US crusade against Cuba makes no sense

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's usual function in the US government is to try to settle things down after yet another wild outburst from his boss, Donald Trump, who, as we know, has anger management and impulse control issues (among many other issues).

On one brief, though, Rubio is probably even more hawkish than Trump, and that issue is Cuba. After all, there is no good reason why Trump should care that much about Cuba: it has little in the way of economic or strategic importance, which is what usually exercises Trump's twisted mind. He appears to be guided by Rubio on this one.

Because Rubio DOES have skin in that game, or at least he seems to think he does. Rubio was actually born and raised in Florida, but his parents were Cuban, and he seems to share the acute sense of grievance that so many Cuban-Americans feel. Despite living the good life in the Sunshine State, many ex-Cubans and their descendents are desperate for retribution against the Castros for pushing them out, as they see it, from their island paradise. 

These are not working class Cubans (which the Castro revolution actually helped raise up from penury and almost medieval serfdom under the pre-revolution Washington-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista); these are the old wealthy landowners and middle-class professionals. Pre-revolutionary Cuba was not a pleasant place for the poor, but a near-utopia for the wealthy. Being displaced from that is what really rankles for many Florida Cubans (and their descendents), and they want revenge.

But here's the thing: very few Cuban-Americans living in Florida today have any first-hand experience of the Cuban Revolution 67 years ago, or of the supposed paradise that preceeded it (actually a brutal dictatorship, defined by rampant corruption, censorship and ties to the American mafia). Most of their rancour and sense of grievance is based more on family lore and race memory warped and overblown throughout the decades, a kind of foundational myth with little base in reality. This is also Mr. Rubio's background.

Actually, Marco Rubio's parents left Cuba in 1956, over two years BEFORE the revolution, so arguably they were not even displaced by the revolution (although maybe they saw the writing on the wall). That makes Rubio American-born of Cuban parents who voluntarily left before the revolution. So, how much skin can he really be said to have in it? He is, though, the designated representative of many other displaced Cuban (or, mainly these days, their descendents), hence his apparent ardour on the subject.

Either way, one gets the impression that it is Rubio that is driving this latest crackdown by America. Trump probably doesn't care that much, except for the Cuban-American vote. Rubio claims the Cuban government is a severe national security threat to the US, although pretty much everyone knows that is not true.

The United States has long maintained a debilitating embargo on Cuba, an embargo that Trump recently made much, much worse by denying the country its essential imports of oil, which used to come mainly from Venezuela (which is now effectively controlled by the US), leading to devastating power cuts, food shortages, transportation standstill, and a general  disabling of its entire economy. Most recently, Trump has announced the indictment of 94-year old Raúl Castro (Fidel's brother) on "Trumped-up" charges relating to events back in 1996. It's even possible that another Maduro-style kidnapping is in the pipeline. How is arresting and trying a doddering old man going to help anything?

So, all this vitriol is directed against a small island in the Caribbean which is hard-pressed to keep its own population in order, let alone present a threat to the mighty USA. It's hard to credit. This Crusade against Cuba makes no real sense, not even for Marco Rubio. But then, why are we still looking for sense with this administration?

Remember COVID? It's still with us

I happened to read a letter in the newspaper that gave some rather striking statistics about the death rates from COVID-19 in various countries. Turns out they were true.

According to Wikipedia/Our World In Data, Canada's death rate from COVID to date has been 1,424 per million; the USA's has been 3,624 per million, and for the EU as a whole it was 2,831 per million. I'd say that was a statistically significant difference! Countries that observed even tighter controls than Canada showed even better (lower) death rates: New Zealand (884 per million), Japan (597 per million), Singapore (358 per million), etc. Next time someone complains about government overreach during the pandemic, throw that in their face! Vaccinations and public health controls save lives!

I haven't thought too much about COVID in a while, except to get our biannual vaccination, which I did just last week. It wasn't easy to find a vaccination - what a change from the good old bad old days! - but I did eventually track down a Moderna jab. This was not my first preference: I have always had a much worse reaction to Moderna than to Pfizer, but beggars can't be choosers. 

Several of the pharmacies I spoke to said that the government either didn't send them any stocks of the new vaccine, or sent so few that they ran out in a couple of days. That's just how it is these days, they griped. It seems ridiculous that I had to jump through so many hoops to get hold of a vaccine that should be part of our regular routine, like the flu jab.

That said, though, it does seem like, at the moment anyway, in the slow period of the year as we now are, there are very few reported/diagnosed/confirmed cases of COVID in our neck of the woods. 

The important part there, though, is "reported/diagnosed/confirmed". Most people do not report it or have it checked out these days unless they actually end up in hospital; many just assume it was a mild flu or some other infection. I've only had COVID once, about three years ago, but it was pretty nasty, and I'd prefer to avoid it if possible.

A new stream of reliable renewable energy: osmotic power

Renewable energy is still enjoying a period of robust expansion, despite the best efforts of Donald Trump (or, arguably, because of them).

But a relatively new and little-known source of renewable power is starting to come of age: osmotic power. While it might sound like a fictitious concept, or something the Power Rangers might invoke, the idea of the power of osmosis has been around for decades. Norway may be credited with the proof of concept of a practical power plant employing the notion, and Denmark opened the first fully-functioning osmotic power plant in 2023. But it is only with the recent commissioning of a full-scale, efficient, commercial plant at Fukuoka, Japan, that the real potential of the idea has become clear.

Osmosis is the movement of water from areas of low salt concentration to areas of high salt concentration through a membrane of some sort. It is the same principle that allows plants to draw water from the soil, and that keeps our own cells hydrated. In the context of power generation, as at Fukuoka, the difference in saltiness of seawater and freshwater is used to pull water across a membrane, increasing the pressure on the saltwater side. This pressure gradient can then be used to drive a turbine, thereby generating electricity.

In the case of Fukuoka, the saltwater is super-concentrated by using the brine left over from the operation of a nearby desalination plant, making the whole process much more efficient. The electricity generated is then fed back into the power-hungry desalination plant, as well as to supply a few hundred local homes. The power it generates is equivalent to about two soccer fields of solar panels, and it runs day and night, regardless of the weather. It produces zero carbon dioxide and no other harmful by-products.

The trick is to produce enough power to outweigh the energy cost of pumping the two streams of water into the power station, and the frictional loss across the membrane, which is what the Fukuoka plant has achieved. The idea is gathering steam [sic], and pilot projects are starting up in Norway, South Korea, Spain, Qatar and Australia. 

Right now, the modality is still in its infancy but, as technical challenges are gradually overcome and the concept comes of age, researchers say that it could eventually meet up to 15% of global energy demand by 2050 - not to be sniffed at. This prediction is probably overly optimistic, but it certainly represents yet another string to the essential bow of renewable energy.

Michelle Smith's exercise in disingenuity

Alberta politics is weird. Hell, Alberta is weird. Quebec likes to think of itself as a "distinct society" (or at least that was the phrase they were using some years ago, they've probably moved on by now), but much of the stuff that happens in Alberta leaves the rest of Canada open-mouthed in disbelief. And, in recent years, most of the weirdness (call it "distinctness", if you prefer) has swirled around Premier Daniella Smith, who is certainly no stranger to this blog.

The latest news column-filling antic from Ms. Smith is her insistence on adding a separation question to the existing nine (yes, nine!) referendum questions to be put before the Albertan voting public in October. But, wait, you say, didn't an Alberta judge just rule that a referendum on Alberta separating from Canada against the wishes of its Indigenous population would be unconstitutional and illegal? Well, yes, technically. But that was just "a legal mistake by a single judge", according to Smith, which would "silence the voices of hundreds of thousands of Albertans".

So, Ms. Smith - give her credit for her ingenuity as well as her disingenuity - came up with a referendum question under the Referendum Act, rather than the Citizen Initiative Act, which has no such requirement to consult Indigenous groups. Technically legal, this does nevertheless violate the spirit of the court ruling, and is "an attempt to evade" consultation with Indigenous groups according to First Nations.

The other thing that has attracted attention and opinion is that the proposed referendum question does not directly broach separatism. Rather, it is a kind of meta-question, a "referendum on a referendum" as many are calling it:

"Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?"

So, even if the referendum, by some freak accident, passes, Alberta is no further forward along the path towards separation, as any future referendum would still be blocked by the legal ruling. And, even if some way round that were discovered, the path is still strewn with many obstacles, as I have described before.

So, a pretty obscure move, but arguably a clever one. Presumably, Smith thought that this would placate the separatist wing of her UCP party, on which she is reliant, despite her own (somewhat suspect) protests that she is strongly pro-federalist. 

Well, no chance of that. One key separatist leader says he feels "duped", and that his movement will "react strongly". Another warned Smith that, "if she abandons her base or betrays her base, there will likely be political consequences", following up with "We need to work to remove her as leader in the same way that we worked to get rid of Kenney". Finally, "She's got to go!", said Jeffrey Rath. Ouch, none of that sounds very conciliatory or appreciative.

Indeed, she is facing criticism from all sides, not least for the way she plays fast and loose with her words. For one thing, she is trying to blame the national unity crisis over which she is presiding on everyone else but herself, including the 14 Liberal MPs who have publicly objected to Mark Carney's attempts at rapprochement with Smith, whom she calls "cowards", and of course people like federal NDP leader Avi Lewis and BC Premier David Eby, "who continue to try to put barriers in the way of us getting our product to market". How rude of them!

Smith has also repeatedly claimed that 700,000 Albertans are calling for a referendum on separation, not just the 300,000 who actually signed a petition to that end. The other 400,000? Ah, they are the people who signed a separate pro-unity petition designed to block the separatism petition. Because they really want a separatism referendum too, don't they? At one point, she even claimed that "as many as a million or more" wanted a referendum on separation (God only knows where that other 300,000 came from). Ah, Michelle, you're turning into Donald Trump!

It's easy to call Michelle Smith disingenuous and sneaky. So many of her words and actions militate towards that conclusion. But it's really quite hard to figure out what she really wants from all this (other than to stay in power - that much is clear). She says she is proudly pro-federalist and pro-Canadian, and yet she goes out of her way to facilitate Alberta separation. Then, she could have closed the whole thing down after the courts ruled a referendum question illegal ("we tried, but we failed"), but instead she pushed through a pseudo-separation question anyway, thereby igniting the current firestorm on all sides. 

She's nothing if not quixotic. Oh, wait, that's how they describe Donald Trump...

Toronto's World Cup hosting not as rosy as portrayed

Toronto and Vancouver were sold a bill of goods when the two Canadian cities decided to bid for hosting some of the FIFA World Cup 2026 games.

It's happened time and time again that countries and cities get all gung ho about major sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup. It's such an alluring idea, to invite the world to your city, to help celebrate one of the biggest international sporting events. Can you feel a "but" coming?

BUT ... however much cities and countries try to convince themselves that hosting World Cup events is a good idea, a no-brainer even, history tells us that it's really not. 12 of the last 14 World Cups have proven to be financial busts for the host countries, in some cases spectacularly so, like Brazil 2014, which precipitated a national economic emergency. (The Olympics is very much the same: the last Olympics to actually pay its way was Los Angeles in 1984.) 

While Toronto and Vancouver opted in to this risky venture, it's notable that Montreal and Chicago both considered participation and decided against it, citing excessive projected costs and FIFA's operations conditions and lack of transparency. (Edmonton and Washington DC both had their bids rejected.)

Part of the problem is cost overruns, which are now standard in World Cup bids. When Toronto initially bid on the World Cup, back in 2018, it estimated a cost to the city's taxpayers of $30-$45 million. Just 8 years later, that cost has ballooned to well over $300 million. If a city got it that wrong for any other development project, it would be considered a national scandal and heads would roll. But, because it's the World Cup, and therefore, by definition, a Good Thing, such overruns are merely swept under a very large carpet. 

According to Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office, the country as a whole is sinking over $1 billion into just thirteen World Cup games (six in Toronto, and seven in Vancouver), yielding a cost per game of some $186 million. The federal government is to cover $473 million of that, with the rest coming from other levels of government. Different estimates show Toronto on the hook for $380 million, and Vancouver an eye-watering $578 million. It's hard to see that as money well spent.

Another element of the problem is the way that FIFA operates. Cities are expected to pay for the "privilege" of hosting the event, while FIFA reaps all its money up front. FIFA also makes many very specific, and very expensive, demands on host cities, as I have kvetched about before.

And finally, there is the revenue side. The usual justification for putting on these big events is that they are "investments" in the tourism and hospitality industries. Some proponents have been claiming, with little or no justification, that Canada's participation in the World Cup will generate up to $4 billion in potential revenue and economic benefits. FIFA itself puts that figure at $940 million, but even that seems a stretch. These benefits are notoriously difficult to prove, and even harder to predict.

Yes, the World Cup provides a showcase for host cities (although, remember, that can also have negative repercussions if not everything goes perfectly). In practice, these events typically generate a short-term boost to tourism, but very little long-term benefit. Remember as well that this year's World Cup is spread over 16 different cities across three countries, thus diluting and dissipating any tourism boost. 

And one other consideration you might not have thought about: some visitors that might have come to Toronto for other sports events, music concerts, conferences, or just to explore the city and its culture, may actually put that visit on hold while all the World Cup craziness is underway, a corollary that usually gets conveniently forgotten.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that Toronto and other cities were just plain wrong to bid for World Cup games. The Globe's Cathal Kelly describes the emotional argument for it with his inimitable panache: "At some point, it's not about the money. It's about where we see this country in the world... Along with keeping us solvent and healthy, the point of a government is to, within reason, maximize the amount of fun in its citizens' lives... Exciting the nation's 10-year olds has to be worth at least a billion." He also argues that, in a world getting meaner by the day, it's our duty to step up, money be damned; otherwise, nobody would ever do anything worthwhile, and we'd turn into a nation of "cheapskates and philistines".

That said, personally, I would still have preferred not be involved (go on, call me a cheapskate and a philistine). Falling into a billion dollar hole without eyes wide open is foolhardy in the extreme. Part of having eyes wide open is acknowledging that we'll probably be paying for this boondoggle for many years to come.

Americans are fleeing Trump's USA in droves

Donald Trump may have succeeded in forcing out a lot of immigrants, something that might still come back to bite the country. But a lot of other non-immigrants are following the immigrants out of the USA.

Under Trump, the US is experiencing significant net emigration for the first time in over a century, with more citizens leaving the country than arriving. And Donald Trump himself is a big reason, although not the only one: along with disgust with Trump are the rising cost of living (arguably also Trump's fault), gun violence (which Trump has certainly done nothing to improve), and an inability to achieve economic prosperity (ditto). 

Thousands are deliberately giving up their citizenship, while many others are choosing to live abroad in pleasanter, cheaper, quieter places like Mexico, Portugal, Ireland, Bali, Colombia, Thailand or Canada, to study, work remotely, or retire. Comprehensive statistics are hard to come by, but net migration figures can be built up from a variety of sources. Estimates suggest that at least 400,000 Americans voluntarily left the USA in 2025.

And this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise: a Gallup poll shows that about one-in-five Americans would prefer to leave permanently, given a chance, and two-in-five women between the ages of 15 and 44. This poll was six months ago; the numbers can only be higher today.

As one woman put it: "If you can't achieve in the United States what was once called 'the American Dream', then why stay here? There is a disgraceful President, health insurance that costs more than a salary, and a Supreme Court that decided my body doesn't belong to me. My husband and I are now looking at options, and by the end of the year we will leave."

Yeah, she's got a point.

These are not low-earning, fly-by-night immigrants that are choosing to leave the USA; they are typically high-earning well-educated Americans. Of course, Trump would probably just say "good riddance, they are all Democrats", which is probably true. But, in true Trumpian style, that would be short-term blinkered reasoning.

You can see why senior assassin raises hackles

If you have kids of a certain age, or if you are at least moderately well-informed in general, you will probably have heard of a popular kids' game called "senior assassin".

I don't know who came up with the name but, thankfully, it doesn't actually involve killing old people. (At least not yet.) It is, however, becoming more than a little controversial. Many kids love it, of course. Many PARENTS love it too, as it gets their kids outside and off their screens. Some parents, though, dislike it. Police and school officials typically HATE it.

Senior assassin is essentially a game of tag with over-sized Nerf-style water pistols. 12th-graders in particular are using it as a kind of rite of passage, marking the end of their schooldays/childhoods, and their passage into the big bad grown-up world (or at least college/university). 

The idea of the game is that they attempt to catch their assigned target with their neon-coloured plastic water guns, eliminating their quarry while avoiding being eliminated themselves. The twist is: no-one knows who is targeting whom, and the assignments are constantly changing as players are eliminated; dedicated apps are used to organize and track the game. There are safe zones, and, bizarrely, you can claim immunity by wearing swim goggles. At the end of the week, the last person standing is the "winner", for what that's worth.

Well, so far so good, I guess. There are some general behaviour rules: be respectful; no trespassing; no chasing people in cars; and no realistic-looking guns. But, of course, kids will be kids, and some of them like to push the rules to the logical limit, and often well beyond. 

There has been a string of unfortunate incidents around the game, including a teen in Guelph, Ontario, who was arrested at gunpoint by police last year when his water gun was mistaken for a real firearm, and a viral video of a homeless person in Kenora, Ontario, being targeted from a car. So much for the rules. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, just this week, a senior assassin player got caught up in a police chase of real gun criminals.

Some schools not only discourage senior assassin but actively ban it, arguing that it is disruptive and potentially dangerous. Some police departments have warned against it too, especially given the very real fears some people in some areas have about gun violence.

Now, I'm all for kids playing outside as the weather warms up. But does it have to involve shooting, whether pretend or not? And does it have to be so feverish, intense and viral?

How Trump's obsession with "deals" blinds him to the bigger picture

Out of the blue, the Trump administration, through some Pentagon "Under Secretary" or other, has announced that it is putting on hold, pending review, the US-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD).  

The US says it us "pausing" its participation in the PJBD because it says that Canada has "failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments" (i.e. military spending targets), even though Canada has, for the first time in decades, just increased its defence budget to meet or exceed NATO targets. It also wants to "reassess how this forum benefits shared North American defense", it says, as though that is not obvious. The announcement was made on X, so it must be official and important, right?

Now, most Americans and Canadians have probably never even heard of the PJBD, but it is a reasonably important advisory body and part of the joint North American security apparatus. Made up of senior Canadian and US defence officials, it is perhaps best known for setting up and administering the North American Air Defense command (NORAD) early warning system, although it does have other functions too. It was established in 1940, during the Second World War, and is an important symbol of the bilateral relationship between the two countries. And yes, as the name suggests, it is permanent.

Of course, the US could just as well review the Board's value and efficacy without putting it on hold. That, and the conspicuous timing of the announcement, is how you know that this actually has nothing to do with regional security and military preparedness, but has everything to do with Donald Trump's peevishness at Prime Minster Mark Carney's very public comments (particularly his Davos speech) about Canada's realignment away from an unreliable and antagonistic United States in favour of more reliable partners in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. 

It's also a pressure tactic to get Canada to buy more American military equipment (e.g. F-35 fighter jets), given Canada's recent pivot away from the US and towards more dependable, decent and welcoming providers in Europe and South Korea.

And last but not least, it is also very much about strong-arming Canada and softening us up as we start to get into the nitty-gritty phase of the scheduled renegotiation of the Canada United States Mexico Agreement on free trade. 

This, then, is all part of "the art of the deal".

Now, I have never read Trump's book The Art of the Deal, nor am I ever likely to. But it seems pretty clear to me that this kind of intimidation and duress masquerading as negotiation tactics is never going to foster long-term relationships and goodwill. All it does is piss people (and whole nations) off. This combative and transactional approach to negotiations - reliant, as it is, on an existing economic and military dominance that Trump himself was not responsible for building up - may make some short-term gains for the US, but only at the expense of its other "partners", and to the detriment of the relationship as a whole.

Trump's frenzied quest for wins of any kind and at any cost (viz. his Iran war), and his psychologically unbalanced pursuit of "deals", will not win him any friends. I don't even know what "friends" means in Trumpian terms: this is a man who calls Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping "friends", apparently blissfully unaware of just how much they despise him. Maybe Canada can be friends with the USA again one day, but that's not going to happen while Donald Trump is in power. His willful destructiveness will take decades, maybe even generations, to repair.