out there that are relatively uncontentious and inoffensive (including by Black authors). We do not have to push the envelope all the time, and we can still learn about sentence construction, literary styles and grammar without having to go through all this hand-wringing and recrimination. This is not a cop-out, but a pragmatic choice.

Presidential pardons are getting out of hand

The whole system of presidential pardons in America is broken and wrong. I know US presidents have been doing it since the year dot (well, since George Washington anyway), and I know it's enshrined in the US Constitution. But it doesn't make any real sense and it is quite clearly open to abuse.

Joe Biden, hot on the heels of his horrible and embarrassing decision to pardon his own son for his criminal acts (possibly the worst decision of his whole presidency, and a huge black stain on his legacy), has just pardoned 39 other criminals accused of non-violent crimes (mainly drug-related), and commuted the sentences of about 1,500 others (mainly those who had their prison sentences interrupted by COVID), in the largest single-day act of clemency in modern American history. And he may not be finished yet.

Donald Trump has already vowed to pardon the imprisoned January 6th Capitol rioters "on Day 1". These are convicted criminals, many of them violent, whom Trump seems to see as political prisoners and maligned patriots. Biden is also said to be mullling the idea of pre-emptively pardoning (now, THERE's a concept!) the legal investigators of the January 6th coup attempt, in the full knowledge that Trump will be coming after them (and unspecified other politcal opponents) as soon as he gains power. It's all getting a bit ridiculous.

People who are in American prison are there because the courts, after due deliberation and legal cases that are often lengthy and complex, deemed that they have broken the laws of the land. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good. Who are these presidents, who think they know better than the courts, or who rely on the partisan political advice of others? Who are they to second-guess the whole system of due process and legal precedent?

Canada's Supreme Court to finally test excessive use of "notwithstanding clause"

Canadian courts are finally taking to task those provincial governments - like Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan - that are routinely and willfully using the "notwithstanding clause" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pass legislation that is clearly contrary to human rights in the country.

Section 33 of the Charter, which effectively allows governments to override parts of the document, has always been a controversial element, and was always intended as a tool of last resort, only to be invoked in extremely rare circumstances. But, increasingly in recent years, some provincial governments have been using it to justify their own controversial motions, even invoking it pre-emptively, in the full knowledge that the legislation they are proposing is illegal under the Charter, as Ontario Premier Doug Ford did just this week. It has never been invoked at the federal level, but Pierre Poilievre - of course it would be him! - says he would be open to using it to push through dubious legislation on legal sentencing and bail.

It's frankly ridiculous that such a clause exists at all - it only exists to allow governments to break the law of the land - but given that it does, it should be used extremely sparingly and judiciously. The latest crop of (mainly conservative) populist politicians seem to feel this does not apply to them.

But now, finally, the Supreme Court of Canada is set to take on a case - brought by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and teacher Ichrak Nour el Hak - appealing Quebec's Bill 21 (which seeks to ban public service employees from wearing religious symbols like crosses or hijabs). As part of this case, the Supreme Court must look at whether Quebec can hide behind the notwithstanding clause to push through such legislation.

Bring it on, I say. The notwithstanding clause is an unconscionable anachronism, but, given that it exists, it should at least be limited to the kinds of extremely rare circumstances envisaged by the Charter's authors, not just to allow unscrupulous governments to pass bad legislation.

Birthright citizenship is NOT a peculiarly American idea, nor is it illegal

President-elect Trump (how I hate to write that!) has often made a big deal about his plan to end birthright citizenship in the USA, which.for some reason he finds unfair and un-American, even illegal.

Birthright citizenship is the idea that any child born in the USA can take American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Trump wants to end that, basically because he doesn't like immigrants of any sort. He argues that the current system is a "wilful misinterpretation" of the Constitution, an idea put into his head by wacko lawyer (now disbarred) John Eastman. 

In fact, the language in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is very clear, and many judges and even conservative lawyers have rejected Eastman's fringe theory.

What really rankles, though, is Trump's deliberate lying in interviews on the subject: "You know, we're the only country that has it". Er, no. Canada has unconditional birthright citizenship at birth. Mexico has it. Brazil has it. In fact, pretty much all of North and South America has it, along with the Caribbean and some African countries, as the Library of Congress confirms. I'm pretty sure Trump knows that, but as usual he is willing to lie to make a point.

Montreal dance ticket pricing ruled discriminatory

However much you might believe that there is rampant anti-Black discrimination thoughout Canadian society, it's still hard to get on board with a Montreal community centre's BIPOC ticket pricing for its Shake La Cabane family dance night event.

The event was advertised as $25.83 general admission or $15.18 for anyone "Black, Indigenous or People of Colour". The event's organizers justified it as a "micro-reparation" for a discriminated population, "in the name of solidarity, not charity", and mentioned a couple of examples in the USA as precedent.

But they were forced to backtrack and cancel the event after a public outcry and the attentions of various Quebec politicians. Oh, and an opinion from the Quebec Human Rights Commission that such a policy violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 10, which calls for the "full and equal recognition and exercise of [a person's] human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race".

I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

How do we deal with Syria now?

In the aftermath of the whirlwind collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, there are lots of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions, at least until the dust settles a bit more.

One thing that is happening is that some countries, including the UK, France, Germany and several other European countries, are immediately suspending asylum applications from Syria. (Canada has made no such moves.) Why the rush? Why the precipitate reaction, within hours of the regime's fall?

A steady stream of Syrians have been fleeing the country for years now. But the main reason for the asylum claims has been that they are fleeing the murderous Assad regime, and that of course no longer applies, so the argument goes. Indeed, some Syrian refugees in the diaspora may be looking to return to Syria. In addition, any Syrian refugees leaving now may well be members of the failed Assad regime itself, something I admit I hadn't thought about.

The other major issue that is still very much up in the air is how to deal with Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the main architects of the uprising, and presumably the likely mainstay of any new government for the country. Problem is, HTS is a proscribed terrorist organization according to the US, UK, EU and Canada, so this makes diplomatic and political dealings verboten.

In their defence, HTS did break with Islamic State as long ago as 2016, and they have tried to tread a more moderate path since then. Several countries are already looking into de-proscribing HTS in a hurry, although it's a bit embarrassing that they would only seek this move now, when push has come to shove.

As for some of the other Islamist organizations involved in the putsch, some of whom are at least as suspect from a diplomatic point of view, I guess each will be considered according to their merits in good time. 

But no-one saw this coming, and reactions to it will not be swift, and will necessarily be cautious.

Another senseless mass killing in Haiti

Witchcraft is alive and well and living in Haiti. Or at least that's what a local warlord believes.

A lot of bad stuff happens in benighted Haiti, but this is among the worst. Monel Felix, better known as Mikano, a gang leader from Wharf Jérémie in the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince, called in a voodoo priest when his son mysteriously sickened and died, and the priest blamed the boy's death on some elderly locals practising witchcraft. Leaving nothing to chance, Mikano ordered the old folks rounded up and shot or stabbed to death. At least 110 deaths have been confirmed, and maybe as many as 184 according to some sources. The mutilated bodies were burned in the streets.

Spiralling gang violence in Haiti has resulted in at least 5,000 deaths so far this year, but this adds a whole new horrific twist to the situation. The boy probably died due to the disease-ridden unsanitary conditions in Haiti since order broke down last year, but Mikano chose to believe a voodoo priest instead. And his henchmen chose to carry out his mad orders. What a place!

Republican attitudes to their electoral system entirely dependent on who wins

It's hardly news - and hardly unexpected - but recent polls of American Republicans' attitudes toward their electoral system have miraculously completely changed.

In 2020, just 21% of Republicans believed that the elections were well run and administered. In 2024, that percentage has shot up to 93%! 

So, what changed? Well, nothing really. The US electoral system, janky as it has always been, has not been changed. The only thing that changed is that, in 2020 the Republicans lost, and in 2024 they won. 

The attitude change was influenced - nay, directed - by Donald Trump, of course, who spent most of 2024 spreading baseless claims about election cheating in preparation for a possible loss. When it turns out that he won, the claims, no longer needed, suddenly disappeared. It's almost enough to make you cynical...

Meanwhile, Democratic voters did see the electoral system as slightly less reliable in 2024 than in 2016 or 2020, showing that they are not completely immune to the same kind of sollipsistic magical thinking (it's known as the "winners effect"). But it only went down from 96% to 84%, proving that many more Democrats than Republicans live in the real world.

The anti-woke backlash takes control

An article in the Globe and Mail succinctly summarizes the pressures on big businesses to cave in to the anti-woke sentiments that are in the ascendancy in the USA.

There are anti-woke campaigners and influencers out there diligently and assiduously working to persuade American companies that ESG (environmental, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies are anti-business and, hell, anti-American. Several Conservative states have also been pushing hard in this respect, and with Donald Trump taking the helm at the federal level, you just know that there will be even more pressure on companies to abandon any progressive developments they may have been experimenting with.

Once such American conservative influencer is Robby Starbuck (presumably not his real name), who boasts that his campaigns have been instrumental in causing companies like Deere & Co, Harley Davidson Inc, Molson-Coors Beverage Co and Walmart Inc to pull back from DEI policies (changing their hiring practices, pulling out of relationships with equity groups, cutting funding for pride parades, etc). 

Starbuck reckons that he has persuaded companies worth over $2 trillion to change their policies away from DEI and ESG, leading to "better workplace environments as a result". Here is his shtick: "Companies can clearly see the America wants normalcy back. The era of wokeness is dying right in front of our eyes ... We are now the trend not the anomaly." *Sigh*

The article does point out that, thus far at least, Canada has NOT been following this disturbing trend. Indeed, the Globe and Mail's Board Games corporate ranking shows that Canadian companies have make significant strides in ESG and DEI in the last couple of years. But, already, some Canadian companies are making changes in their US operations to accommodate the changing climate there.

And, of course, when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold (or worse). With anti-woke campaigners and legislators already hard at work in conservative provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, you can see the tide turning and the backlash beginning here too. If and when Pierre Poilievre gets elected (more of a "when"), it will take off in earnest. Years of effort and painfully slow progress down the drain in the blink of an eye.