A short sketch on the Canadian improv comedy show This Hour Has 22 Minutes has gone viral - in Canada and America and even further afield.
Trent McClellan is the N.I.C.E. Agent, targeting American tourists, checking their phones (for baby photos), taking selfies, handing out candies, and scoring hugs.
It's two minutes of wwholesome Canadian fun, and it obviously appeals to many.
I hadn't really thought about it before, but there are some fascinating parallels between Alberta's almost-certain secession referendum later this year and Britain's Brexit vote in 2016.
In those halcyon and naïve days - pre-COVID, pre-Trump, pre-Ukraine war, pre-AI, etc, etc - British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron merely wanted to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union (EU), mainly to placate a small but vocal majority of ultra-right wingers in his party. He thought that threatening to leave the EU would be a good bargaining tool, and thought, as most people did back then, that there was no way that Britons would be daft enough to actually vote to leave. It was certainly the last thing that Cameron himself wanted.
As we all now know, things didn't pan out quite as expected, largely due to an egregious misinformation campaign by the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. Britain voted narrowly to leave the EU, Johnson became Prime Minister for three wild and largely disastrous years, and Farage lay low for a while before reinventing himself, and is now odds-on favourite to become Britain's next disastrous Prime Minister. How quickly things can go pear-shaped!
Fast forward ten years, and the Canadian province of Alberta is threatening Albexit. Premier Danielle Smith says she is personally against it, and pretty much every serious economist and political analyst has warned that the consequences would be disastrous. All the polls suggest that support in Alberta for leaving Canada is low, around 20%, nothing like the level of support for secession in Quebec back in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
But Smith has for years been using the threat of separation as leverage to press the federal government for special treatment for Alberta, again largely to placate the hard right-wing hawks in her party. She has even made the process of starting a provincial referendum on the matter much easier than it used to be, hoping to squeeze still more concessions from Ottawa from the increased pressure. It now looks almost certain that a vote will in fact be held later this year.
Sound familiar? What could possibly go wrong?
Well, one thing that could go very wrong is Donald Trump, and Ms. Smith doesn't seem to have factored him into her calculations and machinations. America's most interventionist president has made no secret of his desire to annex Canada, and particularly to get his hands on Alberta's oil. It seems likely that the Trump administration would expend a lot of money and effort in any Alberta separation campaign. At the very least, Trump would probably declare any "stay" vote to be unfair and rigged, creating constitutional chaos and uncertainty.
Could this be Danielle Smith's Cameron moment? We (and Alberta) have to hope not. What is it they say? "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
We're only just starting to get our heads around what generative artificial intelligence (AI) is. Now we have to deal with "agentic AI".
While generative AI refers to a computer response to a single query using natural language processing, agentic AI uses sophisticated reasoning and iterative planning to solve much more complex multi-step problems. The idea is that AI serves as your agent to help you make better decisions, employing multiple data sources and third party applications to analyze challenges, develop strategies, and execute tasks, all with minimal human intervention. It learns from the results it achieves, and uses this feedback to improve future plans and actions.
Frankly it's what most people think AI is (or should be), although it's only very recently that AI has become sophisticated enough to deliver on this promise. Generative AI, by comparison, is really just a jumped-up search engine, based on single input prompts. For example, generative AI can used to create some marketing materials, but agentic AI can used to actually deploy these materials, track their performance, and adjust the marketing strategy accordingly.
Agentic AI is being increasingly employed by businesses to personalize customer service, streamline software development, and facilitate patient interactions. Another place it's being used (and this is what initially triggered my interest and concern) is in shopping and merchandizing.
For example, Canadian shopping goliath Shopify has teamed up with Google and Microsoft to help shoppers find and buy its products more easily and even to help them make purchasing decisions. Shopify merchants can now sell directly through Google's Gemini app and the AI Mode of Google Search, as well as through Microsoft Copilot. Walmart and Mayfair have also recently set up similar agreements. Shopify is even setting up agentic plans with other ecommerce platforms, which will allow online stores throughout the world to sell through Shopify's catalogue, which already comprises billions of products. So, shoppers can buy multiple items from different places without ever leaving the initial AI conversation. Yikes!
Analysts are saying that this has the potential to revolutionize online shopping and advertising. Sound familiar? The merchants stress that shoppers are in control of the whole process, and that they have the final call.
But the agentic AI system can even complete checkout on a customer's behalf, based on pre-entered discount codes, loyalty credentials, billing options, and payment information. I do worry that this makes shopping a bit too easy, and I can easily see it spiralling out of control, or even becoming addictive. After all, it's the customer, not the AI, that has to pay the credit card bill at the end of the month.
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but there just seems a lot that could go wrong with this developmemt.
As of January 1st this year, the collection of recycling in Ontario (the Blue Box Program) devolves from municipalities - Toronto in my case - to a not-for-profit organization called Circular Materials. In theory, this is a step towards a more circular, less wasteful, economy, but I am reserving judgement until I see how it works in practice.
The idea, so we are told, is not so much to outsource and privatize yet more city services, but to move to a model where the producers of all the packaging that gets recycled are the ones that pay for the recycling, a concept known as "extended producer responsibility" or EPR. Environmentalists are all in favour of EPR as it represents an extension of the "polluter.pays" principle. And it does make a lot of sense to me too, in principle at least. Plus. Circular Materials seem to be able to recycle a few more items than the old City-run program - toothpaste tubes, black plastic containers, nothing too crazy
The change is supposed to save Ontario's municipalities about $200 million a year (about $10 million in the case of the city of Toronto). Historically, under the municipality-operated recycling program, producers only funded about half of the costs, with the municipalities (i.e. taxpayers) paying the other half. Now, the organizations that produce the products and packaging will be responsible for operating and finding the entire program.
However, nothing I have read about it explains just how these cost are charged to the producing companies. It sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare. Does Circular Msterials somehow keep track of every paper, plastic and metal item that runs though its system and note down which producer was responsible for it? Surely not. But how else would it work?
Of course, the producers will no doubt recoup these additional costs through higher consumer prices - they're not charities after all - but the "producer pays" principle has been established, and in theory it is now in their interests to reduce their packaging in order to reduce costs. Except, in practice, as noted, they will probably just pass on the costs to us consumers anyway. But maybe consumers will become more picky about expensive over-packaged products, who knows?
Part of Donald Trump's back-of-an-envelope "plan" for Venezuela, such as it is, is that the big American oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips should invest billions in upgrading the country's oil facilities and related infrastructure, to the tune of $100 billion, he says.
Unfortunately, he forgot to ask those companies if that was OK, and now they are showing themselves extremely leery of any such investment. Exxon CEO Darren Woods put it quite succinctly: "It's uninvestable."
Trump has tried to reassure them, insisting: "You have total safety. You're dealing with us directly and not deal with Venezuela at all. We don't want you to deal with Venezuela." But canny operators like Woods realize that it's not as simple as that, and after having had assets seized there twice already, they are understandbly reticent to do there again. They are probably also wondering whether they can trust Trump's America and more than they could Chávez and Maduro's Venezuela.
It seems quite likely that Trump will find himself bogged down for years or decades in the beleaguered South American country. And, frankly, I hope he does. I just feel sorry for the Venezuelan (and at least half of the American) people.
Russia has delivered another hypersonic Oreshnik missile strike on Lviv, Ukraine, which most Western countries are are calling out as an unacceptable escalation to the war and cause for major concern in Europe.
I say "most Western countries" because notably absent from the condemnations was the USA, which contented itself with a totally unrelated and, in the circumstances, almost laughable press release by the US Ambassador to NATO, hailing the '"tremendous progress toward a durable, enforceable peace" in Ukraine, adding that "President Trump wants peace in Ukraine". Well, how's that going guys? Talk about tone deaf.
While the rest of Europe was busy condemning Russia's move and speculating on what it might means for NATO and the EU, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not even mention the Oreshnik strike when speaking to Mark Rutte.(Secretary-General of NATO), preferring to discuss Arctic security. Was he even aware of it? And there was nothing at all from the normally garrulous President Trump.
This is only the second time that Russia has employed its hypersonic missiles. The first was back in November 2024, when Russia's first ever use of the missisle merely targeted an apparently disused factory in Dnipro, and even that event attracted a huge outcry. This one targeted the city of Lviv, just an hour's drive from the Ukrainian border with Poland, and was part of a wider coordinated attack on Kyiv involving over 270 missiles and drones.
So, why is the use of the Oreshnik considered such an escalation? It's partly that Russia's hypersonic (faster than the speed of sound) missiles were developed during the Cold War to deliver a nuclear payload, even though this particular one carried conventional non-nuclear armaments. It's partly that it travels so fast that it is very hard to shoot down and protect against. It's partly that it is very expensive, and so for Russia to be using it they must want to send a very important message. It's partly that it is considered a medium range (600-1,000 miles), or even intermediate range (upto, or even in excess of, 3,000 miles), ballistic missile, with all the connotations for NATO and Europe that brings with it.
And it's partly that it's just a very nasty piece of work. It can rain down up to six independently-targetable "re-entry vehicles", each of which may contain four to six separate ordnances, each of which in turn can be pointed at separate targets. It travels at 8,000 mph (13,000 kph), and soars up above the atmosphere before turning down sharply towards its intended target, making it almost unstoppable by the air defence systems available to Ukraine. It's a fearsome weapon and its potential destructive power is immense, especially given the difficulty of defence against it.
And why now? Well, no-one really understands the mind of Vladimir Putin, any more than they do that of Donald Trump. Moscow's official line is that it is in response to Ukraine's targeting of Putin's residence late last year, even though the CIA has assessed that it was not actually targeting the residence at all. In reality, it is probably just Russia sabre-rattling at a time when one of its allies, Venezuela, is under attack by American forces, and a Russian-flagged tanker carrying Venezuelan oil was intercepted by the Americans in the Atlantic.
This is especially likely given that this Oreshnik launch, like the one in 2024, carried only inert or "dummy" warheads according to Ukrainian officials. So, this was much more a warning of what Russia could do, to Ukraine and to others, rather than a strategic strike on infrastructure intended to do real damage.
Be that as it may, it seems like the Cold War may be back with a vengeance. And it's already warming up.
It takes a fair amount of self-confidence and gumption for Republicans to vote against Donald Trump these days. So, when five GOP Senators voted with the Democrats yesterday, it was a notable and newsworthy event.
In a motion aimed at barring Trump from further military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval, the Senate (which has a 53-47 Republican majority, even including independents with the opposition) voted 52-47 in favour. Joining all the Democrats were Republican moderates Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky, populist Josh Hawley of Missouri, and centrist Todd Young of Indiana. Predictably, Trump lashed out, saying that they "should never be elected to office again" (these are member of his own party, the one that he is supposed to be leading).
Republicans asserted themselves on another vote too, also yesterday. The House passed legislation, by a substantial 230-196 margin, to extend expired health care subsidies for those who currently get coverage through the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). No less than 17 Republican members voted with the Democrats, in spite of the best efforts of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson over a period of months, and Trump's publicly-expressed opposition to the extension.
The chances of the war powers legislation actually becoming law is slim to none, well, none actually. First, it has to pass in the House of Representatives, where the Republicans have a majority of 218-213, with 4 seats currently vacant (why?). And, while that is maybe conceivable in the current environment, Trump can, and will, still veto it, which would require a two-thirds majority to break, which is a stretch.
As for the health care bill, it must go the other way, to the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 is required (again, why?), which is also a steep path although, these days, stranger things have happened.
Both the House vote on the war powers motion and the Senate vote on health care subsidies will be interesting to see nevertheless. It will give a glimpse into just how pissed off Republicans are at the way Trump and his group of willing lackeys have hijacked the party, and the extent of Trump's power over Congress. Could this be the start of the turn of the tide? We are used to seeing the Republicans vote as a unit behind Trump, mainly because they are shit-scared of crossing him. Are some of the more disaffected members starting to think "thus far and no further".
This is rapidly turning into an American blog, it seems, but there is just so much to comment on in America these days. Every day there is some new outrage, often two or three. It's exhausting enough for a Canadian; imagine what it's like for an American. I don't comment here on even a small fraction of them and it's already overwhelming.
Yesterday, the USA announced it is withdrawing from a whole slew of international organizations, agencies, commissions and advisory panels, on the grounds that Mr. Trump doesn't think he gets enough out of them, or he objects to their focus on "woke" subjects like diversity, climate change and poverty. Trump has no interest in how the rest of the world is faring; he barely has any interest in how his own people are doing. He certainly does not want to spend any money on anything that doesn't have a positive return on investment for the United States of America
The USA has already suspended support for many international and United Nations (UN) agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA), the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Paris Climate Accords (aka the Paris Agreement on Climate Change).
To that list, it is now adding another 66 organizations, about half of them affiliated with the United Nations: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Law Commission, the Peacebuilding Commission, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group, among many others.
I've never heard of half of these organizations and have no idea what some of them do. I'm sure Trump doesn't either, but I'm sure their members do, and can explain and justify their existence. But, basically, anything with the word "international" or "cooperation" in it is now gone. Come to think of it, anything to do with science, facts or reason. In US government terms, it is a "Withdrawal from Wasteful, Ineffective or Harmful International Organizations", and they say they need no other justification to pull out than that the groups "no longer serve American interests".
And, of course, they are taking their money with them. As the richest country on earth, they have long been the largest contributors and financial mainstays of these organization, and the US's withdrawal may well mean that many of these august and well-meaning bodies may have to close down completely. The UN is currently looking to the courts to enforce what Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls the US's "legal obligation" to keep funding the groups. Good luck with that.
The Trump administration can't decide whether it wants to curl up in its little shell and pursue isolationist policies, or to go full interventionist, so it has decided to do both. Nobody has a clue what they are doing any more, or why, or what they will do next.
