Why did Canada recognize Palestine now?

I approve of Canada's plans to officially recognize a Palestinian state at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting in September, joining about three-quartes of the members of the United Nations who have already recognized Palestinian statehood.

As Prime Minister Mark Carney admits, Canada's long-standing commitment to a two-state solution into Middle East makes no sense if there is only one state at play. It also comes on the heels of France and the UK's official recognition of a Palestinian state last month. It's long overdue.

What I don't understand is why Carney would chose now to declare himself, just one day before the official deadline for Canada's trade negotiations with the USA. He must have known that Trump would weaponize the announcement, even if he appeared to merely shrug when Framcr and BritaIn made their announcements. It could have been announced any time in August or even September. AFTER a trade deal has been concluded.

True to form, Trump almost immediately took to Truth Social: "Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them". He has already moved to raise the tariffs on Canadian exports from 25% to 35%. Perhaps predictable, although notably he did not specifically mention the Palestime declaration, cryptically blaming instead Canada's "continued inaction and retaliation". Say, what?

So, "Wow!", indeed. Was this a deliberate ploy by Carney & Co, or was he just not thinking? Trump's reaction was entirely predictable. Surely, Carney could have saved it up for a week or so. It seems unlikely that a US-Canada trade deal will actually be concluded by August 1st, as both parties admit, but it should be finalized soon, and well before the UN meeting. Now, there is yet another obstacle on the road to a reasonable deal.

Wow!

Tech companies are cboosing AI over people

They're all doing it - Microsoft, Google, Meta, Intel, Amazon - they're laying off human workers in order to invest in AI. 

This year alone, the top tech companies have given the old heave-ho to some 64,000 employees, by some counts. And either they are doing it because they think that AI can take up the slack and replace them for a fraction of the cost, or (more likely) they just need the extra money to continue with the helter-skelter pace of investment in artificial intelligence that all tech companies are caught up in right now.

Specialist AU companies are leading the charge. OpenAI's Sam Altman believes that the next billion dollar company could consider of just one person (and a bunch of computers). Anthropic's Dario Amodei thinks that AI could eliminate up to half of all white collar jobs over the next five years. And they seem OK with this prospect. That's progress, eh? 

Even much smaller companies are getting rid of large proportions of their human workforce, and mandating that those remaining juse AI tools (or risk being laid off themselves). Even quite profitable small companies are slashing jobs and squeezing more work out of skeleton crews. They are actively replacing employees who are skeptical about AI, with AI zealots. They are sending employees termination notes composed by AI, for God's sake!

It's estimated that, over the next few years, US$1 trillion will be invested in AI infrastructure, mainly by the likes of Microsoft, Amazon and Google. This, despite the fact that 80% of companies currently using AI technology are not yet seeing significant earnings gains, according to a recent report by McKinsey and Company. An eminent MIT economist is predicting that all this AI investment may lift the US's GDP by an underwhelming 1.1% - 1.6% over a decade, equivalent to as little as 0.05% per year. 

And yet the hype keep coming, and the big money keeps flowing. Despite the above, tech stocks are booming - the share prices of Alphabet Inc, Amazon.com Inc, Meta Platforms and Microsoft Corp have all surged in the past few months, anywhere from 18% to 35%, all on their AI claims.

AI, at the moment, is a runaway train. It's a leap of faith that all companies, but especially tech companies, are committed to. AI companies are riding bigh on the stock exchanges, and can seemingly do no wrong. However, nothing good ever comes of runaway trains (and rarely of leaps of faith). There are those who beleive that AI is currently going through the 1990s dotcom-bubble phase, and we know how that one went.

Some thinkers, even within the industry, are starting to warn that that this wholesale laying off humans is maybe not the way for AI companies to go, and will ultimately end in tears As has been pointed out many times before, AI is very good at what it does, but all it really does is copy and recognize patterns. True innovation comes from people, and those companies doing all the lay-offs now may well regret it in the future.

As one academic put it, "AI can only produce artificial creativity", i.e. it can support creative people, but not replace them. Of course, some companies, and some so-called visionaries, are betting that this changes and that's AI becomes truly innovative.  If that is the case, then many people's goose is cooked. Become an apprentice, learn a trade, brush up your alternative CV.

Israel's "humanitarian" food aid policy is the new Hunger Games

Like so much else happening in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel's food aid policy for Palestinians is nothing short of disastrous.

Whoever thought that setting up a poorly-named Israel-USA outfit called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to deliver food aid was a good idea is either severely deluded or even more callous and cynical than I can imagine. Limiting aid distribution to just four distribution sites, rather than taking the aid to the people like the UK and other agencies used to do, is clearly a recipe for disaster. Forcing starving Palestinians to travel long distances through a war-torn country and to gather in huge desperate crowds, for a meagre pan-full of flour is, almost by definition, not humanitarian.

Then the Israel Defence Forces use these crowds as an excuse to shoot more Palestinians. The death toll of starving aid-seekers alone is now over 1,000 and, despite global condemnation, more are killed every day. It continued even on "women-only day". Seasoned war journalists say that they have never seen this level of brutality and indiscriminate force against a civilian population. What is the rationale? Target practice? Of course, the IDF can conveniently blame anything untoward on Hamas, as they routinely do for everything.

So, what do they do but come up with a new strategy: air-drops. This has never been considered a good policy by anyone, ever. Famine-wracked Palestinians see the packages falling and set up a panicked run to find them, leading to the same kind of chaos but this time without any organizing principle at all. Israel has said it will pause bombing during the day, so that it can more effectively bomb Palestinians during the night.

Aid agencies are calling it insufficient, expensive, ineffective and dangerous. They are also calling it a "smokescreen" and a "distraction". Certainly, it's a dog-eat-dog free-for-all. One can't help but think of the Hunger Games.

Palestinians are now in a full-on nationwide famine. This is now undeniable. The UN is calling it the "worst-case scenario", and "unlike anything we have seen in this century". Large numbers are dying every day. Pictures of listless emaciated children fill our screens, as shocking now as the Ethiopian famine ever was. And Israel thinks it is okay to play Hunger Games? Israel, ably abetted by Trump's America, cannot be trusted to do anything vaguely humanitarian, and seems to have learned nothing from the tragic history of the Jewish people. It's a crying shame.

UPDATE

Canadian Forces are getting in on the aerial food drop act, delivering 9,800 kg of food like lentils, oil, milk powder, and pasta to Gaza from a Jordanian air base, along with Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Germany and Belgium.

The air-drops were met with scenes of chaos, though, as deperate Palestinians resorted to pushing, striking out, and even the use of weapons in order to get to the food for their families. At least one drop hit and killed a hapless Palestinian. 

Some complained of the humiliation they were forced to accept just to obtain the basics of life, and called for the resumption of the much more efficient and effective aid deliveries by truck, which Israel is still blocking. We should remember that the only reason Canada is resorting to these measures is because of Israel's continued blockade.

Desperate New York shooter shot up the "wrong" office

In an extraordinary turn of events, the gunman who travelled from Las Vegas to New York in order to exact revenge on the National Football League (NHL), which he blames for the debilitating chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) he incurred from years of playing American football, took the wrong set of elevators in the Manhattan high-rise building and ended up killing four completely unconnected people in a different office, before turning the gun on himself.

Theis is an incredibly sad story, on a whole host of levels. Even if he had found the correct NHL office, killing as bunch of staffers there would hardly have been much fairer. The gunman never played in the NHL, but did play football as a teenager, but he is probably correct in blaming the constant head traumas that characterizes football for his CTE. Killing a few random employees of the NHL probably made a whole lot of sense to this desperate young man.

US-EU trade "deal" - is this what Canada can expect?

Donald Trump happened to be in Scotland, playing on one of his golf courses, and he thought that might be a good time to finalize a deal with the EU, some time between the top and bottom nine.

So, he forced Ursula von der Leyen, probably the most powerful woman in the world, to schlepp over to the wilds of Scotland - Scotland! not even in the EU! - to be dictated to on economics and world affairs by a man who doesn't really understand them, but who happens to be in a position of incredible power and able to get pretty much whatever he wants.

Ms. von der Leyen pretended to be very happy with her deal - it was better than the Philippines got, after all - but inwardly she must have been fuming. 

15% on pretty much everything (up from about 2.2%), 50% on steel and aluminum, as well as a commitment to invest $600 billion in the US, and purchase an unspecified amount of American energy and military equipment? Doesn't have the look of a great deal, but what is she to say? The phrase "lipstick on a pig" springs to mind.

And, as usual, it's not even a "deal", more of a "framework", and Trump could still change it and impose whatever he wants. Much remains to be clarified and further negotiated - details that are beneath Trump's interest.

Is this what Canada can expect when its August 1st deadline rolls around? The US "deals" with Japan, UK and other countries have been broadly similar in nature to the EU's, with some changes of emphasis, some differences in the tariff levels, different carve-out, different burdens.

Given that Trump considers Canada "difficult", "mean" and "nasty" - wow, pot call the kettle black much! - a deal like the EU's is probably the best we can expect. I would expect Trump to drive a harder bargain with Canada than he did with the EU, even though Canada is not as important an exporter to the US.as Canada. Although Trump's bluster about not actually needing anything from Canada is clearly BS, we are not as important to the US as they are to us (trade-wise, at least).

As much as anything, Canada, like most other countries, just wants this whole thing resolved, for the uncertainty to end. Of course, that is also part of Trump's "art of the deal" - grind the victim down until they will accept pretty much anything.

Mark Carney talks a good game about not accepting any deal that is not in Canada's best interests. But we all know that is just talk. Carney is not in a position to dictate anything. He will get what he's given, and he will try to put a good face on it. Just like Ursula von der Leyen.

ICJ ruling on climate change should be important, but it won't be

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued last week what sounds like a very consequential ruling, confirming that international law does indeed require states to prevent significant harm to the climate, and that failure to do so can trigger legal responsibility. So, states do have a legal obligation with respect to climate change, and a legal duty to take action to prevent "transboundary environmental harm", to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change.

Failure to do so, the opinion states, can result in legal consequences, such as: cessation and guarantees of non-repetition (e.g. licences promoting fossil fuel activity could legally be revoked); restitution of ecosystems could be required; financial compensation may be demanded; etc.

In theory, the opinion should influence future domestic and international climate litigation, shape future negotiations including UN climate rulings, and provide leverage for individual states calling for accountability and climate justice. The opinion may be relied upon as a highly authoritative statement of the law by domestic courts called on to decide on a case (and whose decisions ARE enforceable).

Like I say, it sounds consequential. But in fact this is just an advisory opinion, not legally binding in itself, even though the legal advice was requested by all 193 UN member countries. Can you imagine Donald Trump accepting any such ruling (or Russia, or China, or any number of other maverick states)?

Frankly, it's hard to imagine even Canada taking any concerted climate action as a result of it. For example, taking the legal opinion seriously would mean that all subsidies for the oil and gas sector should be phased out forthwith. All those recently announced nationally significant infrastructure projects, like liquefied natural gas plants, new oil pipelines, carbon sequestration projects, etc? Technically illegal, according to this ICJ opinion.

Canada may recognize international law regarding a host of other matters, from trade, foreign investment and banking, to drug trafficking, terrorism, tax evasion and corruption. But don't hold your breath expecting Mark Carney to suddenly change the trajectory on which he was so recently elected.

Trump's latest embarrassing tirade against "windmills"

Trump took the opportunity of his public meeting with EU boss Ursula von der Leyen to go completely off-topic and spend a substantial amount of time ranting about wind power, of all things. See, there are nine - count 'em! - wind turbines ("windmills", as he dismissively calls them) just off-shore from his golf course, and they spoil his view. Completely oblivious of the fact that the golf course spoils the natural scenery of the area anyway, he worries about how ugly wind turbines are, and what a shame they are where they are (i.e. in a reliably windy area).

As part of the rant, Trump came out with several howlers, secure in the knowledge that no-one would contradict him, certainly not in the midst of a hugely consequential trade deal anyway. Among them:

"It's the worst form of energy, the most expensive form of energy" - In fact, wind power is one of the least expensive energy sources. It is relatively cheap to build and efficient to run, with no fuel necessary, not to mention its (carbon-free) environmental advantages. The UN estimates that wind is 53% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel, and still falling (while fossil fuel prices continue to rise). Offshore wind is a bit more expensive than onshore, but can generate huge amounts of electricity, and is still significantly cheaper than coal or gas).

"It's driving the whales loco, it's driving them crazy" - This has been a favourite trope of Trump for years now, although it's not clear why. THe US's own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration states baldly, "There are no known links between large whatever deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities". 'Nuff said. And since when did Trump care about the mental health of whales?

"It kills the birds" - Yes, wind turbines do kill some birds, this is known. But the number of birds killed by turbines is miniscule compared to those killed by domestic  cats, power lines, high-rise buildings, vehicles, pesticides, etc. Norway is starting to paint its turbines black, which results in about 70% fewer bird casualties, although they don't look as nice in my opinion.

"They are killing us" - Killing who? People? Americans? Republicans? I think we can.put that one down to poetic licence.

"Windmills will not come, it's not going to happen in the United States" - Oh, they just did! The most recent figure I can find is 90,000 (2023), with about 3,000 new ones installed each year. Production has increased steadily over the years, and wind is now the fourth largest source of electricity generation in the USA, and a major.employer.

"We will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States" - China is by far the largest producer of wind turbines globally, but second is ... USA.

"When they start to rust and rot in eight years, you can't really turn them off, you can't burn them, they won't let you bury the propellers" - Ooh, a lot to unpack there. I'm not sure where his "eight years" came from: wind turbines typically last between 20 and 30 years. And you can turn them off at any time, including at the end of their lives, using ... a switch. And no, you probably can't burn them - why would you want to do that? You can't burn a coal plant or a nuclear power station either! But they can be recycled to a large extent. The UK's National Grid estimates that 96% of a wind turbine is made of recyclable materials. Gtanted, the blades are largely made of fibreglass, which is not generally recyclable, although breakthroughs in this area are occurring, so they usually end up landfills or incinerated (i.e. buried or burned). In 2021, the European wind industry committed to reusing, recovering or recycling 100% of decomissioned wind turbine blades, and has called for a ban on sending them to landfills. New technology is being developed all the time to better re-use old blades, such as in concrete.

"They're made in China, almost all of them" - As previously mentioned, China makes more wind turbines than any other country in the world. The Scottish offshore wind farm Trump is complaining about, though, was developed by Swedish company, Vattenfall, and the manufacturer was a Danish company, Vestas. Not China. And, incidentally, there are 11 of them, not 9.

"Germany tried it, wind doesn't work, you need subsidies" - Not sure why he mentions Germany in particular, but yes, Germany is a global leader in wind power, and has seen a continuous increase in installed capacity, both onshore and offshore. Wind provides at least 24% of Germany's electricity (this is an old figure I found from 2022, it would be substantially higher today). It is on track for record approvals and installations in 2025. Like many countries, Germany used to use a system of feed-in tariffs to encourage wind energy adoption, but changed to a system of competitive auctions in 2017 in an attempt to control expansion and ensure competitive market pricing. Many new licences for offshore windfarms now receive zero subsidies.

"Some of the countries prohibit it ... they will not allow it" - while it's true that wind power has its detractors and its challenges, hardly anywhere has outright prohibited it. The only examples I can find are Poland (which, in 2018, stipulated no new wind farms until 2035, and even the scrapping of existing ones - it's unclear how that is going) and England (which instituted an effective ban on new wind farms in 2015, although that has since been weakened, and then, in 2023, lifted). Oh, and America (Trump's own executive order - almost the first thing he did on assuming power - suspended new federal offshore wind leasing pending a review, which will probably conveniently never happen, although even some of that suspension has since been walked back).

It's hard to think how Trump can have got all of this - ALL of it! - quite so completely wrong. Couldn't he just have said, "Personally, I don't really like them". Uh, I guess not.

Most dangerous cities in Canada

Canada is usually considered one of the safest countries in the world. But let's not pretend there is NO crime here. If you tune in to CP24 local news of an evening, you'd quickly be disabused of that idea.

Anyway, the website Numbeo, as quoted by Boutique Adventurer, has produced a handy guide to the most dangerous and crime-ridden cities in Canada. The results make for sobering, and often surprising, reading.

It turns out that the city with the worst Crime Index in Canada (64.3) is Surrey, BC. Part of the Metro Vancouver Area, Surrey is considered a good and relatively affordable place to live. But in recent years, drug crime and gang violence have become a problem.

No. 2 is Lethbridge, Alberta's fourth largest city, with a Crime Index of 63.89. It's rapid growth has led to increased crime, particularly drug-related. No. 3, according to Boutique Adventurer, is Red Deer, Alberta, with a Crime Index of 61.75. Drugs, vandalism and theft are the main issues.

I say "according to Boutique Adventurer", because when I check Numbeo's own website, I get a slightly different list. Surrey is still worst, but no Lethbridge, no Red Deer. Strange. A different year's statistics maybe?

Anyway, here's the rest of Numbeo's top (bottom?) ten:

1. Surrey BC (64.3)

2=. Kelowna, BC (62.3)

2=. Sudbury ON (62.3)

4. Brantford, ON (60.8)

5. Winnipeg, MB (60.6)

6. Oshawa, ON (60.5)

7. Sault Ste. Marie, ON (60.3)

8. Hamilton, ON (56.0)

9. Brampton, ON (55.5)

10. Kamloops BC (54.8)

What about Toronto, you say? Toronto is down at No. 20 out of 33, with a relatively benign Crime Index of 43.7, well below the likes of Regina, Saskatoon and Edmonton. And the safest cities (of the 33 dealt with in this list)? Quebec City (22.5),  Oakville (26.0) and Burlington (29.2).

Is politics actually more polarized?

Here's food for thought. We routinely talk about our "increasingly polarized" political landscape. In the USA, in Canada, and elsewhere, we see the political debate as "highly polarized", even "ultra-polarized".

This suggests that the conservative wing has become more radically right-wing, and the progresssive liberal wing has moved further to the left, with little left in the middle. Donald Trump, for example, regularly calls Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris "Marxist", "communist", or "far-left extremist".

But the truth is, only one side of the political divide has shifted strongly towards extremism, and that is the right. 

Of course, Donald J. Trump is the single mover responsible for this shift, not just in American politics, but here and Canada, and in Europe and elsewhere. Conservative leaders across the world have taken heart and license from Trump continuing move towards fascism, and they see his success as a harbinger of their own ambitions. They copy many of his dubious (but clearly successful) strategies, and they parrot his talking points. Just look at Pierre Poilievre, Nigel Farage, Viktor Orbán, Javier Milei, Georgia Meloni, Benjamin Netanyahu. The list goes on, and all of them have, to a greater or lesser extent, benefitted from Trump's influence.

The left, on the other hand [sic], has, if anything, become more mainstream and centralized, and less radical and hard left. Think Kamala Harris, Mark Carney, Keir Starmer. The left has, if anything, moved to the right, and tends to avoid like the plague any association with hard left politics. This too is Trump's legacy.

At the same time, politics has undeniably become nastier, even more violent, and that too feeds in to the narrative about polarization. The assumption is that, if political debate is meaner and more unseemly, replete with ad hominem attacks, exaggeration and threats, then the two sides, right and left, must be further and further apart. But that, as we have seen, is not necessarily the case. This too is Trump's fault. The man has made the whole world a worse place in almost every way.

But, next time you are tempted to use that hackneyed phrase "increasing polarization", stop and think whether that is actually what you mean.

It makes no sense to reduce the voting age to 16

As Britain takes what seems like a giant leap in lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and people here in Canada are starting to discuss whether we should follow suit, the indispensable Andrew Coyne puts out a much-needed reality check, and even asks the question: should we be increasing the voting age, not lowering it?

Many coutries lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 back in the 1960s and 1970s. It was the thing to do back then. Like in Britain today, the main argument is that these young people will have to suffer the consequences of government actions long into the future, so they deserve to have a say in which government is allowed to act. Well, yes, but 14-year olds are even more affected by today's government decision-making, as are 12-year olds, etc, etc.

Ah, but, the argument goes, many 16 uear olds are at least as responsible and well-informed as many 18-year olds, even 20-year olds. I'm sure they are, and so are some 14-year olds, etc, etc. But some - the majority, I would venture - are most definitely not.

Neurologists tell us that the pre-frontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and long-tern planning) continues developing until at least the age of 24. Wouldn't that suggest that, actually, the voting age should be increased to. 24 or 25, not reduced to the more-or-less-arbitrary 16? Especially im an age of social media and all the misinfornation and disinformation that comes with it.

Today's kids typically have - and apparently want - much less atonomy than the kids of the 70s. They tend to leave home later (well into their mid-20s, if at all!), get their first job later, etc. Kids - North American and European kids, at any rate - typically lead more sheltered lives these days, and their lived experiences are severely limited until well into their 20s. Should we be entrusting our social and political systems to kids, however bright, with no real understanding of the world and its ways.

Should we allow callow children to steer the ship of state when they not even allowed to drink, smoke weed, join the military, be fully responsible for crimes, serve on a jury, donate an organ, take out a mortgage, etc, etc? Yes, they can drive a car at 16, but only subject to various controls and exceptions until they are a year or two older. They are also required to pay ridiculously high insurance premiums until they are older because so many 16-year olds, especially boys, are just, well, irresponsible.

I'm sure all these debates raged in Britain before the government made its fateful decision. I'm just surprised  the consensus was on the side of reducing the voting age. If anything  it makes more sense to increase it or, at the very least, just leave it alone

It feels like no-one is really happy with the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial verdict

There is severe disappointment and outrage in some quarters after Ontario Supreme Court Justice Maria Carroccia ruled recently that all five of the young Hockey Canada players are not guilty of sexual assault in an incident in London, Ontario, dating back seven years to 2018.

The high-profile case has engrossed Canadians for months now, partly becuase it involves hockey and partly because it involves some pretty lurid sex. As I have commented previously, the victim, known only as E.M., has been subjected to days and days of stressful cross-examination, and the trial hung on the thorny issue of consent.

The trial saw a series of legal twists and turns, including an early declaration of a mistrial and the dismissal of the entire jury mid-way through. In the end, the trial was heard and decided by judge only - the aforementioned Justice Carroccia - with no jury involved.

And, in the end, the judge decided that, not only did the Crown fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant didn't consent to the sexual activity, but that she positively DID consent to it, and even initiated much of the sexual activity. Justice Carroccia also concluded that E.M. was not as drunk as she later claimed. 

Furthermore, the judge did not find E.M.'s testimony to be "credible or reliable" and that ahe "cannot rely" on it (and, it's true, there did seem on the face of it to be many memory lapses and discrepancies compared to her previous evidence, all of which the judge had to take into account). She also called out E.M.'s use of the phrase "my truth", rather than "the truth" - pedantic? Maybe, maybe not.

Anyway, it's done, and thise rather slick, smarmy-looking young hockey players have walked scot-free. They are talking about complete "vindication" and "exoneration" (or at least their lawyers are). Frankly, it kind of smarts because the guys are clearly aware that they probably pushed it too far, and I'm sure they regret it. But against the law? Apparently not. The National Hockey League has deemed them personas non gratas anyway - the NHL was at great pains to distance itself from this kind of sleaziness and demeaning behaviour - so they will be forced to ply their trade in other leagues elsewhere. 

E.M. herself is traumatized by the whole process and obviously very disappointed that it came to nothing. Surely, she would not have put herself through it all unless she truly believed that she was in the right. But now she needs to put it down to experience and to pick up the threads of her life, which have been put on hold for the last seven years.

As a woman herself, I can't believe that Justice Carroccia found it easy to completely dismiss a fellow female in this way. But, as she says, "Believe the Victim" is all very well as a handy catch-phrase, but it has no place in a court of law, where the evidence in its entirety needs to be considered. I'm sure she would have liked to be able to believe the victim, but found herself unable to do so in this case. A tricky position to find herself in.

Most of the protesters outside the court clearly disagree - "We believe you", "Believe all women" and "Believe the victim" are by far the most commonly-seen placards - and most of the opinion articles I have read since the decision was announced have come down firmly on the miscarriage-of-justics side of things. There is an implicit assumption that the legal system has let E.M., and women in general, down. 

Predictably, the more conservative commentators commended Justice Carroccia's "bravery", while those more left-of-centre thought her decision harsh and unfair. There is no evidence I can find that Justice Carroccia is particularly right-wing or anti-women.or otherwise politically motivated. 

We are not now deep in the #MeToo movement - if anything, we are in a period of backlash - but Justice Caroccia's decision, and her explanatory words, should probably be considered brave. There is probably quite an implicit pressure to find in favour of the female victim in these cases; she must have been very convinced of her decision to find otherwise.

There is no doubt, though, that the case has put the #MeToo movement back several years. Many victims of sexual assault will not be willing to put themselves through the wringer the way E.M. did. We could almost have been back in pre-#MeToo times, when, in another high profile sexual assault trial, Canadian media personality Jian Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges.

But was the verdict actually wrong, as the protesters so clearly believe? It's hard to say so in any definitive way. It's true that much of E.M.'s testimony did not hang together, and she did seem to consent to, and even direct to a some extent, the sexual encouter

All in all, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and hardly anyone seems completely happy about the outcome, probably including Justice Carroccia, who may have to watch her back as she walks home from the court for a while.

What is a stablecoin anyway?

Donald Trump is coming off another week of apparent victories in Congress, as his Svengali-like influence continues to charm American lawmakers, almost against their better judgements, it seems. So keen they are to please the master that no ask is too much. It is a grand triumph of partisanship over sense.

This week's débacle involves cryptocurrencies. For whatever reason, Trump favours cryptocurrencies and stablecoins, and this week, he and his loyal followers passed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (an awkward moniker usually reduced to its acronym, GENIUS), and the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.

For years, the US government has maintained a "hands-off" approach to cryptocurrencies, generally deeming them too risky for Americans and for the country's financial system. But, as usual, Trump knows better.

The MAGA crowd are looking very pleased with themselves over all this, even though most of them probably don't really understand what it all means or how it works. They just have some vague idea that cryptocurrencies are somehow subversive and anti-establishment, and therefore to be supported.

Meanwhile, many of those who DO understand it all, including Transparency International, the Free Russia Federation, the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition (speaking of awkward monikers!), and the Kleptocracy Initiative, are warning that these legislations include some dangerous loopholes for money laundering and sanctions evasion. Maverick countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran love cryptocurrencies, and have turned to them to bypass international sanctions and to move illicit funds. Regularizing crypto and stablecoins, like the USA just did, is only going to help them achieve their nefarious aims.

Anyway, I have a reasonable idea what cryptocurrencies are, but what are stablecoins?

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies designed to be protected from the usual wild volatility that makes them so unsuitable as digital assets for payment or as a store of value. They do this by maintaining a constant 1:1 exchange rate with the US dollar. They are the (relatively) respectable face of crypto, although arguably they lose some of the other supposed advantages of other crypto currencies in the process.

Stablecoins represent a relatively small part of the overall cryptocurrency market (about $170 billion out of a total of $1.2 trillion), but they have surged in popularity in recent years. The two largest stablecoins are Tether (with a market capitalization of around $80 billion) and USD Coin ($49 billion). Tether, USD Coin and Binance USD are all reserve-backed, i.e. they hold enough dollar-denominated assets to maintain an exchange rate of 1:1. Or at least they say they do - reliable information is not always available.

TerraUSD is a slightly different animal, an algorithmic stablecoin, which supposedly maintains its value through a complex system of swapping with a free-floating cryptocurrency called Luna to control supply (i.e. smoke and mirrors).

This can break down, though. In 2022, TerraUSD crashed when people lost faith in Luna, amid a general downturn in cryptocurrency markets. Tether has also broken away from its dollar peg from time to time, and has suffered period crashes.

The US Federal Reserve warns that, increasingly, stablecoins are being used to facilitate leveraged trading in other cryptocurrencies, and are increasingly being used in international trade (particularly by China and some South American countries) as a way to avoid capital controls. The Fed also warns that stablecoins are vulnerable to investor runs, and can even destabilize the mainstream financial system. 

Trump, however, is not worried. He and his family and many of his closest team are deeply invested (literally) in crypto. For now at least, they are making serious hay as their own actions are helping crypto markets to boom. Trump has made an estimated $1 billion on crypto to date, more than any one of his real estate assets. You should probably watch to see when they start to disinvest, though, given that the fox is in charge of the hen-coop.

Ontario letting Canada down on housing

I hadn't realized that things were quite so bad in my home province. In an environment where house-building is a top priority at all levels of government, one province is performing worse than all the others: Ontario.

Supposedly the richest province, and an example to the world according to Premier Doug Ford, it seems like home-building in Ontario has plummeted recently, despite a pledge to "build, build, build" 1.5 million new homes by 2025.

While the rest of Canada saw a 17% increase of housing starts in the first half of 2025, compared to last year, Ontario saw a 25% decline, and a 35% decline from 2023. A few municipalities, like Ottawa, have seen substantial increases, but Toronto, the most populous city in the most populous province, registered a 44% decrease in housing starts, dragging down the rest of the province and the country. 

And this, remember, is despite billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on home-building initiatives in the province. However, Ontario, and Toronto in particular, still has some of the longest waits in the country for municipal housebuilding approvals, and it has also decided not to allow four-units on residential lots, despite the recommendations of its own task force.

Doug Ford has beem notably quiet in recent months, suspiciously quiet. Now we know why.

Trade deals are not a relief, they are a slap in the face

Well, it hasn't exactly been "90 deals in 90 days" as we were promised, but some countries are striking tariff deals with the USA. I'm sure they're all touting their deals as grand successes to their home base, but they haven't actually been very good (except for America).

The latest deal struck was with Japan, which settled with 15% across-the-board tariffs. Other countries that are now boasting of their good deals are Britain (10%), Vietnam (20%), Indonesia (20%) and the Philippines (19%). In almost all cases, imports of American goods into these  countries are completely free of tariffs, so in what respect these are "reciprocal tariffs" I have no idea. 

These are not even "real deals" in the way that most people.thinm of a deal, i.e. a binding, long-term contract. Detailed paperwork appears to be completely missing, and Trump can change them at any time, depending on how he feels when he gets up the morning. For example, Vietnam thought it had a pretty good deal, done and dusted, until Trump stepped in at the last minute and raised the rate.

But all of these countries obviously feel that they negotiated a good deal with Trump, compared to the 25%, 35%, 46%, random-number %, the US originally arbitrarily slapped them with. This, I suppose, is the "art of the deal" in Trump's mind, but essentially they are bully tariffs, "negotiated" through a mismatch of power. You could even call it gas-lighting. 

Each of these countries is now subject to much higher tariffs on the exports they rely on. They are also now operating in a global economy that is teetering on the brink of recession due to the constant uncertainty injected by the USA's trade policies. How even the MAGA crowd can see this as a win, I don't know.

Of course, Trump will frame it as a win, as he does with everything he engages in. But even the most positive spin cannot change the fact that Trump's ability to strike "deals" - his obsession - is not actually due to him as a deal-maker. 

I've never read Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, nor do I intend to, but I imagine that an early chapter would be devoted to "negotiating from strength", which is what Trump is doing in trumps. The USA has become the richest and strongest country in the world over the last century; of course it can strike a hard bargain. No other country can afford to displease America - it can essentially dictate whatever terms it wants, not because of Trump, but simply because America is America. Any other president could have done what Trump is doing, but wisely chose not to, because they understood that the short-term gain is not worth the long-term pain, to the US itself but also to the world as a whole.

The stock exchanges too seem confused by the goings-on. When a major exporter agrees a lower-than-expected-but-still-horrendous tariff, the exchanges throw a party and indexes tick upwards not downwards. Just because it could have been worse. I'm reading headlines like "Markets' trade deal euphoria ignores tariff reality". When Trump threatens to fire the chair of the US Federal Reserve, but then doesn't actually do it (TACO), the stock exchanges celebrate. What?! Logically, it makes no sense, but then who ever said that stock markets were logical.

Yes, the American public will feel most of the pain. But these export-driven countries will almost certainly also have to reduce their prices in order to make sales that were routine before, pushing down already thin margins in many cases, and possibly also squeezing already poverty-level labour rates, all so that already-rich America can become even richer.

How airlines charge you more

I think most of us, anecdotally, knew it was happening, but here's an article about how airlines are using AI to charge us more for flights, as well as a few strategies we can use to mitigate the effects a bit.

Many airlines (Delta, Air Canada and Porter are singled out in the article, but I'm sure they are all doing it to some extent) now routinely use AI to identify potential passengers who might be able and willing to pay over the odds for specific flights. So, when you browse an airline's website, what you are seeing are "personalized offers" based on your "willingness to pay". It may just be another example of "dynamic pricing", which has been used for years, but it is now being weaponized by AI (just one more headache AI has thrown our way).

Among the data it uses: past purchases over your lifetime; data from your airline loyalty program; demographic data about income, residence, etc; time of booking (business people, who are assumed to be able to pay more, tend to book later); browsing habits and device types; how full certain flights have been historically; specific events happening in destinations; etc.

Airlines says that it is currently only used for a small minority of sales, but that minority is rapidly increasing, because the airlines like what they see. Canada has slightly better privacy rules than the USA, for example, but given that most people just click "Accept" when faced with all that legal and technical jargon about cookies and permissions, we are pretty much all unwittingly putting ourselves are risk of what are effectively scams. "Implied consent" is often sufficient for some privacy intrusions.

So, what can we do about it? Well, a few things: avoid logging in to an airline's loyalty program until the moment of purchase is perhaps the most important one; use a virtual private network (VPN) to hide your location; clear your device's cookie and browser cache regularly; use third party fare-trackers to avoid giving unnecessary data directly to airlines; use incognito or private browsing; and be wary of the browsing habits of other people in your household, which can influence your own experience (yes, I know!)

It's a pain, for sure, and it's depressing that we have to fight against "the system" for our basic rights in this way, and be compelled to play the games of vendors.

Is milkweed really poisonous?

You probably know (if you're North American at least) that monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed plants, the idea being that when the caterpillars hatch, they feed on the milkweed, which is poisonous for most animals. Monarchs, though, are resistent to the milkweed's toxins, and so can safely ingest it, and in the process become poisonous and bad-tasting themselves. Birds and other predators know this, so the story goes, and so avoid attacking and eating them.

This is well known, as is the ancillary story that viceroy butterflies developed the evolutionary trick of mimicking the monarch, even though their caterpillars do not feed on milkweed (although it turns out, this story is actually not quite as simple as most people think).

But, from my own anecdotal observations, it seems that a whole host of other insects also feed on milkweed - beetles, ants, bees, wasps, you name it. The most common one I see is the milkweed beetle, which is also red to warn off predators. (In fact, I rarely actually see monarchs on them!) But many other insects, moths and birds like hummingbirds do eat milkweed, although perhaps not as exclusively as monarchs.

Red milkweed beetle

So, how poisonous can milkweed really be? Have all these other insect also developed a resistance to milkweed's toxins? Have we been mislead all these years?

Well, yes, milkweed is indeed poisonous. It contains a toxic substance called cardenolide which, if ingested in large enough quantities - and there's the key - can cause cardiac arrest in humans, livestock and other animals. But is also tastes really bad, so instances of cattle poisoning, etc, are very very rare. Livestock will not eat milkweed unless they are very desperate. Similarly, pets will find your garden milkweed very disagreeable to eat, and so will typically stop before any harn can occur.

Several different species of insects are commonly found on milkweed plants, including: large and small milkweed bugs; swamp, red and blue milkweed beetles; milkweed aphids; and the showy milkweed tussick moth caterpillar. Like the monarch, these insects have developed a resistance to milkweed toxins, and some can even sequester the toxins in certain special glands.

So, poisonous? Yes, to an extent. Exclusive to monarch butterflies? Nope.

If we can make diamonds in a lab, why do people still want the real thing?

Apparently, lab-grown diamonds are having a moment.

Rather than mining a diamond that took millions of years to create, it is now possible to manufacture artificially lab-grown diamonds that look identical, with essentially equal optical, physical and chemical properties  Using a tiny sliver of real diamond as a carbon seed, and the right pressure, temperature and gasses in a plasma chamber, lab-grown diamonds can be created in just a few weeks.

Lab-grown diamonds are significantly cheaper (up to 70-90% cheaper - they are not, after all, rare), not to mention more environmentally- and politically-friendly in their production process (no "blood diamonds", no environmental degradation from mining operations, even though synthetic diamonds do require a lot of electricity to produce them). Jewellery giants like Pandora, Swarovski and even Prada are getting in on the act. 

Given that celebs like Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez and Pamela Anderson are buying them, so are lots of other people. Sales of lab-grown diamonds have increased exponentially in recent years: supply has doubled every other year since 2015. Lab-grown diamonds now make up at least 40% of the diamond market.

All of which begs the question: what is the value of a real, natural diamond? Is there anything about a natural diamond that can compel a customer to pay up to ten times more for it over an identical-looking lab-grown version? 

An increasing number of potential customers would tell you "no", but perhaps the main reason that many people continue to say "yes" is the way in which real diamonds keep, and even increase, their value (and their re-sale value). It is their rarity value itself that some people still covet. If you want a family heirloom that you can pass down to your kids and grandkids, a lab-grown gem will just not cut it. And, honestly, some people just like to spend money, and to be seen to spend money (think cars, houses, designer brand clothing).

And don't count the natural diamond industry out just yet. South African company De Beers has traditionally had a stranglehold over the industry, with an almost 90% market share throughout most of the 20th century. It almost singlehandedly created the global industry, with its clever and effective advertising campaigns ("a diamond is forever") and its ability to control supply (and therefore price). It was De Beers that first associated diamonds with love, romance and enduring commitment, a powerful marketing ploy that paid handsome dividends. 

But De Beers no longer enjoys the effective monopoly it once had, and it too decided to get involved in the artificial diamond industry back in the 2010s. In 2024, though, came the news that De Beers was sitting on a huge stockpile of unsold diamonds, valued at around $2 billion. Did the diamond market fall through, or was this just a period of market correction?

Interestingly, De Beers recently took the decision to end its short-lived lab-grown diamond company, Lightbox. As the cost (and value) of lab-grown diamonds continues to fall, De Beers has pledged to lean in to natural diamonds, creating meaningful pieces to celebrate key moments in people's lives, and relegating lab-grown gems to the more lowly function of costume jewellery. De Beers is once again turning its mighty marketing influence to re-establishing the dominance of natural diamonds in the jewellery market. And don't underestimate its ability to change the industry again.

Personally, I have never understood the attraction of jewellery and certainly not the attraction of spending large amounts of money on pieces that are identical to pieces of cut glass. But then, I am not De Beers' market.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal tastes (and money). Do you buy champagne over prosecco? Organic field tomatoes over greenhouse ones? Then you may well be the type to buy natural diamonds over synthetic ones. Horses for courses. Natural diamonds will probably never go out of style.

The social and psychological cost of staying drug-free in sports

Penny Oleksiak is one of Canada's most successful swimmers and Olympians (although that was before Summer Mackintosh became the new It Girl). As it happens she lives just up the road from me, here in the east end of Toronto. She is still on the Canadian national swim team, but, in the run-up to the next Olympics (July 2028 in Los Angeles, providing California is still part of the USA - and the USA is still part of the world - by then), she has blotted her copybook big time.

She's not a cheater and she's not a maverick, but she is nevertheless deemed to have violated the rules of the International Testing Agency, and has had to declare a voluntary provisional suspension of her ambitions while the matter is investigated, In the process, her case has opened up to the public some of the lesser known rules around doping that top athletes and sports people have to adhere to in order to be taken seriously at the top levels. 

See, Ms. Oleksiak is in violation of the "whereabouts" rules. It turns out that in order to get a clean bill of health from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for World Championships, Olympics, and other major international competitions, competitors need to log in using the ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration and Management System) online system. 

Athletes are required to report an accurate and up to date record of their whereabouts at all times.  Every day. This is so that they can be drug tested at any time with no notice. "Late, inaccurate or incomplete whereabouts" constitutes a Filing Failure, and three such failures in any one year results in a WADA failure, which can mean an athlete is banned from competitions even if they have never ever taken a banned substance.

This is the position Ms. Oleksiak now finds herself in. She is branded as just as bad as the worst of the Russian serial offenders, even though she swears she has never ever taken any banned substance, but is merely caught up in this administrative snafu.

It makes you realize just how much privacy and autonomy top athletes have to sacrifice in order to pursue their sporting dreams. Penny hasn't commented publicly, other than a short, now-deleted Instagram post. But, as other athletes note, they go in to this system eyes open, and it is essentially just a cost of doing business at these rarefied heights. But what an imposition!

Danielle Smith channels Trump in her response to wildfire report

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has clearly graduated from the Donald Trump School of Public Relations, most recently exemplified by her complete refusal to any accept criticism of the province's fire-fighting contributions during last year's disastrous Jasper wildfire.

In fact, not only did she not accept criticism, she demanded that the inquiry apologize - to her and to Alberta - for having the temerity to reprimand them. She called the report "unfair" and "untrue" and demanded its withdrawal.

The "after-action review" was commissioned by the municipality of Jasper in an attempt to see how emergency response and coordination could be improved in the future, and it was independently authored. It noted that Smith's UCP party complicated the emergency response unnecessarily by constantly demanding information and trying to change the decision-making, even though the fire started in a national park and was therefore a "federal fire", not a provincial one. 

Rather than humbly accepting some responsibility and vowing to do better in the future, Smith just dismissed the report out of hand and tried to heap blame on the federal government. Like I say, the Donald Trump School.

Coincidentally, CBC recently re-broadcast a podcast describing how Alberta's fire-fighting system is far inferior to that of other provinces like Ontario and British Columbia, and is broken and unsustainable. Food for thought, eh, Danielle? Or maybe not.

Why are new sanctions on Russia still being considered, three years too late?

Three-and-a-half years after Russia invaded Ukraine, some western countries like the EU and Britain are vowing to impose strict new sanctions on Russia to "keep raising the pressure until Russia ends its war".

What I don't understand is how they are managing to find new pressure points three-and-a-half years after countries first started imposing sanctions. If they have sanctions they can easily impose on Russia, why didn't they do it three years ago, before a million plus casualties arose?

Maybe there is some clever strategy at work here, turning the screws very gradually for maximum effect or something like that. But, looking in from the outside, it just seems like Western nations have had perfectly good means of blocking Russia's ability to prosecute their illegal war that they have just not used. And if they have just found these means now, how many other avenues are there that have still not been pursued.

Is this just a case of keeping something in reserve so they can say, "Look at us, see what we're doing to help"? Are there compelling reasons why these forces have not been brought to bear before now? Does Canada have a whole list of potential sanctions that they are holding off on imposing? Hard to say.

Immigration is really not the problem

It's almost politically incorrect these days to suggest that, actually, maybe we don't really need to reduce our immigration numbers. So ingrained is the (relatively recent) notion that all our ills - from the housing crisis to the healthcare crisis to the productivity crisis - are a direct result of out-of-control immigration, that to even suggest otherwise is a radical action. So, kudos to Andrew Coyne for questioning this new orthodoxy in a hard-hitting article in the Globe today.

Pierre Poilievre, the Conservatives' sort-of leader, continues to make anti-immigration his main message - hey, it worked for Donald Trump! - but, unfortunately his policy is almost identical to the (very un-Liberal, it must be said) one that the governing Liberals are already pursuing. This amounts to not just reining in the levels of immigration, but actual de-population - "more people leaving than coming". This is unheard-of in Canadian history, and certainly a long way from the immigration policies that made Canada as successful as it is.

Mr. Coyne points out that it is by no means certain that immigration has been responsible for our housing crisis or our healthcare crisis, both of which started well before the recent years of extreme (and arguably out-of-control) immigration. Previous periods of very high immigration, such as the 1950s and 1960s were not accompanied by such crises, so the causal link is far from proven. Poor management and lack of investment are more likely the causes. The pandemic itself was a major contributing factor in much that has gone wrong since.

And, like it or not, we do need a lot of immigration, if only to pay for the ever-increasing financial burdens (for healthcare, pensions, and other things) imposed by our ageing population and low natural birth rates. Absolute population decline will put us in an even worse situation than we already find ourselves in. I have already argued this some time ago.

So, where is all this across-the-board anti-immigrant sentiment coming from? For almost the first time ever, polls in Canada suggest that a plurality of the population is against immigration, a huge change in a country that has always been - as recently as just a few short years ago - strongly pro-immigration. 

For whatever reason - and I blame Donald Trump and his radical repositioning of the Overton window - anti-immigration is a political winner at the moment, and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. The pendulum will swing back, I believe, hopefully sooner rather than later. Maybe it will just take another pandemic-style labour shortage to bring that about. There's nothing like deteriorating service in restaurants to focus the collective mind.

Yes, we need to improve productivity, technical excellence and capital investment. But let's not throw immigration - the engine of Canadian success - under the bus at the same time.

Are the markets in denial about Trump's tariffs?

With all that's going on at at the moment - wars, economic uncertainty, climate change-related extreme weather events, persistent inflation worries, weakened consumer confidence, and a global trade war, just to to name a few - it's hard to believe that the world's stock exchanges are just shrugging it all off.

But, more than that, the major stock exchanges are in all-time record territory. Do they know something we don't? Well, they should: stock brokers and institutional investors are supposed to be the experts; they are highly paid professional, and spend almost all their waking hours researching and looking at past trends and future predictions. But I have to wonder.

In the USA, the S&P500, the Dow Jones and the Nasdaq indexes are all showing record highs, as is Canada's TSE. European stock exchanges are being more circumspect, but they too were trading at record levels just recently. Asian markets too are showing broadly positive vibes, if not actual record highs.

But it's still hard to believe that they see a rosier future than most of the rest of us can envisage at this juncture. While those who are in the know admit that economic modelling is "very difficult" right now because "things are changing constantly", that doesn't seem to be holding investors back any. Some experts, however, are warning that markets may be taking a "naive view of what's happening on the trade front". 

For example, there seems to be a rather gung-ho reliance on TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) on the part of many investors. Yes, Trump has indeed "chickened out" many times over the last few months of tariff negotiations, if that's how you want to interpret it. But to bank on that trend continuing seems, well, unjustifiably optimistic and idealistic to me. Can the glass really be half-full? Or are they in denial?

One indication that all is not quite as hunky-dory as the stock exchanges suggest is the increasing value of, and investment activity in, gold. If things are so great, then why are so many people putting big money into gold bullion, which is usually seen as a solid fall-back position when stocks seem risky? Also, US government bond yields have been heading higher for some time now, for much the same reason.

Some influential market commentators certainly believe that investors are in denial about where all this tariff talk is going to end up, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The US stock indices in particular seem to have lost all touch with reality. "Frothy" doesn't even come close.

America's Faustian bargain

I know it doesn't do to dwell on what-if's, but it's hard not to muse on what life might have been like had Donald Trump not been elected by a relatively slim majority.

Had just a few thousand voters here and there in swing states decided not to vote for nastiness, hatred and selfishness - and here I can't help but think of the swathes of immigrants who voted for Trump because they thought he would somehow make them a little bit richer; did they really not think it through? - America would be living under a Kamala Harris presidency, and the status quo would be very much in force.

Ms. Harris was never going to set the world on fire, but then that's the whole point. The United States would be doing very nicely thank you, just as it was under Joe Biden - the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, with the grudging respect of the rest of the world.

Instead, it is now more deeply polarized than ever before, riven by hate and division, and buckling under the yoke of a super-wealthy plutocracy. Years of painstaking gains in environmental and social policy have been scuppered overnight. The populace, Republican and Democrat alike, is starting to feel the effects of the unnecessary and ill-advised tariffs. Hundreds of thousands have been, or are soon to be, laid off from their jobs. Hundreds of thousands more live day to day, traumatized by the prospect of being kicked out of the USA, sometimes the only country they have ever known. And any respect and goodwill the country may have enjoyed across the world have come crashing down, and America is thought of abroad as a maverick state and a pariah on a par with Russian and China.

Good job, guys.

And the rest of the world? I'm not saying that everything was entirely hunky-dory before Trump was elected. But, despite wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, it was at least functional. Today, Trump's ongoing tariff war with every country on earth has set everyone against everyone else, and the whole world is teetering on the edge of recession. Multinational organizations and humanitarian agencies have been hamstrung and hung out to dry. China has nimbly stepped into the USA-shaped vacuum in international relations and, frankly, is looking pretty good in comparison.

To say that the American public struck a Faustian bargain in November last year is putting it mildly indeed. Right now Mephistopheles is running rampant across the world.

Emergency food to be destroyed

In one of the more outrageous actions of the Trump administration - and that's a pretty high bar - the US has ordered 550 tonnes of emergency food aid to be destroyed (incinerated!) because it has cut funding for USAID.

The "high energy biscuits", intended for malnourished children living in war and disaster zones, and sufficient to feed 1.5 million kids (think the starving younger residents of Gaza) are currently being stored in a warehouse in Dubai. But in the absence of USAID staff, now laid off by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the stores will instead be destroyed.

And this won't be the last. There is currently an estimated 60,000 tons of emergency food aid languishing in US warehouses around the world which will probably end up being destroyed too. And all in the interests of saving a few bucks towards Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy.

How ridiculous! 

Can it not be given to a sensible aid organization like UNHCR, UNWRA, UNICEF, or the World Food Programme. I'm guessing it's not quite so simple. And even those organizations are severely constrained by staffing and funding shortages. Can Dubai not distribute it itself (Dubai is not short of money, and think of the kudos to be earned)?

If even Daivd Suzuki is sounding defeatist...

I'm not sure I've ever heard the usually ebullient and ever-young David Suzuki being quite so pessimistic about climate change.

Canada's best-known environmentalist is usually so positive and upbeat that I often wonder how he keeps it up in the face of all the challenges and set-backs facing the environmental movement. In a recent interview, though, he admits that he has basically given up on expecting politicians, governments and large-scale political entities to see the light and to push for legislative change to curb the worst effects of climate change.

It's not that he has completely given up on fighting against global warming. It's just that he has realized that the political system in which we operate is too much geared towards short term solutions, optics, and winning the next election to expect politicians to fight for any meaningful changes vis-à-vis the climate.

He believes that we have already overshot on seven of the nine global "tipping points" or "planetary boundaries" identified by influential environmentalist Johan Rockström, and there is now no way back. All that remains, he says, is to try to minimize the damage and to help each other deal with the fallout at a small-scale community level.

As Suzuki says, "The science says we're done for ... let's fight like mad to be as resilient as we can in the face of what's coming". Self-sufficiency and self-reliance will be key in the future world we are inheriting, he warns. 

It all sounds pretty gloomy and apocalyptic. But he's probably not wrong.

Masked ICE agents part of the long slide into totalitarian terror

More and more report and videos are emerging of some of the nefarious tactics being employed by Trump's ICE warriors. Women and children separated from husbands and fathers, disguised and unmarked officers punching victims repeatedly in the head. They may be detained unlawfully in unsanitary conditions for many hours, even days. There seem to be few, if any, checks on their behaviour.

These are scenes straight out of dystopian fuction, but this is real. And this is not theocratic Iran, or 1980s El Salvador, or Chile under Pinochet; this is today's America under Donald Trump.

So, if ICE is a legitimate government department in a democratic country, why are its agents wearing face-obscuring masks and dark glasses and using unmarked vehicles? The official line is that they are protecting themselves from doxing (maliciously publishing private information about individuals on the internet) and increasing threats to their safety. 

But these are not clandestine operations agsainst organized drug rings or violent criminal gangs. The subjects being targeted by ICE are usually private individuals - family men (and women and children), students, construction workers, restaurant staff, delivery guys, often born and raised in America.

Civil rights workers and legal advocates say this approach, much like that of Elon Musk's DOGE goons, is deliberately designed to create a climate of fear and intimidation, and to undermine public trust. It is quite literally terrorism. Masked men do not feel accountable because they cannot be identified, and so they are much more likely to engage in violence and to flout the existing laws. There have already been cases of people impersonating ICE or Homeland Security agents to carry out robberies and other crimes.

It can't be long until cattle prods and state-sanctioned rapes become part of the American urban landcscape.

MAGA feeling threatened by the new Superman movie

The MAGA-verse is up in arms about the new Superman movie. I kid you not.

Many right-wing commentators - Kellyanne Conway, Jesse Watters, Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool, End Wokeness and others - have taken issue with director/writer James Gunn's characterization of the Superman story as an immigrant narrative.

Clearly, it IS.(and always has been) an immigrant narrative - Kal-El came from the planet Krypton, and landed in rural Kansas as an illegal immigrant. Superman's original creators, Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster, were the childen of Jewish immigrants from Europe in the early 20th century. 

MAGA, of course, clearly feels threatened by the portrayal of America's greatest ever hero as an immigrant, legal or otherwise. I guess they have never thought about it before. Gunn, let it be said, is unarguably a political animal, and probably deliberately stressed the immigrant/outsider aspect of his movie. But MAGA is going off half-cocked, and not responding very coolly (or rationally).

Hell, Trump himself is the son of a Scottish immigrant mother and a son-of-a-German immigrant father. Like Canada, hardly anybody in America is that far removed from immigrant forebears. Why is immigration such a big deal for Republicans. Oh, wait, some of them are not even white, right?

Trump's tariffs nothing to to do with economics

As Trump threatens more tariffs on Canada - 35% this time, supposedly starting August 1st, unless of course that changes - he is still trying to tie it to the perceived egregious supply of fentanyl and other drugs from Canada to USA.

As had been noted before, months ago, the flow of fentanyl from Canada to the United States is miniscule - of the order of 0.2%, according to the US's own Customs and Border Control agency - with 99% of it actually coming in from the Mexican border. Maybe he's getting the two countries mixed up? Easily done. 

In fact, there are many more drugs (principally methamphetamine, cocaine and fentanyl) flowing from the US to Canada than the other way round. Not to mention guns and other bad stuff

I'm sure someone has explained all this to him, although given how shit-scared all his staff seem to be of saying anything that might be seen to contradict him, that is by no means certain. Mark Carney should be very sure to mention it to him, though. It's possible, just possible, that he doesn't know.

But we should be past the stage of trying to find rhyme or reason in all this. The US tariffs, in general terms, are supposed to be about correcting the "unfair" trade balances countries have with America. But Brazil just got slapped with a 50% tariff, and they have a negative trade balance with the US. 

The justification Trump uses there is that he objects to the country's treatment of ex-President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro, an old Trump buddy and copycat, and fellow far-right populist, is currently on trial for trying to stage a Trump-style coup after he lost the vote in the last Brazilian elections. So, nothing to do with economics, then. This is public policy based on whims, grudges and the Old Boy's Network. And the rates - 25%, 30%, 35%, 50% - completely random.

The whole world, apart from some Republican extremists in the USA, are now heartily sick of the whole random Trump tariff thing. A world that was operating, at least macro-ecconomically, quite well before he showed up, is now in tatters, all due to the misguided beliefs of one man. He has set one country against another, and destroyed any goodwill the world bore towards the USA. 

History will certaunly judge him badly, whatever he.says, but in the meantime, we have to live through that history.

Canadian army members' revolutionary plans are kind of ludicrous

Well, this is kind of crazy. The RCMP has arrested four members of the Canadian Armed Forces.(CAF) on terrorism (and related) charges. The four Quebec squaddies diverted a huge number of guns, ammo, grenades, night-vision goggles and laser-sighters, etc, in an unprecedented ideologically-motivated plot by extemist army members to form an "anti-government militia" and take over some land in the Quebec City area. I'm not entirely sure how this qualifies as "terrorism", but I'll take that on trust.

These guys apparently held their own military-style training exercises - shooting, ambushing, survival and navigation - and there are even some awkward posed photos of at least some of them holding their oversized guns on social media. It's rather cute in some ways - like a group of boys playing at soldiers, except these ARE soldiers, and the weapons are real. Two of the four are current active CAF members.

It's thought they have ties with some pretty shadowy extreme right-wing groups. For example, there is a Facebook group called the "Blue Hackle Mafia", which boasts many members of the CAF, and which features "racist, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic comments and images", and there is speculation that the four would-be revolutionaries are also involved in various white supremacist groups.

But it was the detail about their plans to "forcibly take possession of land in the Quebec City area" that struck me most. It seemed like such a modest goal. And what would they do there? Hold military parades? Farm it? They apparently wanted to set up an "anti-government community" north of Quebec, which sounds rather quaint, like a hippy commune or something.

You just have this feeling that they didn't quite think it all the way through. The whole thing seems equal parts scary and hilarious.

The Enhanced Games could only happen in Trump's America

Disillusioned about the Olympic Games? Yeah, me too. Cheating, drug dealing and graft are par for the course these days (arguably they always were). But, woah, I don't see this as the solution.

The Enhanced Games will hold its inaugural competition in Las Vegas on May 2026. Yes, you read that right. It's a sports competition celebrating unabashed performance-enhancing drugs use. The brainchild of Australian lawyer Aron D'Souza, and bankrolled by the likes of maverick tech bro billionaire Peter Thiel and all-round idiot Donald Trump Jr., it was perhaps inevitable that just about the only place to hold it would be in Donald Trump's brash iconclastic America.

The USA's anti-doping in sports stance remains one of the strictest in the world - their top 100-metres sprinter was banned for smoking weed in the 2021 Olympics. So, it will be interesting to see how this new initiative progresses, and whether it takes hold in the public's imagination. 

Questions abound. Which athletes will be willing to burn their bridges and compete? Is it safe (probably not)? Will enough people watch it to make it worthwhile, and to pave the way for future development (again probably not, but who knows)?

Most Olympic athletes and the official responses from country representatives have, predictably, been very negative about the enterprise, despite ongoing complaints about athletes' pay and allegations of secret and unmitigated doping in the established sports competition world. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) calls it a "betrayal of everything that we stand for".

But if it ever takes off, the time would be now and in Trump's America.

China does not seem to understand Buddhism

Here's an excellent quote from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning: "The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and other living Buddhas must be approved by the central government".

This, of course, is China trying to assert its authority over the Tibetan government-in-exile. But I can't help but think that they have the whole thing rather misunderstood. Dalai Lamas are not voted in by government committee, and they are certainly not imposed by government decree as Ms. Mao seems to think.

You can roll your eyes to your heart's content over the idea of a religious leader appearing as a reincarnation, especially one that is somehow picked by the Gaden Phodrang Trust. But China's willful misconstructions are even more hilarious.