If you thought that democracy was failing in America...

Most people probably have a general feeling that the Trump administration has been gradually rolling back democracy in the United States over the last year or more. Such a thing is hard to quantify, but some people have been doing just that: quantifying how much democracy has been dismantled in the US under Trump 2.0.

No fewer than three separate reports published this month indicate that democracy in the USA has been eroded at record speed under Trump. The Swedish V-Dem institute shows the US falling from 20th to 51st position out of 179 in the global democracy rankings, leaving it somewhere between Slovakia and Greece. The Bright Line Watch now puts America's political system about midway between liberal democracy and dictatorship. And the US-based democracy think-tank Freedom House concludes that three countries, USA, Bulgaria and Italy, have recorded the sharpest declines in political rights and civil liberties last year.

Among the evidence: the administration's concentration of power, the undermining of checks and balances on executive power, the overstepping of laws, the circumvention of Congress, the regular attacks on news media and freedom of speech, the erosion of the country's democratic standing overseas, and the absence of criticism of (and even support for) democratic declines abroad.

It is, as V-Dem's founding director says, "The most rapid decline ever in the history of the United States and one of the most rapid in the world. He says that the Trump administration has rolled back democracy as much in one year as Modi in India and Erdogan in Turkey managed in ten years, and as much as Orbán in Hungary did in four.

In the dismissive style typical of the whole Trump administration, a White House spokesperson dismissed this as "a ridiculous claim made by an irrelevant, blatantly biased organization", calling Trump a champion for freedom and democracy and the most transparent and accessible president ever. How do these people live with themselves?

These democracy monitors note, though, that the US has not yet passed the point of no return, and that the Trump effect is not necessarily permanent. Another presidential election in less than three years time, and even the upcoming mid-term elections later this year, could put substantial limits on Trump's slide towards authoritarianism. Gods, let's hope so!

A head-scratcher of a Liberal budget

Mark Carney and his Liberal government have brought down a distinctly Conservative-style budget. As always, there are winners and losers, but which departments gain and which are being cut shows a distinct change of emphasis from the past. And the fact that there are more cuts than increases also marks a break with the Liberals' free-spending past.

All in all, there are $31 billion in cuts and just $23 billion in new spending for 2026-7, so a pretty substantial net $8 billion cut in overall spending. 

The biggest losers are the Canada Revenue Agency ($4.3 billion, or nearly 41% of its old budget), Department of Fisheries and Oceans ($4.3 billion, or nearly 70% of its budget), Department of Indigenous Services ($3.0 billion, or 11%), Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs ($2.6 billion, or 18%), Global Affairs ($2.1.billion, or 23%), and Canada Post ($2.0 billion, or 99%). 

There are some huge surprises there. Wait for some significant push-back, although probably not from Conservatives. It's a brave (or foolish) man who cuts money for the Indigenous people these days, and "sunsetting" overseas programs smacks of Trumpism. And almost comletely cutting loose Canada Post suggests that they have completey given up on the Crown corporation, so don't expect any Christmas cards in the mail next December.

The main winners in the budget are the Department of Finance (with a whopping $8.5 billion increase, or nearly 6%% of its original budget), Department of Employment and Social Development ($5.7 billion, or 5.4%), Department of National Defence ($5.3 billion, or 12%), and  Department of Housing Infrastructure and Communities ($1.4 billion of 15%). 

Injections of cash into defence and housing align with recent rhetoric, and a shot in the arm of Employment and Social Development perhaps makes sense in these times of tariffs and layoffs. But what is the finance department going to do with an additional $8 billion? (A bit of research suggests that this includes accelerated investments to counter the effects of US tariffs, affordability measures like the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, investment in Build Canada Strong projects, including housing, investment in a new financial crimes and anti-fraud agency, and financial support for built-in-Canada defence and infrastructure projects.) 

No doubt all will become clearer in the coming days, but so far it seems like a bit of a head-scratcher of a budget. As a Liberal budget it is - that word again! - unprecedented. I can't help but think that some of this stuff will come back to bite them later.

Should I be concerned rhat Canada's happiness is slipping?

There's a World Happiness Report published every year - I've mentioned it from time to time in this blog: it seems like an interesting idea, a fun but functional concept.

This year, as always, Finland is top of the list, followed by all the other Scandinavian and near-Scandinavian countries (and, interestingly, Costa Rica). This year's Index has generated more attention that usual here in Canada, though, because Canada has fallen precipitously from 6th to 25th.

Scandal! Horrors!

Why Canada's happiness rating has fallen more than any other country is unclear. Social media, weakened family ties, a crumbling welfare state, and several other factors have all been mooted. But other countries are also living under the threat of  tariffs, dire climate change, even existential violation. Other countries use social media at least as much as we do. Why are Canadians more upset about everything than the denizens of other countries?

Actually, that's not the point of my entry.

What I found out this year is that the Global Happiness Index is actually based on a sample population's response to just a single "life evaluation" question. So, people are self-reporting how they feel at a particular point time, which doesn't sound very scientific somehow. Maybe the Canadians were sampled on the day Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and car exports, or the day Trump reiterated his threat to make us the 51st US state? Maybe the Finns are the most delusional people, not actually the happiest? (Finland used to have the highest suicide rate in the world and, although it has improved that statistic impressively in recent years, its suicide rate is still worse than average. How happy can they really be?) And anyway, what happened to Bhutan, the self-styled "kingdom of happiness", with its famous Gross National Happiness metric? (It's not on the list at all!)

So, should I be concerned about the mental state of Canadians? Well, maybe, although perhaps 25th out of 147 is not all that bad. But surely we can do a better job of measuring happiness than a simplistic question.

Once again, Ford makes inappropriate noises about the judiciary

Doug Ford again, I'm afraid. I'm getting tired of complaining about him, but he seems to have been opening his mouth without engaging his brain more and more just recently, as I have reported here several times in the last month or two.

Yesterday, in addition to his controversial comments about a trigger-happy homeowner, he parroted the Toronto Police Association's and Chief of Police's (dubious) assertion that veteran Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy should apologize to three Toronto Police officers after an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation found no evidence of perjury or collusion in their evidence at the trial of Umar Zameer, a man accused of fatally running over one of their colleagues. 

For the record, Zameer was found not guilty back in 2024; that part at least is not at issue. So, in the end, the police officers' testimony - truth or lies - did not actually change the verdict.

In his usual over-the-top, overwrought way, Ford stated that the judge "should apologize for accusing them of everything under the sun". The OPP report did indeed exonerate the three police officers, despite the fact that their testimonies were remarkably similar to each other, and totally at odds with the security video and the testimony of two expert witnesses. 

It was this inconsistency with the other evidence, and the similarity of their own contributions, that led Justice Molloy to suggest that there was some collusion and perhaps even some untruths, in what was a case that was very close to home for them. Her comments were a reasonable conclusion, as many legal experts have averred. In fact, the OPP's report conclusions came as a surprise to many, and some have alleged a possible cover-up, particularly as the publicly-available report was severely redacted and, it is argued, the OPP is not the right body anyway to be reviewing the actions of its own membership. There have been calls for a public inquiry into the matter, or at the very least the release of the full report.

Either way, it is entirely inappropriate for Doug Ford to be commenting publicly on the report, and especially inappropriate for him to be questioning the competence and independence of a senior Ontario judge, just because he happens to disagree with them. But then, "inappropriate" is Ford's middle name these days. I'm sure he see what is happening south of the border, and concludes that he can get away with such nonsense too.

Confusion on what US National Intelligence is for

So many MAGA people are so completely in thrall to Trump that they seem not able to think for themselves, or at least daren't voice any kind of dissent because their jobs are on the line. 

Take, for example, the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who maintained under questioning by a congressional committee that: "The only person that can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the President". Er, no, that's exactly what National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Centre (and a bunch of other similar-sounding agencies) are for. They are supposed to advise the President, because the President is not an expert in these matters (and this President in particular needs more guidance than most).

Ms. Gabbard even doubled down: "It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determmine what is and is not an imminent threat." She seems a little confused about her job mandate. Her (Democrat) questioner shot back: "It is PRECISELY your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States".

If the President then ignores that advice, then that's on him. Frustrations, even within Trump's so-called supporters, are building; hence the high-profile resignation of National Counterterrorism Center boss Joe Kent yesterday.

I get it that some of these people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, and many of them are completely out of their depths, unqualified and inexperienced in the fields they have been dumped in. But that's hardly an excuse.

Doug Ford hits the controversy button yet again

Not one to be shy of making his opinions known, Doug Ford has been throwing his controversial views around again. It does seem like, just recently, pretty everything he says is contentious or dubious.

After a Vaughan home-owner foiled a home invasion attempt by shooting and injuring one of the would-be burglers, Ford couldn't stop himself from congratulating the trigger-happy home-owner: "W1ell, you know, these guys, they need to be shot. Congratulations for shooting this guy - should have shot him a couple more times as far as I'm concerned". He went on to attack the federal government for "going after legal, law-abiding gun owners" and berated "weak-kneed judges" for letting people out on bail.

The home invader who was shot was actually injured, not killed, but he could easily have been killed, and presumably Ford would have been fine with that too. The injured man was seen in security video footage to be holding a gun, but did not use it. He is now facing charges of robbery with a firearm and "disguise with intent". No charges are being laid against the resident doing the shooting.

Predictably, many people took issue with Ford's outburst. NDP opposition leader Marit Styles called it "very irresponsible nonsense", and Green Party leader Mike Schreiner called it "irresponsible of the Premier to be making comments encouraging violence or celebrating the loss of life". A Liberal critic pointed out that "no-one should be congratulated for shooting another person". 

More than one commentator has observed that this kind of vigilante justice should be discouraged, not praised. Under Canadian law, the use of force is only allowed when "reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances". 

Our ethical decisions may depend on the language they are couched in

Here's an interesting thing. You've probably heard of what's usually referred to as the "trolley problem" of ethics and philosophy. So, people have to decide whether to sacrifice one person in order to save five others who are about to be killed by a hypothetical runaway trolley bus (or tram, or train). There are various formulations and variations, like what if it was a fat person or an old person, or what if you had to actually push a person off a bridge in order to save the five rather than just pull a track switch. 

Generally speaking, a sizeable majority think that it is morally permissible to make the utilitarian choice and pull the lever to save the five at the cost of the one. However, much fewer people would push someone off the bridge to save the five, reflecting the increased "emotional resonance" of such an action. 

More recent studies have looked at what difference the language in which the problem is posed makes to people's moral decison-making. The problem was put to people who spoke more than one language, both in their native language and in their second language. By a substantial margin, more people chose to pull the switch to kill the one person inorder to save the five if the problem was put to them in their second language, rather than in their native language. The difference was even starker for the more emotive problem of having to push someone off a bridge rather than just pull a rail switch at a distance. Furthermore, the poorer people's mastery of the second language, the more marked the effect.

This suggests that a native language holds much more emotional resonance, while a second language maintains more psychological distance for most people. This makes some intuitive sense, I guess, but it's interesting to see it demonstrated in quite such a stark manner.

Joe Kent resignation is a blow for Trump

Trump shrugged it off and (very quickly) moved on to a new question in a media scrum yesterday, but the resignation of Joe Kent - the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center - is a big deal.

Not just because Kent was a Trump appointee and a high-profile MAGA guy (albeit on the non-interventionist wing of the movement). But because he didn't just disappear quietly into the background, but rather defected very publicly, with an open letter explaining his reasons for resigning and the many reasons why Trump's war in Iran is wrong.

"I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby." 

Ouch.

Don't get me wrong, Kent is a loose cannon himself and deep into conspiracy theories. But kudos to him for standing up to Trump and telling it like it is. The rift between the interventionist and non-interventionist wings of the MAGA base is becoming deeper and wider every day. Bring it on, I say.

Trump tries to bribe companies to abandon renewable energy projects

It's no secret that Donald Trump hates wind turbines, especially offshore ones. He has tried (and largely failed so far) to cancel a bunch of wind farms off the eastern US seaboard that were already in progress.

Now, though, he is setting his sights on cancelling offshore wind farms that are permitted but not yet begun. And this time, there's a twist.

Trump wants to cancel two large wind farms permitted by the Biden administration to the French oil/energy company TotalEnergies SE, one off the coast of New York, and one off North Carolina. His ploy now - or at least that of the Interior and Justice Departments, which just seem to follow Trump's every whim, no matter how random, foolish or financially imprudent - is to basically bribe the developers. 

The New York Times has viewed contracts drawn up with TotalEnergies that would see the company abandon the two wind farms (which would, between them, have powered over a million homes and businesses) and commit unspecified sums of money to investing in natural gas infrastructure in Texas instead. To make TotalEnergies happy with this intervention and their loss of income, the Justice Department would pay them $795 million to abandon the New York project and a further $133 million for the North Carolina development. 

So, that's nearly a billion dollars of taxpayer money that Trump is making the government shell out just because ... well, we're not really sure why. There are no actual national security reasons or economic imperatives, whatever Trump may bluster. He has just decided that he doesn't like wind power, and his feckless administration humours him in it. And this, remember, in a so-called "energy emergency" that Trump himself declared last year.

You can't buy veggie chicken in Europe any more

The EU comes in for a lot of stick from a lot of folks and for various different reasons. But, for all that, it remains one of the most sensible and civilized blocs in today's world. Yes, it has its problems (Hungary, anyone?) but, for the most part, it does a good job of providing a voice of sobriety and reason in today's increasingly weird and dysfunctional global politics.

Occasionally, though, it missteps. One such misstep is the latest policy decision to ban the use of words like "chicken", "bacon" and "steak" by vegetarian and vegan food producers, even if it is clearly qualified on the label as being vegetarian or vegan. Mysteriously, words like "burger", "nuggets" and "sausage" ARE still allowed, because ... well, I'm really not sure why. Where they stand on the use of "chick'un", "chick'n", etc, I'm also not sure. Incidentally, this ruling also applies to the UK, which - also mysteriously - is still subject to such EU commercial edicts.

Now, it seems pretty unlikely to me that anyone has ever picked up a pack of veggie bacon in a supermarket and been traumatized to find that it contains absolutely no dead animal. The "veggie" part is usually front and centre of their packaging and advertising - it's a positive selling point, after all. (A British survey suggests that 92% of shoppers say they have NEVER mistaken "fake" meat for the "real thing".)

Either way, I think the EU overstepped their brief on this this one. Do they really have nothing better to discuss at the moment, like maybe global security, recession-spawning tariffs, existential changes in the climate?

No-one wants to help dig Trump out of his latest quagmire

Unsurprisingly, Trump's "demand" that other countries (like China, Japan, South Korea, France and the UK) help police the Strait of Hormuz is falling on deaf ears.

"I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their own territory", quoth he. Well, no it's not, actually. The Strait, which is as narrow as 20 miles (32km) at one point, is technically an "international strait" within the meaning of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is bordered by Iran on one side and Oman on the other. Iran does not legally own the Strait, but it can effectively control it based on its physical proximity. However, it definitely does not belong to the USA, China or any other country that may happen to use it or want it.

Trump, whose "most powerful military in the world" seems to be struggling to assert control in the region, wants to drag other countries into his unilateral war. But, wisely, no-one is biting. Just because Trump has bitten off more than he can chew doesn't mean that everyone else should come flocking to his aid - quite the contrary. He needs to learn not to go around imperilling world trade and security based on little more than a whim and delusions of grandeur. 

After Trump warned - in his usual tone of veiled, or not-so-veiled, threat - that not doing as he "demands" would be "very bad for the future of NATA", one former British Chief of Defence Staff laid it out clearly: "NATO was created as a ... defensive alliance. It was not an alliance that was designed for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow." Thus far, there have been few firm commitments (none confirmed publicly, despite Trump's claims). Canada, as always is playing it cagey, insisting that "there has been no formal ask of Canada". More bluntly, the UK's Keir Starmer asserts that the UK "will not be drawn into the wider war". German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius was even blunter: "This is not our war. We haven't started it."

UPDATE

Stung by the deafening silence from the US's "allies", Trump launched into another bewildering speech in which he flip-flopped back and forth but eventually concluded (I think) with the rather tired line that America doesn't actually NEED anyone else's help - they're the most powerful country on earth, don't you know, with the strongest military anybody has ever seen, ever - and that he was only asking for help in the Strait of Hormuz to see who would respond, to see who his real friends are.

Unbearable man! I think he can safely say, after this little exercise, that he HAS no friends, and that he has managed to alienate pretty much the whole world in just one year.

Even teabags are full of microplastics

By now, we have pretty much come to understand that microplastics and nanoplastics.(collectively, MNPs) are everywhere, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the very air we breathe. Our bodies are therefore just full of them.

A recent meta-study shows just how many are entering our system through as innocent an activity as drinking a cup of tea. Setting aside MNPs in the water, MNPs leaching from the cup/mug/teapot, and MNPs from the packaging and processing operations, the studies show that the teabags themselves are a significant source of micro- and nano- plastics.

I try to avoid those fancy pyramid-shaped "silk" teabags, which are essentially made of nylon (i.e. plastic). Pour boiling water over them and you have to expect a flood of plastic bits to be released. But traditional "paper" teabags (which are actually primarily made of bleached wood pulp and abaca, a banana plant derivative) are also a source, made worse by the fact that many such paper teabags are treated with polypropylene, epichlorohydrin, etc, to help strengthen and seal them. Not even "biodegradable", "compostable" and PLA "bioplastic" teabags are exempt.

A single teabag, it seems, can release between 1.3 and 14.7 billion MNPs, depending on the study and the methodology. Those are huge and scary numbers, but they do not mean that teabags are killing us, merely that they are contributing to the plastic load in our bodies and the environment, which over time will degrade our health in subtle and opaque ways.

Makes you feel like throwing your hands up in despair and having a cup of tea, doesn't it? Oh, wait...

Trump's solution to the oil crisis is ... not actually a solution

Trump's gratuitous and illegal war in Iran has upended the world's trade in oil and gas and caused a record spike in prices

But, never fear, he has a plan. That plan involves lifting the restrictions that he himself imposed on other countries buying Russian gas. Not the most obvious solution, you might think. Not even a very effective solution. But, as treasury secretary Scott Bessant assures us, this really won't benefit Russia all that much: "It won't provide significant benefit to the Russian government", and is merely a "tailored short-term move".

Well, it turns out that this "tailored short-term move" will actually generate about $11.3 billion for Russia, money that Moscow will happily pocket and put towards its rapidly-depleting Ukraine kitty. India and China, neither of which greatly care about the morality of buying Russian oil, will be most happy to take advantage of this new loophole without being dinged by American tariffs. 

And this is somehow supposed to directly ameliorate the global oil price crunch? To rectify the economic chaos that Trump himself instigated?

Brilliant idea, Donny! Inspired!

Gambling in America goes beyond the pale

If you wanted yet more evidence that the United States is going off the rails, you need look no further than American gambling culture.

Gambling, including online gambling, in the US used to be pretty highly regulated. Sports betting was illegal until 2018, and betting on elections was off-limits until 2024. Now, though, gambling has become completely ingrained in American culture.

Most recently, in the morality-free milieu of Trump 2.0 and MAGA "philosophy", an even more problematic habit is taking hold: the so-called "prediction market", or betting on political or military actions. Under American law, it is still supposed to be illegal to bet on war, terrorism, assassination, or other illegal activities. But, of late, outfits like Kalshi and Polymarket have been taking bets on, for example, when Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be "out", military action in Venezuela and Israel, when US ground forces will enter Iran, even the chances of a nuclear detonation.

Yes, it is all supposed to be illegal, but there has been an estimated $44 billion in prediction market trades over the last year or so. Polymarket alone has hosted an estimated $500 million in bets on the Iran war, which is now just two weeks old. There does not seem to be much enforcement of the legalities.

There has been an outcry, though, and some of the companies involved have said they will dial back that line of gambling. There is even discussion of whether such speculation should come under the oversight of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. But in a country where you can bet on local elections, whether the central bank will cut interest rates, and when Jesus.Christ will return, there doesn't seem much likelihood of legal reform making a whole lot of difference.

Our complicated relationship with the USA

It hardly needs re-stating, but Canada's relationship with the United States is now on pretty rocky ground. What is perhaps less obvious is the contradictory nature of our attitudes towards our overbearing southern neighbour.

For example, in the latest polls, 49% of Canadians think that the US is no longer a trustworthy ally of Canada, and a further 27% "somewhat" believe that. That's 76% (three-quarters) of the population, compared to 22% who believe or somewhat believe that the US is still trustworthy.

As a result, 75% of us have responded to the Trump administration's predations by avoiding purchasing American goods or services, and 51% have cancelled travel plans to the US. That's how much we dislike them (or rather "him", although it's difficult to tease the two apart).

But...

A large majority still believes that, for better or worse, we are tied to the United States, at least to some extent. Thus, 81% think that the USMCA/CUSMA free trade agreement with the USA and Mexico has been a net positive for Canada, and 87% think it is important or somewhat important to preserve USMCA/CUSMA, and support Prime Minister Carney in his bid to renegotiate the agreement this year.

So, it's very much case of "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". We would prefer to have nothing to do with the USA, but most people realize that's not actually practical.

No, Mr. Ford, banning the Al-Quds Day rally is not the answer

Talking of putting himself on the wrong side of history again, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is on a roll recently, most recently by wading into the controversial pro-Palestine Al-Quds Day rally in Toronto, which is scheduled for later today.

In a very-last-minute attempt at intervention, Ford has called on the Ontario Attorney-General to ban this year's demonstration, which he says "is nothing more than a breeding ground for hate and antisemitism" and that "it glorifies violence, it celebrates terrorism". 

Legally, constitutionally, I'm pretty sure he can't do that. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)  says it is "deeply troubled" by Ford's move, calling it "a sweeping attack on freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly".

The Al-Quds Day rally is an annual demonstration, part of a "global day against imperialism" that has been happening every year for decades now. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for the Islamic holy city of Jerusalem, as well as one of the holy names of God, meaning "the holy one" or "the pure one". In Toronto at any rate, the rally is first and foremost a pro-Palestinian protest, although, given the current situation in the Middle East, it will almost certainly include Iran and Lebanon under its banner this year. It is only anti-Israel insofar as Israel is the country oppressing Palestine and Iran, and only anti-Jewish insofar as Israel is motivated by Jewish nationalism.

That said, the protest has in the past pushed boundaries. While not actually violent, it has seen some pretty inflammatory anti-Israel, and, very occasionally, downright antisemitic rhetoric. This is unfortunate, but pre-emptively banning the demo at the last minute is not the solution.

The rally plans to go ahead inspire of Ford's calls for an injunction. There will almost certainly be a pro-Israel counter-demonstration too, which is the only thing that might cause it all to end in violence.

UPDATE

In the end, the Ontario Court denied Ford his injunction and the Al-Quds Day rally went ahead. It was noisy, boisterous and well-attended (about 3,000 in downtown Toronto and many more at other smaller rallies) and, despite the presence of a small pro-Israel counter-protest, there were just two isolated arrests. So much for Ford's predicted hate-filled bloodbath.

Ford professed himself "extremely disappointed" at the court's judgement, and no doubt he will be complaining again about our "biased" legal system and renew his calls for reform (he has expressed his preference for a partisan appointed judiciary, à la USA). But luckily, for now at least, we still have an independent judiciary so that, when Ford and his administration tries to pull illegal and unconstitutional stunts, as they are prone to do, there is an impartial legal system there to hold him to account.

Let's be realistic about privacy and civil rights

When I was younger - much younger - I felt strongly about privacy and civil rights. As an old geezer now, I find I am much less concerned about such matters. Maybe that's a normal part of ageing: young folks tend to be much more idealistic and less pragmatic.

Either way, I find that the opposition of "privacy advocates" to the recently-tabled federal Bill 22 to be overblown and exaggerated. The bill grants law enforcement agencies like the police and CSIS new "lawful access" powers to online data and cellphone records for investigative purposes where there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise to me, although I've a suspicion that, twenty years ago, I would have been up in arms about it. But this is not government spying. This is not some kind of police state manoeuvre. Nobody is tracking our every move in our everyday lives (well, except Google, Facebook and whole host of other tech companies!)

It merely allows law enforcement agencies to gather more pertinent and important information in specific circumstances where a crime may have been committed. If you don't go around committing crimes, this new law will not affect you at all.

I don't think I am being naïve here, as civil rights organizations would almost certainly agree. Neither is it necessarily the start of a slippery slope. It's just a practical aid to law enforcement in Canada, and one they have been requesting for for years.

Hell, I don't even care that much about those tech companies these days. If they want to track my online movements and target advertising towards my specific preferences, that's fine by me. I can choose to ignore the ads - which is what I usually do - or maybe I'll actually discover something I really like. At any rate, it seems like a small price to pay for all the "free" services companies like Google provide. (I'm less supportive of the likes of Facebook, X, etc, which don't really provide any useful content in my opinion; consequently, I have not had accounts with those kinds of social media bloodsuckers for decades. Again, my choice.)

Doug Ford moves to exert more power over Toronto

Doug Ford, Premier of the province of Ontario, is furthering his life-long ambition to be Mayor of Toronto, or at least to exert control over the city, one way or another. He has never forgiven Toronto for not voting him in as Mayor back in 2014, and has made it his MO as Ontario Premier to interfere in Toronto politics as much as he possibly can, from reducing the number of city councillors (in the middle of a municipal election) to closing down and moving iconic museums to trying (and failing) to get rid of the city's bike lanes and speed cameras.

In his latest shot across the bow of the city, Ford has vowed to take over Toronto Island's little Billy Bishop City Airport and expand it to accommodate jet planes. Currently, the small airport (often referred to as the "island airport") is only used by smaller turboprop planes operated by Porter Airlines and Air Canada. Ford wants to see "small jets" also able to use it, which would require an extension to the runway, as well as more parking and infrastructure in general.

The idea of jet flights from the island airport has been proposed - and defeated - many times, most recently in 2013. Business travellers may be in favour of it, but the residents and users of the Toronto waterfront and its parks have repeatedly rejected it due to the increased noise, pollution and development. Current Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow remains implacably opposed to expansion of the airport.

The airport is currently owned by a three-way agreement between the City of Toronto, the Toronto Port Authority (a federal agency) and the federal Government of Canada. While the City remains opposed to the idea, the Port Authority reportedly favours further development, and the federal government is reserving judgement thus far. 

Because of the way the municipality is structured and its legal subservience to the province, Ford and the province of Ontario could legally replace Toronto in this ownership structure, in which case the further development of the airport would be all but assured, even if it is against the wishes of the city's residents. Ford would have another victory over the ungrateful City of Toronto, and his business buddies would be very pleased with him.

Either way, Ford is putting himself on the wrong side of history yet again with this issue, and putting his business buddies ahead of the regular folk of the area. Sign the petition and send him an email.

Studies say remote working actually improves productivity and engagement

Remember all that fuss a year or two ago, as companies and government departments reacted en masse against the pandemic trend of remote working? How we were told that the pandemic was now over and we had to get back to normal - at least four or five days a week in the office - because the financial health of the company, the province, the very country, was at stake? A lot of people were very upset about it, but most people went along with it - after all, they were left with little choice.

Well, how did that turn out?

Multiple studies are suggesting that, actually, those few holdout companies that did not insist on the great exodus back to the office are.doing substantially better than those that, for whatever reason, did insist on a return to the traditional office set-up:

A report by the Institute for Corporate Productivity says that more flexible organizations that allow for remote working produce stronger output, healthier corporate engagement, and faster growth than those more hidebound companies that mandated office attendance. Even without invasive monitoring of employees, such companies reported high or very high productivity. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a positive relationship between remote work and total factor productivity in various industry sectors, and faster growth in productivity since the pandemic.

The Flex Index has shown that fully-flexible companies grew revenues 1.7 times faster than more traditional companies, even after adjusting for industry and size.

A randomized peer-reviewed study by Trip.com found that their two-days-from-home hybrid model resulted in no decline in performance or promotion rates and a much improved staff retention rate. 

A US Government Accountability Office report in 2025 notes that workplace flexibility has helped with recruitment, retention and general organizational health. This is in spite of Trump's blanket back-to-the-office mandate.

A University of Pittsburgh paper on S&P500 companies concluded that return-to-office mandates do not improve financial performance or company value, adversely affect employee satisfaction, and even lead to an outflow of higher-skilled talent.

It seems like the jury is in, and flexibility wins out over tradition.

Stock exchanges will more than recover from current war - they always do

The stock markets almost always take a hit with every war or major global disruption, particularly those that impact oil producing countries, whether it be the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Yom Kippur War, the Gulf War, or Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The US-Iran conflict is no different, although it has the potential to be a much bigger upheaval, what some are calling "the biggest oil disruption in history".

After every such event, though - even partway through sometimes - the markets find a way to come to terms with the perceived risk, and return to pre-war levels, usually within a matter of days. For example, this took just 28 days in the case of the 2003 Iraq War, 27 days for the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, 7 days for the 2025 US bombing of Iran. The 1990 Gulf War took longer, at 131 days, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War and Arab oil embargo took as long as 6 years for the stock exchanges to get back to pre-war levels. But investors can take heart: even in the worst cases, share prices do recover (and then go on to ever-increasing record levels). 

The same will happen with the current US-Iran conflict, although it could takes a while, particularly with the unpredictable Trump at the helm of the US efforts. The stock exchanges always seem to me irredeemably naïve in some ways. For example, all it takes is Trump saying "the war is very complete, pretty much", and that it will be over "very soon", for the markets to react positively and oil prices to correct themselves a little, even though what he said didn't actually make sense, comes amid mixed messages from others in the administration and even from Trump himself, and is an opinion based anyway on absolutely nothing. 

So, hold on, they BELIEVE the guy!? The war is far from "complete", and a resolute Iran says, "we are the ones who will determine the end of the war". And even if Trump wants it to call it a day - "Any time I want it to end,  it will end" - Israel has no intentions of stopping the bombing any time soon - while Iran is down they will continue kicking for as long as they possibly can.

But end it most certainly will, one day. And you can bet that, within weeks, the stock exchanges will be be back at, or near, record levels.

Tone deaf to the nth degree

In an instance of tone-deafness jaw-dropping even by his own lofty standards, Donald Trump has essentially called most Americans fools.

As Americans - and others - kvetch about the rapidly rising prices of oil and gasoline (and therefore everything else) Trump dropped a Truth Social post: "Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY." [His capitalization and punctuation]

Oh, OK. Daddy knows best, I suppose. Pardon me for thinking.

Iran's President apologizes for attacking neighbours

In the midst of all-out war between the USA and Iran, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made the bizarre gesture of a formal public apology to the neighbours - Sunni Islamic, more westernized countries that host US air bases - that Iran has been attacking with waves of drones and missiles, in what is known as "horizontal escalation". "I deem it necessary to apologize to neighbouring countries that were attacked. We do not intend to invade neighbouring countries."

Meanwhile, Iran's armed forces continued to do just that, with nary a let-up in their bombardments.

The President is not a particularly important or influential figure in Iranian politics  - the real power in the Shia Muslim theocracy lies with the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah), the leadership council, and the Revolutionary Guard. But, even so, this kind of apology in the middle of an active war is all but unprecedented, not to mention pointless, and kind of hilarious.

AI in war - we might already be there

It's a scary time when the two top news topics are war in the Middle East and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Even scarier is an article about the confluence of the two. But that's where we are right now.

It was of course only a matter of time before AI was enlisted into the service of war-making. In some areas of military surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance, it has been used for years, often with alarming repercussions (take Israel's Lavender program to identify Hamas targets, for example). But if it becomes more widely employed in planning, targeting and even decision-making, then we are in deeper trouble.

AI military use has become more problematic with the advent of agentic AI, where decision loops can become fully-automated, without any human intervention. And, of course, that is exactly the direction military strategists are going, despite the potential for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), where AI overtakes human intelligence and even learns to use deception to get its own way (the kind of stuff that AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton and others have been warning us about for years).

It's no coincidence that several leading AI researchers left Open AI over worries about the company's lack of ethical guardrails, and many of them gravitated to competitor company Anthropic, which seemed to have a more constrained and prudent approach to its research. For example, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has publicly warned about the potential for AI to serve some of the worse tendencies of autocratic states.

It was perhaps a surprise, then, that the US Department of Defense (now the Department of War) signed a contract with Anthropic last July, and it developed Claude Gov, an extension of Anthropic's publicly-available Claude chat-box, and the first large language AI model trained on classified material. The agreement did come with restrictions and guardrails: that the tool would not be used with fully-autonomous weaponry, and that it would not be used for mass surveillance of American citizens.

Then, perhaps predictably, the Republican administration pushed back. Secretary of Defense/War Hegseth started talking about an "AI-first war-fighting force" and accelerating AI adoption "from campaign planning to kill chain execution" (he sure has the military lingo down-pat, even if he is perhaps not quite sure of the ramifications). There was talk of freeing the system from "ideological bias" and "red tape" - which is code-speak for imposing their own ideological bias and removing all inconvenient rules - and even using AI to pursue "social engineering" and "cultural agendas", all things that Anthropic explicitly aimed to avoid. Yikes!

Initially, Anthropic tried to enforce its own explicitly-stated rules, and refused Pentagon officials unrestricted access to Claude Gov's capabilities. But then Trump too got involved - well, of course he did! - calling Anthropic "a radical left, woke company" (the worst insult ever in his books), and accusing it of trying to "strong-arm" the US military. He even threatened to designate Anthropic a national security supply chain risk (a label typically reserved for Chinese and Russian companies), and threatened legal action to force the company to comply with his whims.

Despite Anthropic's concerns, there are reports that Claude Gov was involved in both the US kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, and the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. It's not clear to what extent these operations involved fully-automated weapons systems, and there is no way the Trump administration is going to tell us. 

So, it seems the guard-rails are at least partially down, and the training wheel are off. In the hands of an unbalanced and unhinged administration like that in today's White House, all bets on weaponized AI are off. Science fiction tropes are in everyday use, and none of this is good.

Another little-discussed Ozempic side effect

It seems like every time you read about Ozempic/Wegovy/semaglutide/GLP-1, it's being touted as the ultimate cure for pretty much everything. It's probably the most successful drug in the world, and many people are referring to it as the "everything drug" because it does seem to have an effect on many different conditions, not just diabetes and obesity.

The other times you read about it, though, is when some of the more unfortunate side-effects are discussed: Ozempic face, Ozempic ears, Ozempic butt, Ozempic breasts, Ozempic wallet, etc, etc. Gastrointestinal discomfort and nausea are the most common side effects, but these appearance issues are much more top-of-mind for many people. It seems like the rapid weight loss and, particularly, the loss of fat and muscle, causes pretty much everything to sag, wrinkle and loosen. Well, that might be the price people have to pay for the "good stuff", and who knows, it may not be a permanent or irremediable condition (although fixing it can certainly be difficult).

More recently, though, I have been reading about another commonly-reported side effect: intolerable itching. Red, itchy patches and/or swelling affect 3-8% of users, usually restricted to the injection site, but sometimes body-wide, depending on the individual. This may just be a reaction to the injection itself or to the drug, but it can be a big issue for some people.

Just a reminder that miracles don't really exist (or come with complications).

Productivity and life expectancy are inversely correlated?

Here's an interesting, and probably statistically spurious, factoid: economic output per person seems to be inversely correlated with life expectancy.

Best illustrated by the graphic above (which I had to scan from the print copy of the Globe and Mail article for some reason), GDP per person - what you might call productivity - of G7 countries, in order, are: USA, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Britain, Japan. Average life expectancy in those countries, IN REVERSE ORDER (worst to best) are: USA, Britain, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Japan.

Almost an exact match (apart from Britain, which seems to manage poor productivity AND shorter lives).

While this is not necessarily a causative relationship, it COULD be. It is certainly a striking correspondence.

Does the world still run on oil?

The other thing the current oil crisis has brought home to me is the extent to which we still rely on oil. A depressing article in the Globe and Mail entitled "What energy transition? The Middle East war shows the world still runs on oil", pointed out that 87% of total global energy in the 1970s was from fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and that figure today is still 81%. 

That does indeed seem to be the case: the Energy Institute's 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy shows that primary energy consumption is made up 31.7% by oil, 26.5% by coal, 23.3% by natural gas (so, 81.5% by fossil fuels in total), 4.0% by nuclear, 6.4% by hydroelectricity, and 8.2% by other renewables (mainly wind and solar). So, 18.6% could be called carbon-free. Furthermore, overall energy consumption is still increasing at a pretty steady clip.

A more granular look shows that the contribution from renewables is still increasing, and increasing faster than the other sources, much of that due to China. So, the picture could be substantially different in a few years time. But it's still a pretty depressing picture, and all the more worrying since the move away from fossil fuels has noticeably slowed in the last year or so, mainly due to the single-handed influence of one, Donald Trump.

Why are oil prices spiking when the US is the largest oil producer?

If only 20% of the world's oil is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, and that Strait is in dire straits due to the USA's war with Iran (and Iran's war with everywhere else), why are oil prices going through the roof?

Oil is currently (6th March 2026) hovering around $90 a barrel - $86, $88, $99, depending on which metric you look at - and is expected to leap past $100 very soon, levels not seen since the early days of the Russia-Ukraine war. It was below $60 just a couple of months ago.

Doesn't that seem like an exaggerated reaction? I mean, 80% of oil production still goes nowhere near the Strait of Hormuz. The USA is the largest single producer followed by Russia (here's a fascinating animation of how the main producers have changed over the years). But in terms of regions, the Middle East is still the biggest producer, followed by North America and then Russia and its satellites, and all of Middle East's production is being affected by the US-Iran conflict, regardless of how it is transported.

Another factor is the destination of the oil that flows though the Strait of Hormuz: some 89% of the oil that is shipped through the Strait is bound for Asia, and 83% of.the liquid natural gas. So, it's regional effect is much more marked than the overall average might suggest. The war in Iran is already causing  an energy crisis in South Asia. The markets take that into account too.

Oil is a global, fungible commodity. We are told to think of oil as the contents of a bathtub with many taps and many drains. So, regardless of who produces the oil (fills the bathtub) and who uses it (drains the tub), there is essentially one global price (a bath full of homogeneous water). Or here's another good explanation using a swimming pool analogy. So, if one part of the global supply becomes more expensive, say because of an unnecessary and ill-advised regional war, the price rises for everyone. The same applies to liquid natural gas, pharmaceuticals, helium, and any number of other commodities that typically use the Strait for delivery purposes. Such is the consequence of globalized trade.

Also, bear in mind that oil markets, like stock exchanges, do tend to over-react to everything before correcting themselves if the sky turns out not to be falling after all.

BC opts for permanent daylight saving time - but is that wise?

British Columbia is that brave Canadian province willing to put its money where its mouth is and do away with those tedious biannual clock changes. 

Several other provinces have been talking about it for years, but BC is actually making it happen. This comes after a "public engagement" (actually involving just 5% of the population) voted overwhelmingly (93%!) to adopt year-round daylight saving time.

It seems clear that few people really want the hassle of clock changes every six or eight months, but why choose daylight saving time (DST) not standard time (ST)? 

It's argued that people want longer, lighter evenings in the winter, and even that it will increase winter tourism, which seems like a bit of a stretch. 

Except BC's public consultations didn't even offer the option of permanent ST, only DST, so it's not known which option the populace would actually prefer. There's certainly a vocal contingent (minority? majority? who knows?) that would prefer to see ST become the year-round permanent time, and most health experts argue that, from a health and safety point of view, standard time, not daylight saving time, is much preferable (kids walking to school in the dark, sleepy drivers driving on dark roads, etc).

It's further argued by BC that DST would align better with neighbouring states Washington, Oregon and California, all of which also WANT to switch to year-round DST. But states require federal buy-in before they can make such a change - Donald Trump's personal seal of approval? Like he's going to offer California and Oregon anything they might want! - so BC is now out of sync with those states in the winter, at least for the foreseeable future. 

It's interesting that BC is more concerned with aligning with Western US states than with its eastern neighbour, Alberta. Alberta too is considering changing to year-round time, although the last referendum, in 2021, narrowly voted against it. Further to the east, Saskatchewan is already on permanent time - and has been since 1966! - but they chose ST, not DST, just to confuse things.

It will be interesting to see whether BC's unilateral decision opens the floodgates on clock-changing in Canada. Whether it's the "right" decision or not remains to be seen - I'm sure there's an army of chronologists, health researchers and statisticians out there monitoring its every move.

Opening up alcohol sales not having the expected result

When Doug Ford opened up Ontario corner stores and gas stations to alcohol sales back in 2024, there was talk of a potential dangerous spike in alcohol consumption, as it became much more convenient and more poorly regulated. I confess I was part of that talk.

What actually happened, though, was that a whole load of Beer Store outlets closed down as a result of the increased competition, and fewer convenience stores than expected took up the offer of booze trading. The upshot, in retrospect? Alcohol sales are actually down significantly, by about 3% in volume and 3.4% in dollar terms. A graphical representation makes this very clear.

This perhaps surprising outcome - almost certinly not what Mr. Ford was looking for - is ppartly a result of fewer and less convenient Beer Store outlets, but also partly a demographic result of a greater preponderance of Gen Z youngsters in the population, a cohort that is notoriously (if that is the right word) shunning alcohol consumption.

Remember this quote from JD Vance

I actually don't remember it at the time, but here's a great quote from US Vice-President JD Vance during the 2024 presidential campaign:

"Our interest, I think very much, is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country."

In a later podcast interview, Vance even opined that a war between Israel and Iran would be "the most likely and most dangerous scenario" for provoking World War III.

Yikes! If you'd been thinking that you hadn't heard much from Mr. Vance throughout this whole US-Iran war thing, well, that might be part of the reason.

War or no war. Mispoke or no mispoke

There are those in the MAGA camp who seem unsure whether the US is actually in a war. 

For example, Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, a prominent Trump ally, led his Fox News interview with "We are not at war with Iran". Period. Then he wobbled. "This is war, and we're taking out the threat." Ah, right. When pressed, he clarified: "We haven't declared war. They declared war on us, but we haven't." But, another reporter pointed out, "Just now you said, 'This is war'. You called it war." "OK, well, that was a misspoke', Mullin concluded. Clear as mud, then.

Mr. Mullin is not alone. Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham both seem to think that American is not at war with Iran.

For context, there is an interesting article by the Globe and Mail's Standards Editor about the use of the word "war" in press reports, and when "strikes" seamlessly morphed into full-scale "war". Essentially, it's nothing to do with a declaration of war - the last time the USA actually declared war was 1942! - but more to do with "the scope and intensity of the fighting".

Trump invaded Iran based on a "feeling"?

After a great long post the other day about the US war against Iran, here's a much shorter, but no less damning, one.

When the USA invaded Iraq back in in 1991, George H.W. Bush got United Nations backing and a vote in Congress before he went in to Iraq, which had just invaded little Kuwait.

When the USA invaded Iraq again in 2003, his son George W. also obtained Congressional approval and, although he didn't actually get UN Security Council clearance, he did at least have the support of a good 40 misguided members of the UN. The issue, you might remember, was his conviction that Iraq had accumulated a stock of "weapons of mass destruction" (a phrase you don't often hear these days, but basically we are talking about nuclear bombs). That claim turned out to be demonstrably false, but Bush and a majority in the US Congress, as well as whole host of other countries, and even apparently most Iraqis, did believe it to be true.

Fast forward to February 2026, and Donald Trump has set in motion a full-scale war on Iran without telling a soul - not Congress, not the UN, not the Security Council, just the leaders of Israel (who can only loosely be described as having a soul). Trump made his decision because, as he says himself, he had a "feeling" that Iran was imminently about to attack the US (or possibly Israel, or possibly some other country): "It was my opinion that they were going to attack first. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that."

Wow. So, there you have it in a nutshell: Trump declared a war in which hundreds have already died, and the whole world economy has been upended, based on a hunch, a feeling, an opinion. Watch the video. It will creep you out forever.

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

This is a long post - there's a lot going on - but bear with me, I'll get to the point eventually.

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.