Prophet Song is eerily prophetic

Reading Paul Lynch's Prophet Song is eye-opening and thought-provoking. Written in 2023, the book is a fictional but plausible dystopic account of Ireland sinking into the depths of fascism and totalitarianism. It seems today, just three years later, remarkably prescient, not so much of present-day Ireland, which still enjoys a robust and resolute democracy as far as I know, but of the situation in the USA.

Granted, the fascist state that Lynch describes is much more extreme, in the same way that Margaret Atwood's Gilead portrayed an eerily familiar, but more severe, USA-gone-wrong. But the parallels are arresting, and Lynch's account of the way in which such an unthinkable situation can materialize by stealth, with a heedless population sleepwalking into the unimaginable, is chilling indeed.

The book, which won the 2023 Booker Prize, is written in a distinctive and idiosyncratic style, with very few paragraph breaks, minimal punctuation in general, some interesting vocabulary choices and word orderings, and some unexpected figures of speech. The text lurches giddily from earthy Irish vernacular to blank verse poetry; the juxtapositions are striking.

Here are just a few snippets:

The winter rain falls lush and cold, the passing days held numb within the rain so that it seems to mask time's passing, each day giving to faceless day until the winter is at full bloom.

The head on you, Larry says, I could pass you on the street and hardly know you. Anybody else but Dad want coffee? Mark says.

She turns watching the faces that surround her, faces pained with the vertigo of staring into the sudden abyss, all of these people the very same, every one of them clothed yet naked, sullied and pure, proud and shameful, disloyal and faithful, all of them brought here by love.

She lies in the dark walking blind alleys of thought, she thinks she sleeps then wakes into a dark room watched by whispering faces finding herself judged.

She drives to the supermarket and coins free a trolley, slides her son into the facing seat and walks past two soldiers standing guard by the doors while holding her breath, the dark majesty of automatic weapons in the arms of youths no older than her son, chins that have no need of a blade, their faces aggressively expressionless.

Wow. It takes a little to get into the cadence and the style of Lynch's writing, but once you do, this is a very rewarding book.

US invasion of Iran is not a just war, and not just a war

Just as negotiations between the USA and Iran seemed to be making some real substantive progress - wide-ranging and long-lasting talks on nuclear limits and monitoring, sanctions relief, access to energy sectors, economic cooperation - the rug was pulled, bridges were burned, and a full-scale regional war suddenly seems not just possible but likely.

In the midst of these intense and apparently quite promising mediated discussions on Iran's nuclear program, the USA and Israel have jointly launched a massive and apparently ongoing operation to overthrow Iran's government. It's called "Operation Epic Fury", for Gof's sake. (Who comes up with these names? I'm guessing Trump). End of negotiations. 

Who knows what Trump's rationale was/is (rationale? Trump?), but his negotiating team seems to have been completely blindsided. It's hard to fathom why he would launch a probably-unwinnable war, that will almost certainly send global oil prices through the roof, just before mid-term elections in which his party seems to be struggling. It has all the hallmarks of a whim (believe it or not!), probably a whim deftly engineered by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been itching for years to attack his bête noir Iran. 

Of course, the Trump administration is trying to frame the US first strikes as a response to previous Iranian attacks on the USA and its allies, and argues, rather unconvincingly, that its goal is just self-defence, "to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime", but few people are buying that. Pete Hegseth likes to say that "the United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it" . Ooh, pants on fire!

Often, that "imminent threat" is portrayed by Trump & Co as an imminent nuclear attack, on the USA or on some other country, and Trump's timely intervention is therefore saving the whole world: "If we didn't do what we're doing right now, you would have had a nuclear war, and they would have taken out many countries". Unfortunately, Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and even the American intelligence agencies assess that Iran is not actively building any nuclear weapons, and is at least several years away from having any such weapons. How imminent is that?

Where this will go is anyone's guess, but Iran is far from defenceless, and has already responded in kind by attacking US bases in other Middle Eastern countries (Iraq, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar, for starters). Multiple states could be drawn into this conflict, and concerted attacks on Israel can only be hours away (yup, that happened). Iran does not have that many friends in the region, but there is an "Axis of Resistance" comprising Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen), Hamas (Palestine), and various Shiite militias in Iraq - oh, and strategic partnerships with Russia, North Korea and, to a lesser extent, China - so this could still get very messy. For someone who purports to want to avoid distant "forever wars" and to be working towards world peace, Trump sure has a strange way of showing it.

So, what is this, then? Another Venezuela? Another Iraq? Libya, maybe? Just another step in Trump's quest for world domination? Iran's case is very different from any of those previous regime change operations. Iran is structurally different, "an ideologically entrenched state with layered institutions, doctrinal legitimacy, and a deeply embedded security apparatus", not just a maverick state presided over by a dynastic dictatorship. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was apparently "taken out" on Day 1, but there is a whole theocratic apparatus around him which will click seamlessly into place. And now they have a convenient martyr to rally around. 

Trump portrays the attacks as doing the people of Iran a favour, calling on them to "seize control of your destiny" and to rise up against the oppressive Islamic theocracy that has ruled the country since the 1979 Islamic revolution. But how exactly are they supposed to do that? There is no plan in place. All Trump has done is to destabilize the country without any thought for its future, leaving it ripe for chaos and penury to ensure.

Trump's exhortation for the Iranian people to "take over your government" is naive at best. Even if the Iranian people (not just the ex-patriate Iranians dancing and singing in the safe capital cities of western nations, but the actual residents of Iran) want regime change - and some polls suggest that they overwhelmingly do - they are absolutely not in a position to make that happen. 

And, make no mistake, the Iranian Islamic regime and its powerful well-prepared regressive machinery is still very much in power, even if many of their leaders have been assassinated by Trump's strikes. Don't believe what Mr. Trump himself might tell us. Plus, global history is very much against the possibility of any quick and easy transfer of power: aerial bombing campaigns have a terrible historial record of successfully fomenting regime change.

Reactions by most western leaders to the US intervention have been predictably muted, given that everyone is scared stiff of crossing Trump. Most chose to condemn Iran's "indiscriminate" strikes on US military bases, while conveniently not even mentioning America's indiscriminate attack on Iran. Implacable Iran adversary Saudi Arabia and the 22-nation Arab League also chose to condemn the "blatant violation of the sovereignty" of those Arabic countries that Iran attacked, blithely papering over the US attacks that precipitated them. Benjamin Netanyahu said ... well, you know the kind of thing Netanyahu said.

Australia and - perhaps surprisingly - Canada were, if anything, less guarded in their language in their support of the US attacks. Albanese strongly supported the US's efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (wait, wasn't that what the Oman-mediated talks in Geneva were about?) Canadian Prime Minister Carney issued a remarkably pro-US statement in favour of the American military action, calling Iran "the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East". Well, that may have been the case once, but now that role has apparently been assumed by Israel and the USA. Carney did however make it very clear that Canada would not be participating in any such military attacks.

In a knee-jerk reaction, US antagonists China and Russia predictably did condemn the US attacks, but then what else were they supposed to do? Brave little Oman, which had been mediating the US-Iran nuclear talks, also called out the USA, calling the attacks a "violation of the rules of international law and the principle of settling disputes through peaceful means rather than though hostility and the shedding of blood". The UN itself has been surprisingly silent thus far.

The US Congress is, as always, hopelessly divided. It was just days away from a formal debate on potential military action in Iran, a debate that the surprise attack has handily pre-empted. Democrats and at least a handful of Republicans are warning that Trump's actions are (yet again) illegal and unconstitutional. They were launched without Congressional approval or debate, and in response to no credible imminent threat. (A Congressional vote is about to put that to the test.) Even if a censoring motion passes, though, Trump knows that he can override it, and a two-thirds majority to override THAT would be a stretch indeed. It would therefore amount to little more than a stern rebuke, a proverbial slap on the wrist. 

Polls suggest that 6 in 10 Americans disspprove of Trump's war, and a similat majority do not think that he has a clear plan, and that he should get congressional approval for any further military action.

So, how should we see this apparently gratuitous military escalation, this unprompted attack on an independent sovereign state, ethically speaking?

The US and its supporters (which apparently includes Canada) argue that the action was a necessary evil, needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons which would pose an existential threat to the region and to global stability in general. Furthermore, it was needed to stop Iran's human rights abuses and its violent suppression of domestic protests, arguing that removing the current regime would benefit both the Iranian people and regional security.

And yes, you can see some elements of sense there, even if Iran is actually nowhere near developing nuclear weapons, and promising talks were under way anyway to address that very threat, now abandoned. No-one really likes Iran and its methods (apart from its own hard-line Islamist radicals) - "the world's leading state sponsor of terror", as the well-worn phrase goes - but that is not the only issue here. Few people really like the political systems in Russia, or Hungary, or North Korea, or Afghanistan, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but you don't see the USA invading them to force regime change. It is very selective in its choice of invasion, even if not necessarily logical.

The bottom line, is that invading Iran without UN and Security Council  approval is quite clearly a contravention of international law, and serves to further erode confidence in the international rule of law. In the same way, invading Iran without Congressional approval is against US domestic law and the US Constitution. There is little to distinguish it from the US's earlier invasion of Venezuela, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, etc, etc. Pre-emptive or "preventive" wars are rarely moral, usually prompted by other self-serving or mercenary factors, making it a "war of choice" - never a good idea. (Some would argue that Iran itself has been flouting international law for years and so should not expect to hide behind international law now, but that is a very slippery slope to navigate)

When you think about it, it's pretty patronizing to say that Iran cannot ever have nuclear weapons, but the US (and France, and Pakistan, and Israel, and others) can, and that the US knows better what is good for Iran than its own government. Just because we don't like the way a country runs its affairs is not a sufficient reason to wade in there and change it. There is a little thing called sovereignty. Remember the outcry when Trump talked about the US annexing Greenland, and making Canada the 51st state?

There are potential humanitarian concerns too. Although Iran itself was in breach of humanitarian norms in its brutal put-down of domestic dissent, initiating a war in which civilians are certain to suffer and regional instability is increased is not a valid response. There are already reports that a school has been struck in Iran, with unconfirmed reports of 153 children killed - it always seems to happen that hospitals and schools end up suffering, despite claims of "precision targeting" - and this thing is just getting started. The invasion could even serve to strengthen the Islamic regime's resolve, and weaken internal grassroots resistance. Either way, it is unlikely to benefit the Iranian people, and the establishment of a puppet regime serving US and Israeli interests - which is probably the endgame here - will not help them. 

As you can probably tell, my instincts fall in the latter camp. The United States' invasion of Iran is not a just war, even if such a thing exists.

So, how are those tariffs going?

A detailed look in the G;lobe and Mail at how American and world trade has gone in 2025 concludes that: "The global economy has been transformed by shape-shifting US trade policies. Just not in the ways Mr. Trump envisioned."

As a global average, US tariffs are about 11.6%, but there are huge variation between countries, with China facing down average tariffs of 27% (although that is much less than the triple digit tariffs in place last spring), and Canada and Mexico facing tariffs of just 4.5-5% (due to the protections of the USMCA trade agreement - for now, at least). The global effective tariff rate has remained pretty much unchanged from pre-Trump days at around 2%.

Most countries are just trying, as far as possible, to avoid US trade and boost trade with other non-US countries, particularly China, India, Vietnam, etc. Canada's exports to the US fell by 5.8% in 2025; it's exports to the rest of the world jumped by 17.2%, although a lot of that was specifically due to the burgeoning price of gold, which was always a large Canadian export globally. Most countries are not retaliating in kind, generally speaking, but seeking to further open up non-US trade. 

The US has indeed narrowed its trading gap with many countries, especially China, a stated aim of Trump. But its trade deficits with other countries, such as Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, Thailand and Ireland, have actually worsened.

Of the three countries facing so-called "fentanyl tariffs" - China, Mexico and Canada - China has been by far the hardest hit, but Mexico (arguably the main offender as regards fentanyl) has hardly suffered at all. Canada is somewhere in between.

Canada has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs as a result of the US tariffs, but the USA has lost almost as many, percentagewise, and many more in absolute terms. The US employment slide actually predated Trump and his tariffs, although tariffs have certainly not helped (and have definitely not had the effect that Trump boasted about, of vastly improving US manufacturing employment).

Part of Trump's goal, certainly when negotiating international trade deals, was to increase overseas investment in the USA. Canada never actually signed any agreements with the US, and so has made no commitments to increase US investment like several other countries have. In fact, Canadian net investment in the US has cratered, falling to a 12-year low.

Another victory Trump claims for his tariffs is the sterling performance of the stock exchanges. What he fails to mention is that the performance of the exchanges in the rest of the world has far outpaced that of the US stock exchange, a stark reversal of the trends over the previous decade.

And finally, and no means least, Americans' opinions of US economic policy (inflation and employment) is also tanking. Americans have rarely ever felt so pessimistic in the last five decades. It remains to be seen how that pessimism plays it in the upcoming.mid-term elections.

Ellison family ownership of CNNnwoudl be disastrous for media bias

The on-again-off-again bid by Netflix to acquire ownership of Warner Bros Discovery seems to be off again, this time probably permanently. And while you might not be particularly interested which global conglomerate owns which bit of Hollywood or who is in control of the Cartoon Network, there are other considerations that might be much more impactful for the United States and even the world.

Now that Netflix has pulled out of the deal, Warner Bros Discovery will almost certainly become owned by Paramount Skydance, which has aggressively pursued the hostile takeover. Paramount Skydance is part of the tech/media empire of Larry and David Ellison, and therein lies the danger. Warner Bros Discovery owns, among many other things, CNN, one of the few media voices still critical of Donald Trump and his push towards fascism, and the new ownership structure puts CNN at risk of influence by Trump.

Larry Ellison in particular has a close relationship with Trump, and was a major donor towards Trump's re-election. When the Ellisons bought Paramount, CBS News (part of the Paramount group) saw a significant editorial shift and a concerted effort to appeal more to conservative viewers. There is every likelihood that Trump nemesis CNN, almost certainly under strong pressure from Trump himself behind the scenes, will suffer the same fate. CNN CEO Mark Thompson felt compelled to issue a rather panicky memo to staff members, urging that they "don't jump to conclusions about the future until we know more", but CNN staff at all levels are clearly worried.

With the Warner Bros Discovery acquisition, the Trump-aligned Ellison family will have assembled media holdings to rival that of the (equally conservative) Murdoch empire, and critical, progressive-leaning news outlets will be an endangered species in the US. Other than CNN - and there were rumours of CNN already starting to shift rightwards back in 2022, even before recent developments - left-leaning (or even centre-leaning) media in the USA is limited to MSNBC, NPR and PBS, and, in print, the New York Times and (maybe) the Washington Post. The right-wing stranglehold on US media will be almost complete.

And, in case you are maybe not convinced that media bias can actually affect people's political views in this day and age, let me assure you it can. Like social media, the mainstream press can materially influence elections, whether they tell the truth or not. Studies have clearly shown that when people change their news source their politics change too; it's that simple. And nobody knows this better than Donald J Trump and the MAGA movement.

"I apologized for my comments - no, really, I did!"

It's worth watching the bizarre press conference in which Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim made the same reply almost twenty times to journalists asking for Sim to explain his actions. Whatever the press corps asked, Sim's answer was "I called Councillor Orr and apologized for my comments", almost word for word, and with a straight face

The whole thing started a few days earlier when another councillor from Sim's party accused Councillor Sean Orr (not from that party) of distributing illegal drugs to people on the street. No-one really knows why he made the allegations, but he later publicly apologized to Orr for his accusations, which were based, he said, on unspecified incorrect sources. Later, though, Mayor Sim made exactly the same accusations about Councillor Orr (based, presumably, on the same incorrect information), and now he too is apologizing - twenty times over! 

It's very strange, but fascinating viewing. I assume he has been advised by his legal counsel to just keep repeating the safe line, and not to get drawn into any discussion that might compromise him legally.

Different attitudes of US hockey players to Trump's politicization

It's well-known that Donald Trump has no shame, no scruples, and these days neither does anyone else in his administration nor his social media team. They seem to think that anything goes, no limits, because that's the way Trump thinks. It's hard to know if Trump says "make me something like this", or if the functionaries come up with the daft ideas themselves (my guess is the former: Trump instigating but avoiding direct culpability).

So, since the unfortunate win by the US men's and women's hockey teams over Canada in the Winter Olympics - against the run of play, against the skill levels, let it be known - Trump has made a point of weaponizing the national hockey teams against Canada, partly because he's only seven years old (so there!) and partly because, well, because he can. Some of the team members seem into it, but some are distinctly uncomfortable at being used in this way.

For example, Brady Tkachuk - US star player and Ottawa Senators captain - is distinctly angry at being used in an AI-doctored anti-Canada video. "I would never say that. That's not who I am", he says, defensively. Now, I have little love or respect for either of the Tkachuk brothers - they are skillful but sneaky and nasty players - but to have your words twisted in that way is tough. And he has to work in Canada, with a demanding and censorious home crowd. 

He also tried to distance himself from Trump's tasteless locker room call after the gold medal match, and insisted that the unidentified recorded call of "close the northern border" was definitely not him.

Another US star, Auston Matthews, captain of the very Canadian Toronto Maple Leafs, apparently didn't think twice about accepting the invitation to Trump's White House swagger-fest - that part is pretty traditional, after all, for better or worse - although he did draw the line at appearing at the much more political State of the Nation address, unlike some of the other Americans.

A bunch of the American men's team, though, did think twice about attending Trump's politically-charged schmooze-a-palooza. In all, five members of the gold medal-winning US team skipped the traditional White House invitation. Coincidentally (or probably not), a majority of these men had Minnesota connections.

The US women's team, on the other hand, declined the White House en masse, unwilling to be used by Trump for his own nefarious political purposes. They also reacted publicly to Trump's objectionable joke about his "having to" invite the women's team (suggesting that they are much inferior, despite their just-as-valuable gold medal), calling it a 'distasteful joke".

Team USA Women 1 : Team USA Men 0.

But, more to the point, why does Trump have to be so divisive and offensive and so totally tone-deaf. He didn't have to make (or rather, have made, because I'm pretty sure he's not capable of doing it himself) an anti-Canada video with fabricated audio using one of America's top sportsmen without his permission. He didn't have to make tasteless macho jokes at the expense of one of the world's most dominant sports teams. But he does it anyway, because ... what? Because he childish and shallow? Is that all that's going on? Because he thinks it will play well with his far-right voting base? Who knows?

Canada agonizes over Winter Olympics performance - again

It's pretty widely agreed that Canada didn't have the Winter Olympics it wanted in Milano-Cortina 2026.

Canada ended up with 21 medals in total, substantially less than the 26 it earned in Beijing 2022 and, at eighth place, the first time the country has finished outside the top five since 1994. Listed according to gold medals won, we are even further down the table. The 29 medals of 2018 and the 14 golds in 2014 seem like a distant memory.

Predictably, the outcry comes that Canadian sports is underfunded. The boss of the Canadian Olympic Committee was of course one of the loudest whiney voices: "Canadians deserve a sports system that is properly funded. National sports organizations are stretched unbearably thin." It happens every time. (Actually, it happens even if the country does well!)

But it's hard to blame it on funding. Nathan MacKinnon didn't miss an open goal because of underfunding. Funding issues didn't cause Cassie Sharpe to crash and injure herself in the freeski halfpipe, or Mark McMorris to miss the whole Olympics due to injury. And you can't blame underfunding for all the times Canada came fourth not third. These things happen. And even if they seem to happen disproportionately, you still can't blame it on funding.

Adam van Koeverden, an Olympic multi-medalist himself and now the Liberals' minister for sports, denies that Canadian sports are underfunded, pointing to a 45% increase in the athletes' assistance program since 2018, and a more than doubling of the government's sports budget over the last 20 years. Like everything else, sports are competing for scarce government funds.

It's hard to quantify the effect of, and the need for, funding for Olympic performance. For that matter, it's hard to know how important a good showing at the Olympics actually is, in the scheme of things. Maybe that money is better spent elsewhere? But those who really care are convinced that it's critical. 

Here's an eye-opener, though: fifteen out of the twenty-one medals Canada won at the latest Winter Olympics were won by people who are funded through an organization called Great To Gold, a project established by two Toronto business leaders which canvasses funds from private and corporate backers for Canadian athletes who have been handpicked as having Olympic medal potential. But there's the rub: if they had medal potential anyway, maybe they didn't need the extra funding, maybe it made no difference? Like I say, this stuff is really hard to quantify.

Likewise, unlike Canada, many countries offer substantial incentives for medal wins. That's nice for successful athletes, but it's hard to believe that it has an appreciable effect on performance. Surely, all athletes at the Olympics Games are going for gold. Italy had by far the biggest incentive payout, and they did do very well. But they were also the host country, which must factor much more highly in performance.

Sure, Canada is no Norway, a winter sports powerhouse despite its tiny population. This is not so much due to funding, but perhaps more to the way winter sports are an integral part of Norwegian culture, although funding too has escalated in the country and Norway's results have spiked accordingly. Furthermore, although Norway has a tiny population, it has one of the world's highest standards of living, with good healthcare and education. All of this helps.

Neither is Canada the USA, the richest country in the world with one of the world's largest populations. But, in the scheme of things, we really don't do that badly. Yes, we should have won the men's hockey gold, after outplaying the Americans for almost 60 minutes. But we didn't, and maybe that's OK.

Trump's "great hospital boat" is a joke ... right?

I thought this was precious. Just when you thought he had finally understood the situation in Greenland, Donald Trump has despatched "a great hospital boat" to Greenland to service the many Greenlanders he says are "not being taken care of". This is presumably his idea of a PR coup of some sort.

In fact, Greenlanders have pretty good healthcare, provided free by Denmark. There are five regional hospitals across the island to care for the scattered population of 56,000. Any more complex cases that cannot by dealt with by the main hospital in Nuuk are sent for treatment in Denmark, also free of charge. Denmark has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, better than countries like the UK, France and Spain.

But this is best of all: coincidentally, just this weekend, Denmark's Arctic Command revealed that it had evacuated a crew member of a US submarine off the coast of Greenland who required urgent medical attention for treatment in Nuuk.

It all sounds like a comedy sketch to me.

What is Influenza D, and should we be worried about it?

Influenza D has, historically, mainly affected farm animals like cattle and pigs, but there is evidence that it is now spreading through the human population. It has been found among farm workers, in hospitals, and even in airports. It spreads stealthily and quickly, barely triggering immune alarms. Infectious disease scientists are concerned that it might mark the start of the next global pandemic, and some are calling it "a legitimate pandemic threat requiring immediate surveillance".

Researchers have found that Influenza D replicates in human lungs just as efficiently as seasonal flu, but it had learnt to suppress the cellular alarm systems that normally alert the immune system to viral infection, allowing it to take hold and start replicating before normal defences can kick in.

Thing is, though, unlike the usual symptoms of seasonal flu - fever, aches, cough, runny nose - Influenza D has very mild or even no symptoms at all. So, people can go about their normal business while potentially spreading the virus to others unknowingly - ideal pandemic conditions.

But, if it usually has few or no symptoms, why should we even worry about it? Well, scientists worry that it could learn to exchange genetic material with other viruses, allowing it to mutate into something more concerning for humans, and it could evade immune responses and antiviral interventions.

Well, maybe. But this is still very much in the realm of "what if". It may spread widely with little or no injurious symptoms. Or it may mutate, a little or a lot. Or an entirely different virus may appear on the scene with much greater pandemic potential. It's good that scientists are monitoring these things, but to call Influenza D the next big pandemic threat is probably a stretch.

Supreme Court's defiance of Trump changes little

So, the US Supreme Court finally got around to announcing their ruling that Trump's "emergency" tariffs were in fact illegal. His imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unconstitutional and must stop, they concluded. This came as no surprise to most people - including Trump, I imagine - although the 6-3 ruling did mean that three of the Republican justices on the court (including two that Trump himself appointed) voted against a core precept of Trump's protectionist policy. The Republican members of the Court usually make a habit of voting along party lines, not according to the actual legal logic of the case, but this time it seems they made an exception.

Predictably, Trump was apoplectic, bad-mouthing and slandering the judges who voted against him. At one point, he went full Ozymandias, crowing that he could, if he wanted, completely destroy whole countries and their economies. It was hard to see it as anything other than an old washed-up guy shaking his little fists at the heavens.

The reaction to the Court's decision among American businesses and abroad was largely muted, even wistful. People, even many Republicans, are just so over Trump. Dealing with a fractious toddler, day in, day out, is just exhausting and soul-destroying. People are just trying to remain patient - and hopefully solvent - trusting that, eventually, this too shall pass. 

Although technically a big blow to Trump's agenda, the Court decision will probably have few real-world implications, and Trump has vowed to find other ways to achieve the same ends. It's more of a moral victory than anything else. International trade is still in disarray, and uncertainty has, if anything, increased not decreased. The ruling does not affect sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and lumber, which are levied under Section 232 of the 1974 Trade Act, tariffs that affect Canada more than any others. And few people really expect to see any of the $130 billion or so in refunds - Trump has openly vowed to tie such remedies up in court for years to come, a common ploy of his.

Tellingly, Trump already had a new tariff plan ready, albeit a less drastic and flexible one, utilizing other obscure US laws. Most people understood well that the court ruling did not mean that tariffs would suddenly go away: tariffs are the be-all-and-end-all of Trump's policy. At this point, I'm not even sure he remembers why they are important to him - they have just become a matter of principle, a knee-jerk reaction to anything he doesn't like.

It would be fascinating to know how all this will be remembered by future historians. It's hard to fathom, even for us - imagine how future generations will look back on it.

Why does Trump want regime change in Cuba?

After Trump's quick and painless (for him at least) invasion of Venezuela, most commentators believe that the hapless Caribbean island of Cuba is next on his list. Except, hold on, Venezuela has oil, lots of it; Cuba has a few bananas and some tobacco. What's in it for America?

Whether it makes sense or not - and, let's face it, much that Trump does makes no sense at all - Cuba does seem to be in his sights. Trump toy boy Marco Rubio, who also happens to be his Secretary of State, has been carrying on secret negotiations with figurehead Raúl Castro's grandson, who is also called Raúl Castro. We can call him Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro to distinguish, or, better, "Raúlito", or Little Raúl, or even "El Cangrejo", the Crab, (due to a deformed finger, apparently). Take your pick.

Raúlito is a much more Americanized individual than most figures of any power in Cuba - young, business-minded, and sufficiently distanced from the revolutionary attitudes of his older family members, much like Marco Rubio himself. And there's the rub. You can see why Rubio is so driven to change the old Communist regime in Cuba (his parents fled the island, just before Fidel Castro's revolution), and you have to assume that Rubio is the one behind the push to make Cuba yet another American state (unofficially), with Trump just coming along for the ride. 

Rubio's negotiations with Raúlito (or "discussions", as officials insist they are better described) are not official policy, but Trump does openly talk about regime change in a Cuban context. Modern American hegemony, however, is much more about control than it is about conversion to democracy and regime change per se. As an authoritarian himself, Trump is much more comfortable dealing with other authoritarian states than with democratic ones that are beholden to the whims of their electorates.

It's noticeable that, in Venezuela, Trump left the Chavista totalitarian regime in place, rather than open it up to democratic elections. So long as he has effective control, that is the way Trump prefers it, and that is the way he would prefer it in Cuba. So, break the economy, soften up the people, groom a potential leader who could control the locals: that seems to be the plan. If "regime change lite" can be effected with a minimum of American official involvement, all the better.

As for why, most people have long since stopped trying to understand Trump and his motivations. Yes, he would like to assert control over a Communist island just 90 miles from Florida. That's all part of the Monroe (Donroe) Doctrine. Not that Cuba is in any shape to threaten the US in any way, nor are they a conduit for Russia (or China?), and haven't been for decades. I sometimes think that these are just games for Trump, little challenges he likes to amuse himself with, cheap thrills he derives from his ability to control the levers of power.

The US has kept up sanctions on Cuba for most of the last 70 years, and Trump has only strengthened them. Trump now controls Venezuelan oil flows and he has stopped Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba, and threatened sanctions on Mexico, Cuba's other major supplier, if they continue to export to the island (and on any other country that has the temerity to oppose his will). It's power grid is failing, hospitals are in disarray, food and fuel are scarce, garbage fills the streets, inflation is rampant, tourists are staying away, and those that can are leaving the island in droves. 

The island is on the edge of collapse and a humanitarian crisis, all thanks to this ideological action by the USA. Things are almost as bad as they were under the Washington-backed Batista regime back in the 1950s, conditions that led to Castro's revolution in 1959. Trump is banking on most Cubans blaming the current "revolutionary" regime, not the USA, for the country's precipitous decline, and anecdotally that does seem to be happening. A Trump-led regime change (of some sort) can only be just around the corner. 

Whether you like Cuba's political system or not - and there's a lot to dislike - Trump must be discouraged from his games. Any ideas how we do that?

Why is chocolate STILL so expensive?

It seems like just a few months ago that everyone was kvetching about the record prices of cocoa and chocolate, and now a slump in prices has left warehouses in major producers  Ivory Coast and Ghana full of unsold and mouldering bags of cocoa beans.

Cocoa prices reached historical highs of $12,000 per tonne at the end of 2024, almost doubling during the year and raising Christmas chocolate prices to unheard-of heights. This was due, we were told, to diseased trees in West Africa, adverse dry weather conditions (and, of course, speculation). Demand fell precipitously as prices peaked, and the industry was in panic mode.

Now, we are told that prices have slumped to below $5,000 per tonne in early 2026. African cooperatives can't sell their stocks, partly due to falling demand, because the prices were so high just recently(!), but partly due to excessive supply, because the weather has improved, because the effects of swollen shoot virus are passing, and because of the explosion of Ecuador as a chocolate producer. Ecuador is now the No. 2 producer of cocoa globally. It has high-quality cacao varieties, sustainable and relatively equitable agricultural practices, and high yields, and it is rapidly leaving West Africa in the dust.

However, don't expect the price of your favourite chocolate bar to come down any time soon. Demand is on the increase again, particularly in Asia and the EU, and particularly for premium products - ethical, fair-trade, traceable, organic, low-sugar, etc - and that in itself would be enough to keep prices high. But also commercial chocolate-makers have long lead times and buy through long-term contracts, so their costs may still be relatively high. Furthermore, as they watch world prices slew around wildly, they will charge a premium for that uncertainty.

And anyway, the likes of Hershey, Mondelez and Mars are not charities, and if it looks like consumers are content to pay the higher prices, then those prices are not going to come down, ever. Super-premium brands like Lindt and Ferrero Rocher didn't really increase their already-high prices when cocoa prices went up, and by the same token they will not be reducing them now.

In fact, when was the last time you noticed the price of ANYTHING going down? That's not the way the world works.

Go ahead, coffee is probably good for you

Coffee must be one of the most-studied substances on earth. There are no end of articles and studies claiming to provide proof that coffee is good for this or that, or bad for the other. Often these claims are in direct conflict with each other, so we still don't really know if it's good for you or bad for you on balance. Most people probably have a vague idea that it's slightly bad for you, but not so bad that you need to give it up (maybe just limit it a bit). And that may be just about right.

While it's pretty much uncontested that coffee, and specially caffeine, stimulates the central nervous system and increases alertness, there is also some pretty convincing evidence that coffee is also good for long-term brain health and cognitive function and as protection against dementia. 

A recently-published large longitudinal study and meta-analysis out of Harvard suggests that a daily intake of two to three cups of caffeinated coffee or one to two cups of tea have a protective effect on the brain and result in statistically-significant reduced dementia risks and improved cognitive function. Decaffeinated coffee had no such benefits. Note that these are just observational studies, and so can only uncover associations and not definitive proof, but they are consistent with many previous studies and meta-analyses.

So, unless you suffer from caffeine sensitivity or acid reflux or are excessively prone to sleep disruptions, go ahead have a couple of cups of java (or tea). Don't get carried away, of course, but equally don't be swayed by some of the reports of coffee's more iniquitous effects.

The suggestion that Canada needs nuclear weapons is ludicrous

Luckily, hardly anybody listens to retired Canadian General Wayne Eyre these days. That's just as well because otherwise we may be tempted to take his advice on pursuing a home-grown nuclear weapons program, just in case, "if we decide to go that way", as he says. He says that Canada will never have true strategic independence without it own nuclear deterrent.

Boy and their toys, eh? Eyre clearly didn't spend too much time thinking about what would be involved in such an undertaking. Others have, and it's not pretty.

To acquire nuclear weapons, Canada would need a site for enriching uranium or (more likely) reprocessing plutonium, and build hightly secure factories there. Then, it would need huge investment in delivery systems (missiles), and a remote, geologically appropriate place to test the weapons, without which it would not be a credible deterrent. All this would costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and take many years, a project comparable to a moon landing program according to one American senior official.

But that's not all. Canada is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a global reputation as an internationalist peace-keeping country. Pulling out of the NPT and developing nuclear weapons would radically re-brand the country, and put it in the company of countries like North Korea, Israel and South Sudan. Its reputation would never recover.

It's not even clear that nuclear weapons are such a good deterrent anyway. Nuclear capabilities have not stopped India and Pakistan from engaging in several border skirmishes over the years. Nuclear-armed Israel has (thankfully) not dared to use those nukes its military dealings with Palestine, Iran, Syria. All of Russia's many nuclear weapons have not stopped Ukraine from making incursions into the country, nor has it used them in Ukraine (and faced the worldwide comdemnation that would result). So, what use are nuclear arms really?

So, thanks for your input, General, but maybe in future, just keep it to yourself. And please, stay retired. Thankfully, Defence Minister David McGuinty was quick to dismiss Eyre's suggestions, and most other commentators seem to agree.

Hungary's Orbán says the EU is more of a threat than Russia

Victor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, is on his heels just two months before the April 12 general election. Polls suggest that his anti-Europe Fidesz party is trailing the pro-EU Tisza party of Péter Magyar. Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004, long before Orbán came to power, but the membership has been far from cordial.

Orbán being Orbán, he is doubling down on his anti-EU campaign rhetoric and, during a campaign speech today, he went so far as to suggest that Russia is not Hungary's enemy, the European Union is: "We must get used to the idea that those who love freedom should not fear the East, but Brussels".

Orbán has long been an apologist of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and has even supported him in his occupation of Ukraine. He maintains that it is not clear who attacked whom in 2022. He has many times acted as a spoiler in UN decision-making, especially where financial support for Ukraine is concerned. He has also become a leading European acolyte of Donald Trump. In return, the EU has frozen billions of euros of funding to Hungary because of Orbán's dismantling of democratic institutions, his erosion of judicial independence, and the widespread corruption in the country that he has fomented.

Europe is desperately hoping that, come April, this ongoing thorn in their side will be banished once and for all. Anyone who can publicly claim that the EU is more of a threat to freedom than Russia is very much more than just a loose cannon.

Un-curling-like language at the Winter Olympics

I couldn't help but smile at the indignation and outrage at the Winter Olympics mens curling competition, as the Canadian team is once again accused of cheating by opponents Sweden.

Curling is still considered, I suppose, a gentleman's game, and has no truck with newfangled ideas like video replays and what have you (although the handles of the stones are now electronic and give a green light when the stone is correctly released before the "hog line"). But Sweden's Oskar Eriksson accused Canada's Marc Kennedy of "double-touching" the stone, i.e. giving it a little tap with a finger after release. 

Most curlers would say that there is little or no way this could actually help the shot - given that it is still 100 feet from the rings - but it is technically illegal if spotted. In this case, it was not spotted, and when the referees did spot-checks after the allegations, no transgressions were identified (surprise!). Canada went on to win 8-6.

As much as the allegations of cheating, though, the outrage was mainly for the "unsportmanlike" language used on the ice sheet. Eriksson's accusations were muscular and vigorous, but Kennedy's defence was events more so, concluding with "just fuck off" and "I don't give a shit". Most un-curling-like language!

Despite Kennedy's vigorous claims that he has never ever done such a thing, video replays do show him doing exactly that thing. The Switzerland team also accuses him of the same in a previous match. Hell, even the Canadian women's team is getting in on the act. Canada is definitely the bad guy here. 

Kennedy has since been given a verbal warning for his language, and umpires are paying special attention to possible cheat moves as the competition approaches its climax. It all seems a bit disingenuous, though. They should hear the language routinely used in the average hockey game!

Oh, how dating has changed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surprised? Me neither.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, there is no epidemic of trans violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympic chutzpah or hubris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump has a hissy fit about new Canada-US bridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor and Detroit

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

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

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

Carney explains why he still considers himself a climate change leader

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

Southern America has turned into an Orwellian nightmare

Many Trump supporters, particularly in southern states like Texas, are starting to feel the effects of the constant ICE immigration raids. 

If you ask them, they say they still fully support Trump and his immigration and border security policies. But they are starting to understand just how reliant the southern US economy, especially the construction trade, is on immigrant labour. So, now they are starting to complain about the paramilitary-style ICE raids, which has half of the country in a state of chronic low-level fear interspersed with acute panic attacks.

And guess what? It's bad for business. People who still call themselves Trump supporters are monitoring, and contributing to, online group chats which share ICE agent sightings, hurriedly hiding their workers away lest they be snatched and deported. They are erecting razor wire fences around their properties to keep the agents out. 

And yet they will still tell you they support Trump and his border control agenda. Somehow they have disconnected Trump and the ICE raids, and they insist that they know that Trump loves his country, much more than Biden ever did, yada yada.

What kind of a dystopian world are they living in? George Orwell would have had a ball with all this.

Why can't we make beer cans in Canada?

I remember early last year when Trump's tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel were brought in, and there were interviews on TV with Canadian brewers lamenting that the beer cans they imported from the USA were suddenly so much more expensive.

It made no sense to me. For one thing, if Canada produces most of America's aluminum, why do we even buy beer cans from America? Why don't we make our own beer cans with our own aluminum?

I never did find out why, and I've not really thought about it since, until I came across an article today talking about this very issue. It's been nearly a year, and Canadian brewers are still complaining about the cost of American beer cans. And we are still not producing our own beer cans with our own aluminum.

Even now, it's "nearly impossible" to find certain kinds of beer can made here in Canada. "There's actually no Canadian source for a truly Canadian-made tall can". Canada exports aluminum to the US, where it gets manufactured into "can sheet", and then exported back to Canada to be made into actual cans. Ridiculous! But why?

The reason, it seems, comes down to economic efficiency. It makes sense to smelt the aluminum in Canada, particularly in Quebec, where most of our aluminum is mined, because Quebec has very cheap hydro electricity, and smelting is a very electricity-dependent activity. However, it makes more economic sense for the US to produce the can sheets because America has a much larger market it can sell can sheet to. It apparently does not make economic sense for a Canadian company to produce can sheet.

Given the effects of the Trump tariffs, though, it surprises me that it is STILL makes no economic sense. You'd think there would now be an economic case for a Canadian company to produce cans locally, say in Quebec. The demand from breweries across the whole country would surely be sufficient to enable huge economies of scale (we drink a lot of beer!) Yes, there are transportation costs to factor in, and this is one big country. But it just surprises me that no-one has even tried.

Yes, we do need (more) immigrants

Interesting. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem (which always sounds like a pseudonym to me), at a speech he gave yesterday at the Empire Club of Canada, has specifically identified Canada's reduced immigration quotas as a source of disruption to the economy over the next few years.

Macklem said that economic growth and the labour market in Canada is being held back by several factors including US tariffs, artificial intelligence, declining fertility, but also slowed immigration. He explains that fewer immigrants "means fewer new consumers and workers in the economy, which lowers out economic potential". 

This is not the first time Macklem has referred to immigration as an economic boon. Back in October 2024, when Justin Trudeau was first starting to cut back immigration targets after sustained criticism from Conservatives, housing groups, etc, Macklem warned that immigration curbs would substantially impact the central bank's growth forecasts.

It's refreshing to see such an establishment figure telling it like it is on immigration, as Mark Carney follows in Trudeau's footsteps and continues to cut back on immigration targets (probably too much).

Another immigration issue hanging over Mr. Carney is the large number of undocumented immigrants in Canada, estimated at anywhere from 200,000 and 2 million(!) He could follow the lead of Donald Trump in America and deport them by the hundreds of thousands. Or he could follow the lead of Spain, which has once again given permanent residence and eventual citizenship to half a million undocumented immigrants. Several other European countries have also gone this route, as has Canada at various times in the past.

So, treat them as a threat, or treat them as a potential asset? Now would be a good time not to follow Trump.

Alberta demands more say on judicial appointments

Danielle Smith is on the warpath again. Yawn.

This time she is demanding - demanding, I say! - that the province of Alberta have more say over the appointment of Alberta judges, even though the appointment of federal judges in Alberta, as in any province, is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. She also wants a relaxation of the requirement for bilingualism in the higher echelons of the legal profession because, well, Albertans don't do bilingualism.

It's like she and her administration stay up at night thinking up new ways to nettle the federal government, the pettier the issue the better. It seems that her voting constituency, which contains a fair few Alberta separatists, expect it of her. But, man, is the rest of the country fed up with it!

So, this is a woman who has often complained about the judiciary not doing what she wants, even having the temerity to have different political opinions and worldviews to her. This is a woman who has openly stated that she would like to be able to politically vet judges, America-style (and look how well that system is going...) Alberta judges felt compelled to make a public complaint after that outburst, calling on Smith to respect the independence of the judicial appointment system.

And she expects Ottawa to hand over more control? She's even gone full Trump, threatening to withhold Alberta's funding of.the judicial system is she doesn't get what she wants. She may just as well have said she will impose tariffs if she doesn't get her way. This is Smith's idea of negotiation, collaboration. That kind of says it all. And anyway, it is the federal government that pays the salaries of federal judges, so Smith is talking here about withholding funds for admin help, furniture, cellphones, etc. So, it's a very small gun she is holding to Carney's head, although just her tone alone is nevertheless enough to put the government's back up. I guess she probably didn't think the whole thing through.

Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser has, quite rightly, dismissed Smith's "demands" out of hand, saying, "I'm planning to maintain the process that we have in place, that has independence, that has rigour, that has led to stellar candidates being appointed, including recently in Alberta". Perhaps a little more tongue in cheek, Fraser also quipped, "We welcome the feedback from representatives of the Alberta government ... it's been very helpful".

Is Mark Carney in the Epstein Files?

Well, here's a question I never thought to ask: is Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney mentioned in the Epstein files? It's not an unreasonable question - the files are a virtual who's who of men of influence, although not all of the mentions are necessarily incriminating.

The CBC has done the hard work for me. It turns out that Carney is mentioned quite a few times - particularly during the time of his tenure as Governor of the Bank of England - basically because he was an important figure in the financial world. The mentions are mainly references to events or articles that happen to involve Carney. However, none of the documents show any direct communications between Carney and Epstein, and certainly nothing salacious is even hinted at. 

Yes, there are fake photos circulating on the internet showing Carney on Epstein's private island - of course there are! - but they are just that, proven AI fakes. There are also one or two real photos of Carney at an event in 2013 with Epstein's side-kick and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell - apparently Carney's wife's sister went to school with Maxwell, and anyway Maxwell was ubiquitous in the British social scene of the time - but Carney never had any dealings with her.

So, not a big surprise. Carney seems way too straight and buttoned up to be involved in any of Epstein's or Maxwell's schemes. Worth checking, though.

Dropping Canada's EV mandate illustrates the failings of our auto sector

The way I see it, Canada's decision to drop its electric vehicle (EV) mandate, widely expected to be announced in the next day or two, in favour of a new, less-aggressive system of fuel efficiency standards and credits, represents a failure on the part of the Canadian auto industry - at the production, wholesale and retail levels - as well as, to some extent, the Canadian public.

It's not that the Trudeau-era climate change policies were inherently bad ones, as Pierre Poilievre and the CEOs of multiple automotive companies would have us think. Mark Carney would have supported them wholeheartedly at one time - he was a very vocal apologist of carbon taxes at one time. But Carney is pragmatic to a fault, and not fond of grand gestures and statements of principle (in the way that Trudeau was very fond of them, to a fault).

But our automotive industry just did not put much effort into actively pursuing the EV policy. It just sat back and hoped it would happen of its own accord. And, while some members of the public (like me!) did the right thing - i.e. go electric - for its own sake, most others also sat back and waited for everybody else to do the right thing, which is never going to work. Then, when the Trudeau government started sending mixed messages on its environmental commitments, and when EV rebates were withdrawn, the driving public just threw up its hands and said, "well, what can we do?"

Carney, once a staunch environmentalist, has gradually dismantled (or at least scaled back) most of the progressive environmental initiatives of the previous administration. Scrapping the EV mandate is just another such, although one welcomed by the lazy domestic auto sector. Relying on tailpipe standards would be a return to the pre-EV mandate, pre-carbon tax status quo, which, you might remember, was not particularly effective in reducing our carbon emissions. There is talk of bringing back some EV rebates, but we must wait to see what that entails, just as we need to wait to see how stringent the tailpipe emission regulations will be. (We don't have a progressive US model to follow this time.)

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE

The new Liberal EV policy, as expected, has scrapped a firm EV sales mandate, although it did restate non-enforceable (and still rather improbable) "goals" of 75% EVs by 2035 and 90% by 2040. This is still much more modest than the Trudeau-era goal of 100% by 2035.

To that end, the announcement details a return of incentive rebates of $5,000 for full battery EVs and $2,500 for plug-in hybrid EVs, although even that modest rebate is set to reduce each year until it reaches $2,000 for full EVs and $1,000 for PHEVs by 2030. The rebates also only apply to EVs with a sales value below $50,000, unless it is a model that is made in Canada (which I guess is fair enough), and then only for imports from a country with which Canada has a free-trade agreement, which disqualifies those 49,000 Chinese EVs a year that Canada recently agreed to. So, pretty carefully-worded.

The package also includes $1.5 billion towards improving the country's EV fast-charging network, given that range anxiety is still perceived as a major barrier to consumers looking to switch to an electric vehicle.

It also installs new supports for Canadian auto workers as the EV transition ramps up, including a "work-sharing grant" and a "workforce alliance", as well as committing $3 billion from the existing Strategic Response Fund and $100 million from the Regional Tariff Response Initiative to help accelerate investment in Canada's auto sector.

Interestingly, the main thrust of the new rules was supposed to be the implementation of more stringent tailpipe carbon emissions standards for Canadian vehicles, but we didn't get to find out about those - they will supposedly be outlined later this year, and will apply to model years 2027 to 2032. So, in a way, the bad news (for many people, and certainly for vehicle manufacturers) has been postponed, presumably lest it rain on Mr. Carney's EV parade. We are told it is supposed to "ultimately lead to emission reductions equivalent to 75% of all 2035 automobile sales falling into the EV category". Except, I'm not really sure what on earth that means (I'm not even sure the grammar is right!)

The auto sector has been generally welcoming of the new policy, although - shock horror! - the opposition Conservatives appear to disagree with pretty much everything in it.