Some big losers in the US mid-terms (and just generally)

Elon Musk donated to Republican Party midterm candidates an estimated $474 billion - about the GDP of South Africa or Demmark, and more than the GDP of all but 40 counties in the world. 

Given what transpired yesterday, you have to feel a bit sorry for him. Hold on, scratch that. You don't have to feel at all sorry. He deserves everything he got, and everything he might still get in the future as a result of the Blue Tsumani that hit Trump-weary USA. And especially the Blue Wave in Texas, where Musk moved most of his operations because he didn't like paying taxes. Musk's stock holdings in Tesla and Spacex are now worth significantly less than they were, as both companies' share prices took a dive immediately after the midterm results.

Someone else we shouldn't feel sorry for? Haley Stevens, who lost the Michigan Democratic Party primary to Abdul El-Sayed, and promptly endorsed the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. It seems she is more pro-Israel than she is pro-Michigan, certainly more than she is pro-Democrat. Mr. El-Sayed won Michigan for the Democrats anyway, and Ms. Stevens' reputation and career is in tatters (unless she moves to Israel). God, these people!

And another loser? Donald J. Trump.

The case for an apology and reparations for slavery

It's a tricky one. King Charles III of Britain has been trying to thread the needle at the Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean over the issue of historical slavery. In his usual, and I think perfectly genuine, heartfelt manner, the king acknowledged "the great suffering and injustices in the past in these islands and beyond". He was careful to qualify it with, "We cannot change the actions of those who came before us", and certainly fell short of an official apology or any talk of financial reparations.

Many of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations feel this was a missed opportunity, and see it as a slight to them. They have long called for an apology and reparations. As one member put it: "Acknowledgement is like when somebody hits your car and says, 'Oh, I'm sorry!' But the apology when they hit your car and say, 'I'm sorry and here is my insurance'. It's the difference between recognizing that something bad has happened, and holding yourself accountable for it".

Fair enough, I guess. But should today's nations be held accountable for the sins of the past? Do a few words of official apology outweigh years of acknowledgements of past transgressions? Are they really more interested in the filthy lucre of reparations than the moral imperative of an apology? Lots of open questions. 

Britain was not alone in its pursuit of the lucrative slave trade. France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and the United states. For what it's worth, Britain was actually the first of those countries to outlaw the slave trade, in 1807, and its early changes galvanized the other counrties into action. Thus far, the Netherlands is the only country to have apologized and no country has agreent to pay reparations.

Recently, new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham - not a man you could accuse of having a weak moral compass, I'd argue - came out publicly on the issue. He says he may be open to making an apology, but definitively ruled out reparations, arguing that they were not the right answer". In his words, "I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part".

This seems to be the view across the political spectrum in Britain and abroad, and other is a compelling, almost irrefutable, argument. Making a formal apology, on the other hand, costs nothing and can be done with conviction and sensitivity. So, it should definitely be done, in my view.

Why attack a freezer?

 There has been a new rash of cyberattacks on Europe's supermarket fridges and freezers. After attacks on French refrigeration systems last month, the latest attacks ranged from Sweden to Netherlands to Belgium to Ireland. The perpetrators are unknown and the motives are equally obscure. There have been no extortion or political demands.

Why would anyone want to spoil thousands of euros worth of food? What would be the point? And why just a few supermarkets out of the hundreds that most of the supermarket chains that could.have ben targeted? The randomness of it all maybe points to the antics of nerdy kids with too much time on their hands. Most (all?) of the attacks targeted Danish temperature-control system manufacturer Danfoss, so a disgruntled employee or ex-employee? Why no statement of complaint, then? I suppose a maverick state like Russia, North Korea, Iran or China could be behind it, but it's a very strange choice of targets in that case.

The other things that strikes me is: why do fridges and freezers need to be internet-enabled anyway? The Internet of Things is expanding apace these days, but sometimes it seems to be doing it for no good reason, technology for its own sake. It's easy to change the temperature on supermarket fridges - even twenty or thirty supermarket fridges - manually. And how of often would it ever need changing anyway? Is there really a compelling need to have a fridge AI-controlled?

I see this as just another example of technology leading and humans scrambling to keep up. Other examples are the whole AI thing, 5G cellphone systems, cloning, and probably many more. I'm not anti-technology, it just seems like some technological changes are introduced for no particular reason, solutions in search of a problem, just because we can. Blame it.on capitalism if you like (and you may be right), but it seems to me that more oversight andnregulation is needed. However, that's not how 21st century capitalism rolls.

A 106-storey supertall skyscraper approaches completion in Toronto

It's kind of hard to believe, but at the foot of Yonge Street, in downtown Toronto, a 106-storey building is gradually coming to completion. For context, that's just four storeys shy of New York's ill-fated World Trade Centre twin towers, and we know how that ended.

At over 350 metres, the Pinnacle Skytower is Canada's tallest building, and an example of a "supertall skyscraper". The top of the building is at about the same height as the observation deck of the CN Tower, clearly visible just across downtown. It doesn't compare to some of the skyscrapers rising up in China and elsewhere in Asia, but it's pretty damned high. The first 12 stories will be house a fancy hotel, and the 13th to the 105th floors will contain 958 apartments. (It doesn't bear thinking about how much they will cost.)

I guess it's not a bad thing to be ambitious. But I can't help worry about hubris. You certainly wouldn't catch me living there, even if I could afford it.

Russia to be allowed back into international hockey competitions

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has suddenly made the inexplicable and unwelcome decision to allow Russia back into international ice hockey championships. The Court says there is a "lack of sufficient evidence" to support the security concerns of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), although surely that is not the only issue at play here.

Russia has been banned from international sports since it illegally invaded Ukraine back in 2022. As the war approaches its five year mark, and Russia continues to pound Ukraine daily wih missiles and drones attacks, it's not clear what has changed that would merit such a decision. My guess is that pressure has been applied behind the scenes (by Putin? Trump?), although it wouldn't surprise me if money had also changed hands.

The IIHF has objected to the CAS decision, which it has to abide by. The IIHF has already excluded Russia from events for 2026-7, like the men and women's World Championships, and the World Juniors which are to be held in Alberta later this year. The high profile men's World Champuonsip next year is a particular concern because Ukraine has already qualified to play (for the first time in 20 years). Does Ukraine get excluded to allow in Russia? The draw has already been made, so how is Russia to fit into it? Might Ukraine and Russia end up actuallyblaying each other (it's anybody's guess how that might go).

Several other national associations, including Finland, Sweden, Germany, Czechia and of course Ukraine (but not Canada so far), have come our strongly against the decision. It's quite possible that boycotts may occur if the decision is allowed to stand. The Canadian government has also registered its objections, which is heartening, albeit in diplomatic terms like "very unwelcome" and "disappointing".

This seems to be part of an unfortunate broader movement towards reintegrating Russia into international sports competitions, including the Olympics, swimming, volleyball, and possibly even football. Again, what is driving this change is not clear, but you have to assume that money and Trump are involved somewhere along the line.

UPDATE

Into this political morass strides Mark Carney, who has just unequivocally barred Russia from playing hockey anywhere in Canada, including in this year's World Juniors.

Carney: "While Russia and Belarus are supporting this illegal, unjustified and horrific war in Ukraine, as long as that's going on, there will be nine of those athletes competing for their countries in this country. So, if you're specifically asking about the World Juniors, the Russians will not be there."

Seems pretty clear. Up yours CAS!

Ford government walks back yet another environmental policy

It looks like the Ford government is reneging on yet another environmental commitment. 

Back in 2021, it took the rather unexpected and enlightened step of introducing the concept of "extended producer responsibility" into OntarioXs waste management and recycling system. Now, it seems they have thought better of that and decided to do away with it completely, and let food packagers off the hook for the estimated 80,000 tonnes of flexible packaging - bags, wraps, films and pouches - they force on us every year.

It us proposing to amend the Blue Box (recycling) regulations again to remove any responsibility from packagers and food producers for managing the excess wasteful packaging it uses, thereby also removing any impetus to reduce packaging, some of which goes into recycling, but much of which ends up in our landfills.

It was never quite clear to me how it would all work, but the idea of making the polluter pay seemed like a good one in principle. But Ontario's Conservative government is not big on principles, or on the environment in general, at least where it cones into conflict with the serious business of making money.

Canadians illegally voting in US elections may be enabling a much bigger fraud

 The number of Canadians who have been either charged or indicted of US election fraud or similar offences over the last few weeks has risen to 20, with five more charged in the last week. Citizens of a few other countries, including Australia, UK, Colombia, Cuba and Jamaica have also been caught up in this sweep by the dreaded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Thing is, though, none of these people (most of whom are listed as legal permanent residents of the USA) are guilty of illegally voting in these current elections. The charges all relate to various previous elections. I have no idea why these people felt they needed to vote in these past US elections, or even whether it was deliberate or not, but they may inadvertently be contributing to an even bigger election fraud to come.

The reason these illegal voters are being rounded up now, just days before the November 3rd mid-term elections, is pretty obvious. The numbers involved are tiny, but the Trump administration and the Republican Party, which is staring down a strong probability that they will face some humiliating defeats in the mid-terms, will doubtless use them as "evidence" of widespread voter fraud in these elections, and generally sow doubt about the integrity of the election, possibly with a view to declaring it  null and void if need be.

Ford gives casinos a tax break in midst of gambling addiction crisis

Speaking of Doug Ford, here's just another example of how out-of-touch and how callous the man is.

Yesterday, Ford announced he is slashing the tax rate for casinos, specifically in the Niagara region, as part of his Destination Niagara push to develop the already highly-developed area. He is setting the gambling tax rate at 9.75% for the Niagara region (can he actually do that, set different tax rates for different areas?) The current rate is not publicly known (which is also pretty sketchy) but is thought to be upward of 40%. So this is a big deal, and designed to attract other "world class gaming operators" to the area, which already has distinct low-class circus vibes.

Think of that what you will, but this announcement comes at a time when problem gambling, addiction and associated suicides are spiking in Ontario, particularly after the recent expansion of online casinos. Problem gambling and addiction have tripled in the last 8 years, with some 130,000 Ontarians now showing signs of gaming problems. This July, Ontario (along with Alberta) legalized online gambling run by private companies, and that led to a noticeable spike in cases, following another spike in 2022 when Ontario legalized private physical casinos.

And this is the point at which Ford decides to introduce policies to make gambling and casinos even more ubiquitous! Compare this with the UK, which just increased its gambling tax from 20% to 25%, especially on those machines and stakes "more associated with gambling harm".

Doug Ford does not know more than the BoC

Our Glorious Ontario Leader Doug Ford seems to think he knows more about macroeconomics than the combined wisdom of the financial.egg-heads of the Bank of Canada. The BoC increased its key interest rate by 25 basis point to 2.5%, the first time it has done so since July 2023. This is still quite low, certainly compared to the USA's 3.9%, but there are those who object to any increase, as a matter of principle. 

Mr. Ford's comments on the rate hike were not subtle: "Raising interest rates right now is a massive mistake. Higher rates won't get oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz or lower tariffs on Canadian businsses." Well, duh. Neither will NOT changing interest rates for that matter. And I'm pretty sure the Bank of Canada is quite aware of the stakes here. But things are not as simple as Mr. Ford likes to make them appear.

Of course, the Bank did not take this step lightly. It is quite aware that the Canadian economy is struggling at the momemt, and that this move is likely to dampen consumer demand still further. But inflation continues to be stubbornly high - currently around 3.1% - and so well above the BoC's target of 2%, and this is the main reason for the interest rate hike. It has looked at all the ramifications and decided that on balance, this was the right move.

Doug Ford, however, apparently doesn't care about inflation. Much like Donald Trump, he only cares about the strength of the economy in the province he represents, lest voters decide to blame him for it.

Granted, this particular decision by the BoC was an especially fraught one, and there are those who believe the rate hike may have been premature, given the current climate of uncertainty and the ongoing weakness in the economy. But still, Mr. Ford, let the Bank of Canada do its job. It knows much more than you do about what makes the country's finances tick, and what's good for Canada and Ontario.

PSPP starting to get under the skin of the federal government (and everybody else)

Relations with Quebec have returned to the bad old days. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon ("PSPP") and his Parti Québécois have only been in power for a few days and already the temperature feels 20° cooler. PSPP is clearly finding any opportunity to get under the skin of the federal government, however accommodating they may be in return, and is aiming for maximum annoyance

First, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the king, and then disrespected Quebec's Lieutenant-General by not even inviting her to - in fact, specifically asking her NOT to attend - the swearing-in ceremony for the new provincial government, a ceremony that she would normally preside over.

Now, he is whining that Quebec is being disrespected by not being invited to speak at a Canada-EU summit later this week, claiming that Ottawa is "refusing to consult Quebec and involve it in negotiations". Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon was in fact invited to the summit, but turned down the invitation because he was not invited to speak. He says he will not accept "falling into line" and being "reduced to the role of spectator".

PSPP seems to have an inflated view of his own importance, and does not care if he shows up Canada on an important international stage. This was a childish hissy fit on his part, and an embarrassment for Canada as the EU walked into essentially a domestic dispute made public by the Quebec Premier.

As Mark Carney points out, Quebec has in fact been consulted at least three times on the proposed agreement with the EU, even if PSPP himself was not in the room. The upcoming summit is even being held in Montreal, as agreed by St-Pierre Plamondon's predecessor as Premier, Christine Fréchette. 

These are, after all, negotiations at the federal, national level. Quebec, like the other provinces, will be involved and consulted as negotiations progress, although more as a courtesy than anything else.

I get it that the Parti Québécois was elected recently on an independence platform, even if most of the people who voted for them mainly did it as protest against the previous CAQ government and not necessarily for the independence piece (in fact, in spite of the independence piece), given that most Quebeckers still don't want to separate from Canada. But at this point, Quebec is just another province, due no special treatment. Get used to it, PSPP.

Now, he is probably just going through the motions, and merely wants to be seen to be opposing the federal government as often as possible. But this is going to get tired very quickly, both for the rest of Canada and the Federal government, not to mention for the Québécois people, most of whom probably don't want to become pariahs and personae non gratae within Canada.

Actually, only about 5% of Albertans want to separate

It's illuminating that only about a third (32%) of those who voted to pursue a separation referendum actually want to separate (this from an Abacus Data poll). The rest voted for Option 2 for other reasons, like "to get a better deal with Canada", "to send a message to Ottawa", or just because they feel they "deserve a direct say on separation" (i.e. just because). 

An Angus Reid poll yielded similar findings: 37% of people who voted for Option 2 (to pursue a separation referendum) actually want to separate; 60% just want to "send a message to Ottawa". 

This, then, puts support for actual separation in Alberta at between 8% and 8.5% among those who voted (24% times 32% or 37%), so between 160,000 and 170,000 out of the 2 million who actually voted. 

If we consider that voter turnout (about 2 million) was only 62% of the 3.2 million eligible voters, the picture becomes even more stark. It's a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of the surprisingly large number who didn't bother to vote were complaisant federalists and not separatists (who tend to be much more motivated). So, those voting for Alberta independence amounted to 160,000-170,000 out of 3.2 million, roughly 5%.

So, all this song and dance, and many millions spent on administration and advertising, just to assuage the egos of 5% of Albertans?

It certainly makes a mockery of the separatist leaders' claims of a groundswell of public opinion. In reality they are just a small fringe group of discontents, who might just as well move to the USA.

I've seen many articles expressing some variation on the idea that the vote should not be taken as an endorsement of the status quo, because 24% of Albertans voted to pursue a referendum on spearation, and much work remains to be done to placate the would-be separatists, yada, yada. I disagree. A 76%-24% vote is exactly that: a resounding endoresment of the status quo and a strong refutation of the minority view that Alberta should go it alone.

Is equalization really unfair to Alberta?

While we're all still exercised about Alberta separatism - hopefully that will fade soon, now we know that Albertans don't actually want to separate from Canada - let's look at one of the main irritants that the separatists bring up time and time again: equalization payments, and specifically how unfair Albertans think they are.

Many provinces have complained about equalization payments at one time or another - Newfoundland, Ontario, even Quebec - but there is nothing inherently unfair about the idea of equalization payments, and only the most churlish or egocentric Albertan would claim that (were they to even think about it, that is - many separatists that use unfair equalization payments as an arguing point are just repeating the claims of separatist agitators without even understanding what they are or how they work).

Equalization was brought into the Canadian federal system in the 1950s, although its formulation has been changed a few times over the years (the current formula was designed by by an Albertan head of an expert panel under an Albertan Prime Minister, Stephen Harper). It was enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in 1982. 

It aims to ensure that all Canadian provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates, based on each province's "fiscal capacity" (it's ability to raise its own revenues). So, money is taken from the richer provinces and reallocated to the poorer ones. We are, after all, just one country, and not all parts of it were blessed with natural resources and useful geography. 

Thus, mainly by virtue of their vast mineral wealth and booming economies, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (the "have provinces") are net contributors; the other ("have-not") provinces are net recipients, to greater or lesser degrees (a little to Ontario and Newfoundland, a lot to Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI). Just as an aside, contributing provinces like Alberta don't "pay into" the equalization program as such, even if many separatists like to give that impression; it's a federal program funded by federal taxes on individuals and corporations.

Alberta's economy is the strongest in Canada; it doesn't need extra help. Using a complicated but consistent formula based on notional average tax rates, Alberta could raise over $17,000 per person, $4,000 than BC, $7,000 more than Quebec, and $10,000 more than PEI. The system is not perfect: it can be argued that it might encourage provinces to keep their taxes high, under-invest in resources, or undercharge for its electricity (a major bugbear of separatist Albertans). Butprovinces can still have their own distinctive economic policies, even if other provinces object to them, like Quebec's cheap electricity rates and its fracking ban, or Alberta's decision not to impose a sales tax like every other province.

Alberta may not like some elements of the equalization program, but the fact that there are regional winners and losers does not in itself make the program unfair to Alberta. That's just life, the way it is. Even with an equalization program, Alberta is still by far the richest province in Canada.

Whither Alberta (and Danielle Smith) now?

Alberta votes in its ten-question referendum in just a couple of days time. The conventional wisdom is that Albertans will vote overwhelmingly to stay in Canada, although that will only happen if the remain faction is not so complaisant that it forgets to vote.

Either way, commentators are already thinking about what will happen AFTER the vote. Premier Danielle Smith seems to think that everyone should just sigh "Ah, well" and move on, and has vowed never to revisit the issue on her watch. But that seems disingenuous. Separatist sentiment will continue to simmer regardless - it's where the far right in the province is currently hanging their Stetson hat, after previous forays into anti-vaccination policies, the "Freedom Convoy", parental rights and anti-trans sentiment. The referendum has, to some extent at least, legitimized the Alberta separatist movement, whatever its eventual outcome. And, much like with Brexit, the remain camp seem much less energized, urgent and motivated than the leavers, despite the existential nature of the issue, so anything could happen.

As in Quebec, Alberta separatism will not just dissipate into the ether after the referendum, but will continue to fester, at least until Donald Trump leaves power (if that ever happens) when it may see a resurgence. This is especially true if the independence vote achieves the possible-but-unlikely threshold of, say, 40%, which it could do with the addition of voters who don't really want to separate but who want to "send a message to Ottawa", or just a register a protest in some way.

Leading separatists have been very clear that they are not going away: "Regardless of what happens on Monday, we've already won ... we are going to build on our successes, build on our relationships", says one. Of course, this could just be a way of lowering expectations before a vote they will almost certainly lose. But it's also a declaration of intent for the future.

To some extent, the damage has already been done. It's quite possible that the very fact that a separation movement exists, and that it says it will continue to agitate in the future, will act as a dampener on investment in the province, particularly foreign investment. Much as happened in separatist-riven Quebec in the 1980s and 1990s, many companies will be loath to risk new investment money, and may even move out existing investments and representation. The separatists who say they want tot make Alberta stronger may just have weakened it for many years to come.

Meanwhile, the Alberta populace will remain deeply divided and irreconcilable. One interesting study looked at the attitudes of separatists and federalists towards each other. It found that, while most separatists did not have strong feelings either way about their federalist opponents, most federalists were quite bitterly resentful of the secessionists who have put their province at risk in this way. 

Whatever the outcome of the vote, Alberta may have soured and scared off many potential investors, and that's largely on Premier Smith for enabling the separatist vote as she has, regardless of her own opinions on the matter (if indeed you believe what she says). For some time now, she has been walking a very narrow tightrope between left and right (or, rather, between right and far right). 

The next provincial election is coming up in almost exactly a year's time. Most opinion polls put Ms. Smith and her United Conservative Party in a statistical dead heat with the opposition NDP, and her own personal populatity has dropped to new lows. Some think she might call an early snap election (colloquially known as "pulling an Eby") before her chances sour still further, although that could easily backfire (à la Eby). If the remain vote, which she professes to support, prevails, then the influential separatist faction within her own party would of course be baying for her removal (many already are). Or, who knows, maybe Alberta's far right will just latch onto another issue they see as worthy of their attention (and which may be easier to achieve).

It's tempting just to flip off would-be separatists, and tell them to grow up and get real. Or just move to Montana already (I can't get Frank Zappa's Montana out of my mind: "Movin' to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon".)

Either way, Ms. Smith has made her bed and now must lie in it. Don't expect her to get much shut-eye, though.

UPDATE

Question 10 of the referendum -.whether Alberta should pursue separation - was defeated soundly, by an even greater margin than most people predicted (76%-24%). No big surprise there.

Separatists like Let Alberta Decide co-chair Keith Wilson, of course, can just double down on their "I think we've won" claim, regardless of the results. The more ambitious, like Jeffrey Rath of the Alberta Prosperity Society, can use it as a (rather wobbly) plank in their campaign to wrest control of the UCP from Danielle Smith, despite the fact that she handed the separatists a referendum on a platter, almost singlehandedly.

All of this may be just an indication of just how far their heads are up their arses. But it's more a reflection of how little the separatists had to lose in this referendum. If they had won, then their raison d'être could be considered fulfilled. Now that they've lost, they can still use the fact that a referendum was held at all as validation of their cause. You can out a positive spin on pretty much anything if you try! 

As for Danielle Smith, you could argue that she deliberately engineered this whole thing in order to shore up her own shaky position within a terminally divided UCP, by offering a sop to the substantial separatist element in her party. In the end, though, she is despised by the separatists for not doing enough, and disliked by the federalist contingent for risking the province and its future by enabling a referendum inntge first place. Her position is now shaker than ever, with both sides calling for her resignation, and her personal populatity has fallen to an all-time low in recent weeks.

She also may have damaged the UCP's chances in the next election. A Pollara poll taken between 2nd and 15th October shows the Alberta NDP with a four-point lead over the UCP. 

As a political strategy, then, Ms. Smith's initiative can only be described as a fiasco, a debacle, a washout, whatever epithet you prefer. You can't open Pandora's Box and then just say, "Can we move on?"

Toronto's gridlock is actually getting better, not worse

Believe it or believe it not, statistics show that the horrendous traffic in Toronto's downtown is actually getting better.

A measurement called the Traffic Time Index (TTI), used by many cities around the world, compares rush hour traffic times to times when traffic is flowing freely. A TTI of 2.0, for example, indicates that traffic takes twice as long in rush hour as when there's little or no traffic.

This July, Toronto's city-wide TTI came in at 1.587, using navigation data from an arms-length third party. In July of 2025, this figure was 1.698, in July 2024 it was 1.738. If we were to go back to June 2018, Toronto's TTI was an embarrassing 2.324. 

It's unclear to me how this metric differs from that used in its global statistics by Tom Tom, which has Toronto with a traffic index of 47.7% (equivalent to a TTI of 1.477), significantly better than many American, British and European cities, and a world away from Mexico City's 75.9% congestion. But Tom Tom too has Toronto's congestion as improving, as does INRIX's rankings.

Construction is the biggest single contributor to gridlock in Toronto. In July 2024, a huge 18% of Toronto's road capacity was closed for construction. More recent figures are not available, but presumably it has gone down, even if it doesn't feel look it on the ground.

So, by these metrics, Toronto's traffic is not great but not that bad. Importantly, it's improving annually. So, Mayor Olivia Chow, currently standing for re-election, can justifiably claim that measures like increasing traffic agents at major intersections, reducing construction closures, and adjusting traffic signal priorities, are all having a positive effect, even if it doesn't really feel like it in practice.

Traffic and gridlock has emerged as a top issue with voters in the current mayoral race. This report is well-timed to give Ms. Chow a boost.

The commonest birthdays in Canada

Here's a fun thing, for a change: a graphic of the most common birthdays in Canada, based on data from the last 30 years.

Unsurprisingly, February 29th is the least common followed by dates on or around Christmas and New Year - no-one wants to be in labour on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve, and hospital staff definitely don't want them to be.

The most popular birthday is 20th September, for no good reason that I can see. In fact, 9 of the 10 most popular days are in September.

In broader terms, the summer months (lighter colours on the chart) are the period of the most common birthdays, while the winter months (darker colours) are the least common. And it's a pretty stark dichotomy; the only real exceptions are July 1st and 2nd (Canada Day, go figure!)

The other nine questions

We've heard a lot about the independence question in Alberta's upcoming referendum (October 19th). We've heard relatively little about the other nine questions on the ballot. What are they, and what do people need to know about them?

Question 1: Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration, and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?

This four-part question is one of the more confusing ones. Are people voting on the first part, all of the parts, any of the parts? I guess they are (deliberately) leaving their options open. Alberta is trying to achieve what Quebec already has, although Quebec's circumstances were (and are) quite different. In particular, it's not clear what "sustainable" means in this context, nor even who would qualify as an "Albertan". This also comes at a time when immigration into Alberta is nose-diving after a surge from 2022-2024.

Question 2: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?

What does "Alberta-approved" mean here? What criteria will be set for "approval"? This could represent a drastic change, as currently all temporary residents are eligible for these services. 

Question 3: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for social support programs as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring all individuals with a non permanent legal immigration status to reside in Alberta for at least 12 months before qualifying for any provincially-funded social support services?

Which social support programs will be off-limits to new temporary residents? All of them? The government's explanatory website suggests that this actually means childcare subsidies, student aid, income supports and other benefits, but not health care or education - this is far from clear. Premier Smith has previously indicated that temporary residents cost the public system $1 billion for health care and education, but this is disputed by some experts, and ignores the fact that many immigrants actually arrive in Canada healthier than many Canadian-born residents, and use fewer health resources.

Question 4: Assuming that all Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to qualify for public health care and education as they do now, do you support the Government of Alberta charging a reasonable fee or premium to individuals with a non-permanent immigration status living in Alberta for their and their family's use of the health care and immigration systems?

Yet another question aimed at making temporary residents unwelcome in Alberta, this question, as with the others, does not make it clear whether it applies to current temporary residents or just future ones. And what exactly does "a reasonable fee or premium" mean? (A figure of $1,900 for healthcare alone has been posited, although who knows where that came from. Also, when would this (and any other potential changes) come into force? Again, rumour has it that it might only start after the next election, which is scheduled for October 2027 (and presumably only if the UCP actually wins that election).

Question 5: Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or citizenship card, to vote in an Alberta election?

This one presumably WOULD come into force before the next election! Elections Alberta already requires proof of address and accepts any of 50 different forms of identification, so it's not clear what problem this measure is supposed to address. The electoral agency has reported only four instances of ineligible voters in the last ten years, and it already verifies voters' citizenship when individuals are added to the electoral roll. Anything more seems redundant.

Question 6: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King's Bench and Appeal courts?

Ms. Smith seems to think that Alberta has "distinct legal traditions", even though they are really just the same as those of other provinces. As with all other provinces, the current system appoints judges through a judicial advisory committee, which has representatives from the province as well as from the federal government. Plus, any change to the Canadian Constitution would require the agreement of at least seven provincial legislatures covering at least 50% of the country's population, not just "other willing provinces". So, not going to happen.

Question 7: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?

The allocation of Senate seats between provinces is admittedly unrepresentative for historical reasons, and the western provinces (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) are under-represented. The solution to this, however, is not to abolish the Senate but to reform it. In addition to the same requirement to even open the Constitution noted above, the Senate could not be abolished without the  agreement of all ten provinces. Not going to happen.

Question 8: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?

Essentially, Alberta to have its cake and eat it. It wants to continue to receive the billions of dollars in federal funding to help run its programs, but is unwilling to accept the strings attached (e.g. complying with federal laws). If a province is not willing to accept the terms of the transfers, then why should they get the transfers? It's a bit like taking out a bank loan and refusing to pay the interest. Plus, to even open the Canadian Constitution ... yada, yada.

Question 9: Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province's laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province's and federal laws conflict?

This would be a dramatic reshaping of the country's constitutional order, and is an extension, or a "rephrasing", of Smith's signature Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act of 2022, much of which remains to be tested for legality and constitutionality. Federal legislation applies around the country, almost by definition, and that is unlikely to ever change (nor should it). The Constitution is very clear on what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial. In practice, the occasions on which federal and provincial laws clash are few and far between, and that is especially so with the current federal administration. Plus, to even open ... yada, yada.

So, lots of long, wordy, confusing questions about immigration and constitutionality, all stemming from Alberta's constant feelings of insecurity, grievance and victimization. (None of these questions are binding in any way, mind you, however the voting might go.)

As Mark Carney said, just yesterday, "No to the Nine!" (Or "decline the nine", if you prefer.)

OCC oversteps its authority in trying to force banks to take on controversial customers

A US banking regulator that glories in the splendidly anachronistic name the of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has ruled that nine banks, including two Canadian banks, are guilty of practices and policies that denied or limited access to financial services because of political or religious beliefs. 

Canada's Toronto Dominion Bank and the Bank of Montreal were among the nine, which also included many of the heavy hitters in American banking like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp and Capital One.

The review was demanded, predictably enough, by Donald Trump, and, predictably enough, he received the answer he wanted. No penalties were announced for the perceived transgressions, but the OCC say they are "assessing further regulatory and supervisory changes" to prevent these issues from happening again.

So, what kind of thing are we talking about here? Who is being discriminated against and denied access to their rights? 

Well, as you might imagine, they are almost all on the right fringes of the Republican Party. Examples include a non-profit espousing extreme anti-abortion views, a company producing MAGA merchandise, that kind of thing. In some cases, particular industry sectors are involved, like oil and gas exploration, coal mining and coal-powered plants, firearms and ammunition manufacturing, digital asset activities, etc, which contravene the banks' own ethical policies. It apparently amounts to a tiny number of individuals and companies ("a limited number of historical interactions") out of the many millions of accounts the banks maintain.

From the banks' point of view, though, in distancing themselves from some of the more controversial loan applicants, they are just trying to manage their legal, financial and reputational risk, which they are well within their rights to do.

The OCC's "irrefutable evidence" that the banks have "denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses", then, seems to tar the banks with a very broad brush, and ignores their own right to pick their customers and protect their own corporate brands. If anything, you could argue that the report merely reflects the political stance of the OCC (or maybe Mr. Trump).

The OCC contends that banks are using the concept of reputational risk as a shield to deny services to customers based on subjective, non-financial criteria. The banks, on the other hand, argue that managing reputational risk is a critical part of safe and sound operations. A potential client's public persona or controversial industry ties can lead to concrete legal, compliance and financial liabilities. Banks should not be forced to take on relationships with risky or controversial customers they do not trust.

Increase in Ontario electricity costs driven by nuclear power

Ontario's electricity rates are going up again after the latest agreement with ratepayer and industry groups. This time there is no hiding the fact that it is expensive nuclear power that is driving the increases.

For years, the Ontario government has maintained the convenient fiction that it has been renewable energy that has driven costs up. As renewables - whether hydro, wind or solar - are now among the cheapest electricity generation options, that is no longer going to fly.

Refurbishment of outdated nuclear plants and additional maintenance costs on others are the main drivers for this latest increase. Nuclear costs from 2027 to 2031 are projected to be almost double those from 2022 to 2026. A much smaller increase will result from refurbishment to some hydro dams. The report notes, however, that hydro costs are less than a quarter of nuclear costs per megawatt of power produced.

The nuclear lobby is still very powerful [sic] in Ontario, exemplified by all those full-page ads in major newspapers. But it is, and has always been, an expensive option. I doubt many people will be paying attention to news reports like this one, but if they were, they would have a better understanding of just how expensive.

Did America withold missile warnings from Ukraine?

As Russia's illegal war in Ukraine approaches the five year mark, it continues to hit hapless Ukraine with a nightly barrage of drone and missile attacks. It also continues to hit Ukrainian energy and infrastructure targets, despite President Trump's claims of the existence of an "energy ceasefire", which no-one else seems to know anything about.

Even more worrying, the latest strikes arrived before any early warning alarms were enabled, as it appears that no early warning was received by Ukraine from its "partners", which essentially means the USA in this context. Ukraine has various partnerships with European countries for weapons production and missile defence, but for ballistic missile warnings and defence it is apparently almost entirely dependent on the USA.

This is not a situation I was aware of - I naively assumed that Ukraine had its own early warning system - and it immediately raises a bunch of questions: Did Trump order warnings to be deliberately withheld (consistent with his recent diatribes against Ukraine and Zelenskyy, and his renewed support of the aggressor, Russia)? Why does Ukraine not have its own early warning system? Is this not something that the "coalition of the willing" could help fund? Why are British and European warnings not available to Ukraine? Surely they have the technical know-how?

This comes hard on the heels of unexplained restrictions on Ukraine's battlefield use of Elon Musk-owned and US-made Starlink communication terminals, which are essential to Ukraine's drone missions. (The practical effect of this is to slow down Ukraine's drones, making their strikes on Russian assets and their ability to intercept Russian strikes much less effective.) And, of course, hard on the heels of Trump's recent controversial phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Coincidence?

Ukraine is also suffering from severe delays in receiving Europe-financed "vital supplies" from America, particularly its Patriot interceptor air defence systems (Ukraine's best bet for stopping Russian missiles). It's hard not to see a pattern here.

Trump insists that the US did not withhold any warnings, and the official Ukrainian response is that it was just a "failure", suggesting it was to weather conditions or some sort of miscommunication, rather than a deliberate decision not to share an alert. 

Am I guilty of conspiracy theories to suggest deliberate American actions? I know I'm not the only one, and I know that Trump is definitely capable of much worse.

How much of the world's problems are attributable to Trump?

It occurred to me to wonder just how much of the current global economic malaise affecting the world can be attributed directly to just one man. 

That man, of course, is Donald Trump. His misguided ideas and policies have clearly had a negative effect, not just on the USA, but, because the US is such a big player in the global economy (nothing to do with Trump - he inherited the globe's strongest economy) on the whole world. In order to squeeze a little bit more wealth for what is already by far the wealthiest country in the world, Trump has been willing to bazooka the economies of almost every other country, not realizing that the hit to globalized trade will come around to bite the US too.

It's hard to pin down figures, although many organizations have tried. These figures are quite old now, but Bloomberg is projecting a $2 trillion hit to the global economy by 2027 as a result of Trump's tariffs: the OECD has pared its initial projections for 2026 global growth by 0.2% (which might not sound like much, but over a $100 trillion worldwide economy, it is quite substantial); the WTO has cut its growth projections by as much a 0.6%.

It's not just about GDP, though. Massive job losses are underway; major supply chains have been disrupted; the stock markets are only being kept aloft by (probably ill-advised) AI fever; inflation is creeping up in many countries (including the US); business confidence has been shaken, with a direct effect on investment; and on it goes. 

And it's not just about tariffs, either. Trump's unnecessary and ill-advised war against  has done more to increase the price of oil than Putin's war in Ukraine ever did, bringing with it negative effects on global trade, inflation, etc, to say nothing of the increased instability in energy markets caused by Trump's invasion of Venezuela, his apparently personal vendetta against Canada, his shot in the arm for Russia's oil industry (against his own official US policy and all international efforts), etc, etc.

Take the riots and protests in France and Italy this Fall. They may not be directly attributable to Trump, although his inflammatory disinformation comments about the riots being caused by Muslim agitators haven't helped. However, the root causes of the riots - high cost of living, high fuel prices, inflation and school funding - are almost all (with the exception of school funding) directly or indirectly influenced by Trump and his MAGA policies.

And it doesn't even end there. Global climate change initiatives have foundered, partly because of the economic pressure countries are feeling, and partly because of America's pull-back from climate action of any kind, and its boosting of the environmentally-damaging oil and gas industries. Democracy has also taken a hit worldwide, as right-wing populists across the globe see the "success" of Trump's anti-democratic push in the USA, which has fueled and emboldened their own dictatorial aspirations.

There's much more and NONE of it is good Donald Trump has singlehandedly made the whole world worse in many different respects. Even if this made the USA better in some way - and that'll does NOT seem to have happened - it would still be a bad deal. All of this will take many years, probably decades, to fix.

USA goes out on a limb over ICC

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has been won, not by Donald Trump (shock! horror!), but by the South African judge Navi Pillay, for her indefatigable work with the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and as a staunch defender of the international rule of law.

The Trump administration is, of course, apoplectic, not just for the snub to their Glorious Leader, but also because of Ms. Pillay's and the ICC's votes against best American buddy Israel, and its characterization the Israeli war in Gaza as genocide and accusing it of multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Just hours after the Nobel announcement, Marco Rubio announced sanctions on the ICC, preventing American companies from providing services to it (a largely symbolic gesture), calling it a "rogue court". He says, "we will dismantle the ICC - brick by brick, if necessary", and went further to threaten other countries (i.e. most of the world) that continue to support the organization: "Nations that refuse to reject the ICC's false authority while relying on US assistance are likely to come under increased scrutiny".

A feisty Ms. Pillay clapped back in no uncertain terms: "Clearly, the fact that he [Trump] never got the Nobel Prize, and never will, is an indictment against him ... He doesn't like someone or their ideas, then he goes out to sanction, punish, forcibly deport, wrongfully invade, and arrest leaders of other countries. These are threats to international law." Ouch.

Ms. Pillay has the wholehearted backing of most of the civilized world, with the notable exception of the United States, Israel and a few other maverick states that have been the victims of the ICC and ICJ's decisions over the years, and which have therefore never been official member of the international courts (the US signed the Rome Statute establishing the court, but has never ratified it). 

But then, of course, it depends on your definition of "civilized". The USA is now so far from civilized norms, and has lost so much respect in international circles, that it's hard to see a way back. They are so far out on a limb there's no limb there any more.

The second Chow - is he a plant?

There's a second Chow on the ballot form for the upcoming Toronto mayoralty election.

Braeden is an unknown guy off the street, with no real platform or campaign, one of 53 names on the busy ballot. Because Toronto lists the candidates in alphabetical order (unlike many jurisdictions, which list the names in random order or include thumbnail pictures to avoid any confusion), he actually appears just above incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow, who is in a tight race for re-election.

My theory is that the guy is a plant or a decoy installed by Ms. Chow's main rival, Brad Bradford, in the hopes of syphoning off a few of Chow's votes by inattentive voters. (The race is close enough that it could make the difference.) I figure that Bradford, who was our local councillor for four years, would not be above that kind of stunt: I would not trust the guy even if I could throw him. 

It will be interesting to know if my theory is correct, or if we ever find out.

UPDATE

In the end, Olivia Chow easily beat Brad Bradford (phew!), but - guess what!  - the completely unknown Braeden Chow in third. If this was a Bradford stunt, it didn't work. But it nearly did!

The Myth of the Deal

President Trump has struck a deal! Yay. And it's the "best deal ever". Again. If Americans are not thoroughly over this stuff by now, then I despair of them.

This time he has stuck a "deal" with Russia to import large quantities of embargoed Russian diesel, despite his signing into law just last month new sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Quite where President Putin is going to find all this diesel to export to the US is another mystery: Russia is already suffering from severe fuel shortages internally after an extended barrage of Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil depots and processing facilities.

Details of the "deal" are predictably sparse. It was after all a more or less random suggestion during a phone call on a completely unrelated subject. Trump doesn't involve himself in the tedious details of making his "deals" somehow work. 

Reactions from both the right and the left of the political divide have been almost universally condemnatory, particularly as the sanctions bill was passed so recently and with such fanfare. Analysts say that the amounts involved are not likely to have a significant effect on diesel prices, so Trump may not even get the cost-of-living boost he so desperately needs before the US mid-terms

I put the word "deal" in quotes throughout because these are not really deals at all, just Trump expressing his aspirations and flexing his (or rather America's) muscles. How many times has he announced a deal with Iran, or Ukraine, or Canada for that matter, only to have it changed/scrapped/reversed. 

I truly believe that he just likes hearing himself say "I made a deal"; the content and the wisdom of the agreement is entirely secondary or even moot. This is not the Art of the Deal, it's the Myth of the Deal.

New White House Press Secretary looks familiar

That Mr. Trump has just appointed a new White House Press Secretary, Katie Zacharia.

She looks kind of familiar. You don't think he has a type, do you?

UPDATE

A record 5 days later, after a couple of embarrassing first performances, Ms. Zacharia is gone ("let go"; "transitioning out"). You kind of feel sorry for her. Kind of.

Why is the bond market in turmoil?

I keep reading articles about bonds without really understanding them. "Spiralling chaos from the bond market", we are told, "yields and bond prices move in inverse directions", "sharp increases in yields have produced losses for many fixed-income investors", "bond market fears are reaching fever pitch", yada yada.

Clearly, all this is a big deal for financial types, so I figure it behooves me to find out what it all means.

I mean, I get the basics: when you buy a bond you are making a loan to a company or government for a specific period of time, after which you expect to get your full principal back. The company or government can then use this money to fund projects, operations or infrastructure. In return, the company or government pays you interest at a predetermined rate (the "coupon rate") every six months. It is thus a fixed income investment, much like a bank deposit.

Alternatively, you might look to sell the bonds before their natural expiry date, in which  you might get more or less than you originally invested, depending on how the market values that bond at the time. (You get to keep any interest earned to date of course.) So, you can look on a bond investment as pretty safe interest stream, or as a more speculative asset that might (or might not) appreciate in value.

After this, things get a little murkier. What affects the market value of a bond? The actual market price of a bond depend on the issuer's credit quality, the time left until maturity, and the interest rate it carries (compared to other interest rates in the market). 

But bond prices are also affected by changes in  interest rates in the market as a whole. When interest rates go up (e.g. when the central bank announces an increase in its index rate, such as at a time of high inflation),.bond prices tend to fall to equalize the bond's interest rate with the prevailing rates in the market. Conversely when general interest rates fall, bond prices in the market tend to rise. 

The coupon rate of a bond is also affected by the credit rating of the issuing corporation or government, and the time to maturity. An issuer with a poor credit rating has a greater risk of default (i.e. not being able to pay back the principal at maturity), so it must attract investors with a higher coupon interest rate. Also, bonds with a long maturity date are more exposed to interest rate and inflation risks for an extended period, and so must offer a higher coupon rate to attract investors.

So, what is causing all the turmoil in today's bond market? In recent months, bond yields (basically the interest rates they offer) have been rising, which in turn pushed the price of bonds down. The increase in yields is widely believed to be a result of a whole complex cocktail of factors: strong economic growth expectations, high inflation worries (which causes investors to require their interest rates to compensate for their loss of purchasing power), high government borrowing, high funding levels for AI development (with all the uncertainty that entails), and general uncertainty about the rationality of the US government and the Federal Reserve's ability to function independently and rationally.

Almost all of this relates directly to the USA, but America's influence is so strong that is repercussions on the bond market are being felt worldwide.

Except, of course, it's not even that simple (of course it's not!) There are others who believe that a different cocktail of factors is responsible: some suggest that bond rates merely reflect nominal GDP growth in the US; some that they are directly related to oil prices; some feel that they are more dependant on announcements from the US Federal Reserve than anything else. None of these suggestions hold water on their own.

But, whatever the cause, it's undeniable that bond ownership is changing. Long-term holder like pension finds and central banks have increasingly abandoned bonds, like rats from a sinking ship. The vacuum has been at least partially filled by hedge funds, which are buying and selling bonds aggressively, but on a much more short-term basis.

Where all this will end is anyone's guess. But it probably won't be pretty.

Nuclear fusion no closer to a working model, but generating lots of spagghetti

I have always been, and I remain, skeptical about the dramatic claims made by nuclear fusion energy developers. From time to time, a glowing announcement appears in the news promising unlimited cheap energy just around the corner, merely because some company or other has managed to squeeze a little bit more energy out of a hot mess of plasma, usually neglecting to mention that they are still decades away (if ever) from making it cost-effective or sustainable.

The latest such announcement comes from BC company General Fusion Group Ltd. Accompanying the article is a photo of the inside of the General Fusion lab where the fusion beast is being tamed.

It's a scene of such disorder and messiness that it's hard to take seriously. There are huge knots of pipes and cables, random canisters and frames, all jammed into a small room It's certainly not the sleek, gleaming machinery of Star Trek, more like a Heath Robinson construction.

Now, of course, I know nothing about the subject, and this is clearly still early days in the research. Maybe eventually all that spaghetti will be hidden inside a neat brushed-steel box with multicoloured lights and switches and dials. But right now it has the look of a school science experiment, and does not inspire confidence.

Revelations of separatist leaders' deals with America rattles Albertans

As Quebec votes in a separatist government (albeit only a minority government, with a much weaker mandate than was widely expected), Alberta's secession movement also receives another set-back.

Revelations in the Globe and Mail show that some major Alberta separatist leaders have been cozying up to the US Republican Party, which, given current relations between Canada and the USA, has many Albertans pretty worried and upset.

The Globe's report details how, unbeknown to most rank-and-file would-be separatists, movement leaders have met with Republican representatives in Washington and in Calgary and have even discussed potential deals granting the US access to Alberta's land, water, oil and precious metals in return for American assistance in their secession plans. 

This is a bridge too far from most Albertans, and organizations like the Alberta Prosperity Project and Stay Free Alberta are desperately trying to limit the damage of the revelations. Some Albertans - less than a quarter, according to most polls - have a beef with Canada (or they think they do), and believe it is is Alberta's interests, in one way or another, to separate. Hardly any Albertans want to become the 51st state of America.

Trump's AI rebranding just more smoke and mirrors

As a new CNN/SSRS survey concludes that the vast majority of Americans are very concerned about AI and the way it's being developed, President Donald Trump has a solution: rename it.

The CNN survey found that 88% of Americans would be concerned rather than happy if AI were to surpass human intelligence (which it probably already has), 87% are concerned at all the data centr1es being constructed for AI, 82% think that AI is being developed too quickly, and 81% believe that it will change our way of life.(well, duh). Furthermore, 71% think that the government is not doing enough to regulate AI development, including 85% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans.

In the face of that, Mr. Trump, whose only concern seems to be whether the USA is developing it faster than China, has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) should henceforth be called super intelligence (SI). Bizarrely, he has even issued an executive order to that effect, which he considers to be "morally binding", although he can only force the compliance of government agencies.

Even more bizarrely, some of the more pusillanimous tech leaders seem to be humouring him on this, despite the fact that "super intelligence" already has a very specific meaning within the industry (meaning the point where AI exceeds the cognitive abilities of humans in virtually all aspects of thinking). Elon Musk, not generally known for his attention to morality, says he will rename his AI company SpaceXAI to SpaceXSI. Actually, he is the only one...

Obviously, Trump's order will have zero effect on the AI industry and its regulation. Like his other renaming stunts, it is just another attempt to distract Americans' attention from some of the worse developments happening under his watch, and to make it look as though he is being proactive on an issue of concern without actually doing anything at all, the old smoke and mirrors routine. As usual, an extraordinary percentage of Americans will be fooled by it.

UPDATE

I tell a lie. Other Trump toadies like Jeff Bezos of Amazon is now on board, as is Jensen Huang of Nvidia. Ah, well.

Christa Pike on life support is the mother of all ironies

I'm sure everyone has heard about the "failed execution" of Christa Pike in Tennessee this last week. 

Incidentally, "failed execution" is different from "botched execution". In a "botched execution", something went wrong with the lethal injection procedure, but the person died regardless. This apparently happens as often as 8% of the time, which seems extraordinary to me. In a "failed execution", on the other hand, the person does not even die, a much rarer event but far from unprecedented, as some news outlets are suggesting (this is the second time this year it has happened in Tennessee alone). 

Christa Pike is very much alive as we speak, although in a pretty bad way, unconscious and intubated on a ventilator to keep her alive. She survived two doses of a lethal pentabarbital injection, the capital punishment method of choice in Tennessee and a few other US states. It's not entirely clear why the lethal injection failed, but some commentators suggest that her vein may have burst (twice!) and the pentabarbital spilled out into the surrounding tissues (she complained of a burning sensation at one point, which supports this theory).

If one attempt fails, a second is called for. There is, however, no protocol on what to do if the second attempt also fails, as in this case. So, a very ill Ms. Pike was summarily whisked out of there and away from the press, and is currently being maintained on life support at an off-site medical facility.

The fact that she is now receiving "life-saving medical care" has to be the mother of all ironies. Ms. Pike's lawyer is calling her treatment "chemical torture", and is calling for her death sentence to be commuted. Her conviction of killing a classmate 32 years ago, at the age of 18, was controversial in the first place, partly because of her age at the time of the crime, and partly because of her history of severe childhood abuse.

So, what's next? The Tennessee prisons chief has resigned, and the state Governor has halted any new executions and called for an independent inquiry into the situation. And Ms. Pike? Who knows? She's now a cause célèbre for some.

Has Samuel Alito left his retirement too late?

US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito - a man whose extreme right-ring political views make even Donald Trump look like a moderate, and who has presided over many of the Supreme Court's most politically-motivated and legally suspect decisions in recent years - is considering imminent retirement. 

The controversial 76-year old, who has been on the Supreme Court bench for over 20 years, is a strong Trump-backer, and most people assume that his decision to retire is being timed specifically to allow Trump to nominate another MAGA conservative to the court, thus cementing the court's conservative bias for many years to come.

But has he left it too late? If the Democrats swing both the House of Representatives (almost certain) and the Senate (more than possible) in the upcoming November mid-term elections, they have made no bones about their intention to block any Trump nominees to the Court, as is their right.

How much time does he have? The mid-terms are on 3rd November 2026, just a month away. However, any newly elected Senators will not actually take office until 3rd January 2027. So, that's actually tons of time for Alito and Trump to pull off their caper.

The case for replacing diesel in heavy-duty trucking

As diesel prices reach record levels, and the idiot-in-chief in the White House threatens to ban American diesel exports to the international market, it's never been clearer just how much we still rely on diesel for the transportation of goods. Almost completely, in fact - 97%.of the largest Class B tractor trailers run on diesel, although the figure for commercial trucks as a whole is about 76%.

So, what's the deal? We see lots of electric cars on the roads these days, but when was the last time you saw an electric truck? Why has the take-up of alternative-fuel trucks been so poor?

The main types of alternative fuels available for heavy-duty transportation are:

• Renewable diesel - made from fats and oils, which can be used directly in current trucks with no engine modification. It can reduce carbon intensity by as much as 68% compared to traditional diesel, but it remains relatively expensive. Incentives like California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard are starting to change that and adoption is increasing rapidly in such jurisdictions.
• Natural gas (methane) - compressed natural gas offers a more stable price compared to diesel, but it is still a fossil fuel, albeit a bit cleaner than diesel. Renewable natural gas is sourced from landfills, animal waste and other organic matter, and is a net zero, or even carbon-negative, fuel, but it remains relatively expensive. They both offer diesel-like performance and good range, but require specialized engines (renewable natural gas fuel is compatible with engines designed for compressed natural gas). Natural gas is the most widely-used alternative fuel today, and there is already a reasonable network of filling stations, although it needs to be expanded if take-up is to improve.
• Electric batteries - offer zero tailpipe emissions and lower energy costs compared to diesel, but charging infrastructure is still lacking, and range, battery weight and initial purchase cost are also limitations (although all of these factors are in the process of improving). The sustainability impact also depends on the emissions profile of the electricity being used to charge them.
• Biodiesel - made from animal fats and vegetable oils, biodiesel is often blended with conventional diesel, with which it is completely compatible. It's performance in cold weather poses a challenge (it turns to gel and can harm engines), so most manufacturers do not support blends above 20%, although new technical advancements are overcoming even that drawback. Biodiesel can reduce carbon intensity by 73% compared to conventional diesel.

The main reason for diesel's continuing dominance in heavy-duty haulage is inertia, but its high energy density, strong pulling power, and the durability and reliable ignition of its engines make changes of any kind difficult. Furthermore, we are currently in a period of retrenchment, mainly thanks to Donald Trump and his ilk, and environmental concerns are not top of mind right now.

But, in this era of spiking diesel prices, the cost-benefit calculations for alternative fuels are starting to change, particularly for renewable natural gas and renewable diesel (the cost of electric trucks still makes them prohibitively expensive). By some analysis, electric trucks are expected to become economically competitive with diesel in the early 2030s. Donald Trump may have inadvertently given alternative fuels a shot in the arm.

Is AI really an existential threat?

I don't remember reading the word "existential" so frequently since I made my Basics of Philosophy hobby website many years ago. Just recently, though, it seems to be ubiquitous, usually in the same sentence as AI or artificial intelligence. "AI could pose existential risk to humanity, UN rights chief warns". "Is the AI existential threat real?". "Breaking down the dire warnings about the technology's existential risk". Etc, etc.

Much of this has been galvanized by the online parting shot by 27-year old Anthropic junior researcher Jacob Coxon as he quit his plum job with one of the leading AI companies: "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." His comments gained still more attention when current (and more senior) Anthropic employee Evan Hubinger confirmed on X: "We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally believe it is >10% within the next decade." That's quite an admission from one of the leading lights in AI development. Bill Gates is slightly more circumspect, predicting just a billion deaths from AI in a recent interview.

This is not new, of course. The "Godfather of AI" Geoffrey Hinton has been warning us about this stuff for years. Isaac Asimov was cautioning us back in the 1940s! What is new is that the current crop of warnings are coming from the developers themselves. So, we should probably take it seriously, don't you think? After all, it's not often that the ambitious tech bros behind companies like Anthropic and OpenAI agree on anything.

There have now been many instances of AI models breaking out of their test environments, something they are not supposed to be able to do, but one in particular has people worried. In July, literally hundreds of OpenAI agents escaped human control and their so-called "sandbox" in July and hacked into the secure systems of a billion-dollar tech company called Hugging Face and other organizations, including the Australian government. It's now becoming increasingly clear that OpenAI employees warned that such a thing might happen and that security was being skimped, but upper management insisted they press on regardless so that new AI models could be released on time.

In the wake of this and other such unplanned breakouts, almost all of the major American AI development companies have come out to warn that severe regulation is needed before it is too late. (See the list of over a hundred signatories at the end of this document, and yes, it includes OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Google, and a virtual who's who of AI development.) Parallel to that, 1,386 "frontier" AI employees penned their own warning letter, urging the US government to work with other nations to "deliberately pace" automated AI development and to address emerging risks. 

Leading experts openly admit that they don't know how to control future highly capable AI systems, known as "artificial superintelligence" or ASI. Some argue that it may actually be impossible or too late, and that the genie is already out of the proverbial bottle. The concern is that AI technology is progressing at such a breakneck pace that "we would no longer be able to detect them or stop them". This could happen within a few short years, or even months. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic: "It's my worry that, in 6 - 12 months, such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire Internet, potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage".

China too is wrestling with burgeoning AI usage, albeit with less fanfare. The government is worried that unfettered growth in AI usage is undermining human relationships (and thus, potentially, population growth!), depriving people of their better judgement (people are getting lazy and less able to come to grips with challenges on their own), and even constraining artistic endeavours (an estimated 90% of the popular Chinese online "microdramas" are now produced by AI). There is maybe less apocalyptic talk in China, but the government is nevertheless moving to impose new regulations and guidelines on its use and misuse.

Senate negotiators in the US are already debating legislation that would put the responsibility on tech companies to design safe AI products and establishing a "duty of care", but it's unclear how useful such legislation might be in practical terms. Other legislation in the works would require AI companies to build in a "kill switch" to their AI developments which the government could order to be triggered.

Unfortunately, the US government is effectively controlled by one man, Donald Trump, and he derides all calls for AI regulations as a "hoax" and a "scam". All he cares about is AI's potential as the "Greatest Economic Development in History", and the imperative that America must beat China to it. Regulation is a dirty word in his mind. 

As for AI presenting an "existential threat"? Pshaw! Existential schmexistential.

Pope Leo checks his progressivism at the shrine door

Pope Leo XIV has the reputation of being a pretty progressive Pope. But, lest we forget, that's not actually saying much. Official Catholic doctrine, which he has to more or less follow whether he likes it or not, is still ineluctably stuck in the distant past, and nowhere more so than on moral issues like abortion, euthanasia and medical assistance in dying (MAID).

At the moment, he is in Lourdes, a pilgrimage site synonymous with miracles, orthodoxy and retrogressive Catholic tradition. At the same time, he is in France - forward-looking, liberal, fiercely secular France. So, I guess he felt the need to make a statement to the remaining faithful. It's his job after all.

In particular, he has made a strong statement against MAID, especially given France's 2024 decision to make abortion a constitutional right, and last month's decision to also make medical assistance in dying a legal right. France is far from the first country to do so, although the list is still relatively short, consisting of the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and, of course, Canada. (13 American states have also passed legislation allowing it.)

Leo's take on all this? Well, after the now obligatory condemnation of centuries of Catholic Church sexual abuse, his broadside against MAID went like this: "It is impossible to regard causing death as something normal. What is legal is not necessarily moral." Furthermore, "It is precisely in the name of this inalienable dignity of the human person that we must reject the temptation to cause death under the guise of false compassion."

So, there you have it: MAID is "false compassion". Try telling that to the thousands of people who have had their life sentences of constant pain and anguish commuted by access to MAID in those forward-thinking countries where it is legal. Try telling that to their families. Try telling them what is moral and what is compassionate.

Like many a Pope before him, Leo has fallen back on the tried and trusted Catholic doctrine that "daddy knows best". Brought up in the faith, he is convinced that the orthodoxy, however outdated, is the only way to think. 

It would be interesting, though, to know what he really thinks. He is clearly a thoughtful guy, with an underlying penchant for progressivism. Does he believe what he says, or is he just toeing the line?

The wacky world of BC politics

We sometimes think that Ontario provincial politics is pretty wacky, but it's certainly got nothing on the strange goings-on in British Columbia politics. Stay with me here.

The BC Liberals dominated BC politics from more than a decade, from 2001 to 2017, when there left-wing NDP under John Horgan and then David Eby came to power, and the NDP has domination ever since. The BC Conservative Party spent the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s in the political wilderness, with zero seats.

In 2022, former BC Liberal cabinet minister John Rustad was booted out of the party for questioning climate science. He crossed the floor and joined the Conservative Party in 2023, soon becoming party leader (he was the only Conservative with a seat in parliament for one thing). The Liberal Party basically disbanded and renamed itself BC United, although it was short-lived.

Rustad was initially lauded for growing the BC Conservatives from less than 2% of the vote to Official Opposition status (mind you, they still lost by a long chalk to David Eby's NDP). By 2025, though, Rustad's abrasive style made him very unpopular. Several Conservative MPs defected, and Rustad eventually resigned his leadership amid a party revolt.

In May 2026, Kerry-Lynne Findlay took over the leadership of the Conservatives, but she was even more unpopular and scandal-prone than Rustad. Conservative MP after Conservative MP resigned, many of them joining a new party, CentreBC, looking to distance themselves from Findlay's hard right stance, and Findlay herself ejected a few more. With the party in freefall, Findlay eventually resigned as leader on 20 September 2026.

With an election cynically called by Eby for 24 October to take advantage of the Conservative disarray, the BC Conservative Party is now desperately trying to reinvent itself. Many (but not all) of those who defected or were ejected are now moving back, rather shamefacedly, to the Conservative Party under new leader Lorne Doerksen.

And now, just for added confusion, the ex-leader of the BC Green Party, Andrew Weaver, will be running in the upcoming election ... for the conservative CentreBC party! Wacky doesn't even cover it!

UPDATE

Just to cap it all off, David Eby lost the snap election he called against most people's cautions, creating all sorts of firsts (first time a BC leader has lost a snap election, first time an NDP majority has flipped to the Conservatives, first time the BC Conservatives have won a majority in almost 100 years, etc). Eby promptly resigned.