White House Press Secretary makes a strangely prescient comment

As per usual with American politics, you just can't make this stuff up.

Minutes before a gunman burst into the Wbite House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington DC, guns a-blazimg, a heavily-pregnant White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made some rather prescient comments:

"This speech tonight will be classic Donald J. Trump. It will be funny. It will be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight in the room."

Now, that's not just prescient, it's a very strange choice of words. Not to say downright suspicious. In different circumstances, Ms. Leavitt might well have been bundled off in a police car for her comments, baby bump and all. As Trump's sycophant-in-chief, though, she is presumably above suspicion.

Unless, of course, the shooting was staged, and Ms. Leavitt just blurted her words out accidentally or unthinkingly. Or, conceivably, she was being too cute by half (unlikely - "cute" is not an adjective that applies to her hawkish and aggressive puble persona).

How the USA thinks of itself (and everyone else)

I've lost track of how many times I have written a post criticizing the tone-deafness of the Trump administration. By which I mean not just Trump himself, but everyone who clings to his coattails, believing that Trump's influence is enough to protect them from criticism and censure, and exempts them from the need to observe common courtesy and shared values.

Case in point: an internal Pentagon email from top policy advisor Elbridge Colby outlining measures the United States could take to chastise NATO members they see as difficult or insufficiently supportive of US military ventures.

Thus, countries like Spain, which has been outspoken in its opposition of Trump's illegal and ill-advised forays into unilateral invasion and regime change, could, the memo suggests, be suspended completely from the alliance (it couldn't legally). Countries like the UK, which had the audacity to refuse the US use of its overseas bases, could be browbeaten by a public "review" of its claims to the Falkland Islands. Etc, etc.

This shows a mind-boggling ignorance of the rules of NATO (or an assumption that the US can just flout said rules with impunity). There is no requirement for other countries to follow America into its wars of choice - Section 5 of the NATO charter (which states that an attack against one member of the alliance should be considered an attack against all) only applies where member states are attacked by outside actors, not where a member state chooses to go to war unilaterally.

But the guy, whoever he is, is a high-ranking employee of the Pentagon. He must know - mustn't he? - that what he is suggesting is wrong - morally, legally, strategically, any way you want to think of it. But the US under Trump has its head so far up its arse that it cares not a jot for such niceties and inconveniences as the law and morality. That's the only explanation I can postulate.for such arrant nonsense.

Plug-in solar is coming...

Plug-in solar is coming! I've seen that headline in multiple places recently. And it is kind of a big deal, in a small way.

So, what is plug-in solar anyway? It's "a simple, reliable way to save money by generating your own electricity" from small-scale modular solar panels that connect (via an inverter) to a standard power outlet in your home. It's an easy and affordable way to get started generating your own power. 

Solar panels can be put on any accessible flat surface, such as a balcony, in a front or back yard, or on a roof deck. Unlike a full-scale roof-top grid-tied system, installation is pretty straightforward and can be done without engaging a contractor and a whole lot of bureaucracy. Even renters and apartment dwellers can now reduce their grid dependence.

Plug-in panels come in a range of output sizes from 200W to 1,600W (as compared to a typical rooftop installation of 3,000W to 9,000W), and cost from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. It's not intended to power your whole home, merely to reduce load (particularly during peak times), and to save the consumer some money. Even a small 200W unit can power a fridge or overhead lighting, or be used to recharge laptops, phones, etc, or it can be used remotely to power camping appliances, a small boat, etc. Larger units can of course power larger and more power-hungry appliances.

The average payback time right now is about 5 years, and costs are expected to continue falling as market take-up increases. Annual savings depend on available sunshine hours and the cost of locally produced electricity.

Germany has been doing it for years, since the German government streamlined the rules for power generation without needing approval from electricity utilities back in 2019. The technology is tried, tested and safe. Germany remains the largest market - about 1 in 10 households there use some form of plug-in solar panels. Now, more and more other jurisductions are starting to cut the red tape to make it easy for consumers to install a plug-in solar system. Plug-in solar is now legal in most EU states (25 of 27), excepting Sweden (puzzling) and Hungary (not so puzzling).

Utah was the first US state to pass legislation allowing it, and many others have followed suit.(or are in the process). Britain recently changed its rules to allow, and even encourage, it. Embarrasingly, here in Canada, the Canadian Standards Association is still "evaluating" the technology, and there are still "regulatory barriers" to overcome. 

With the crunch on gas prices caused by the US war in Iran, there has never been a better time for plug-in solar.

Don't skimp on your medications

A friend whose judgement I trust implicitly was talking recently about her niece who is a doctor in the UK. My friend also trusts her niece's judgement implicitly, so therefore so do I.

Anyway, the point is, this doctor had been kvetching about people who misuse everyday drugs (think, acetaminophen, iboprofin) by not taking as much as they were allowed, according to the label. They may be worried about overdosing, or concerned about developing a tolerance, a dependence, an addiction, that kind of thing.

Well, my wife is that kind of cautious drug-user. So, given that she is now having to rely on extra-strength Tylenol (acetaminophen) to mask some pretty severe back pain, at least until her appointment with a pain management clinic comes through, I decided to check on the dosage rules and recommendations.

According to Harvard Health Publishing, which I'm also inclined to trust, one should "be cautious but not afraid" of Tylenol, and trust the dosage information on the label. Yes, people occasionally suffer liver damage and some even (very occasionally) die from overdoses, but you'd have to work very hard at it. 

Some small portion of the drug is converted in the body to a by-product that is toxic to the liver, but you'd have to take an awful lot to build up more than the body can handle. Also, unlike NSAIDS (ibuprofen/Advil and naproxen/Aleve), high doses of acetaminophen will not irritate the stomach and intestinal lining. As for President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy's conspiracy theories about Tylenol, treat them with the contempt they deserve.

The maximum recommended daily dose of acetaminophen is 4,000 milligrams (mg) from all sources, although 3,000 mg is recommended, to be on the safe side. 

So, if you are taking regular (325 mg) tablets, no more than 8 to 10 a day are recommended. The label suggests 1 or 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours, which is about at the top end of the recommended daily dosage (although few people would continue taking them every 4 hours overnight, I think).

Extra-strength tablets are 500 mg, and no more than 6 a day are recommended. The label suggests 1 or 2 tablets every 6 to 8 hours. Some extra-strength tablets (e.g. for arthritis) are 650 mg, and no more than 4 a day are recommended. The label says take 1 every 8 hours (i.e. 3 a day).

So, as can be seen, the recommended dosages are quite conservative, and you'd have to be flouting them pretty cavalierly to run any risk at all of liver damage. So, don't skimp, take the recommended doses. You'll feel better and you're very, very unlikely to do any damage to your internal organs.

UCP's plan to gerrymander Alberta's electoral districts

Michelle Smith's United Conservative Party (UCP) continues unabashedly down the path blazed by Donald Trump's Republicans. This time they are pursuing what seems to be a textbook case of gerrymandering - manipulating electoral district boundaries for partisan advantage.

Electoral districts DO need to be changed from time to time as population numbers and densities change. In Alberta, as in other provinces, an independent committee exists to do just that. But when a majority of that committee announced that their analysis called for an increase to the number of seats in Calgary and Edmonton to account for increased populations in thise cities, the UCP objected. 

You see, the cities of Calgary and Edmonton are strongholds of the opposition NDP party, and increasing seats there would be to the advantage of the NDP and the disadvantage of the UCP, whose core support is in more rural parts of Alberta.

So, the governing UCP has passed a plan to select a committee to set up a new electoral district committee, which would be stacked with UCP members and would therefore be more amenable to UCP goals (i.e. continued power). The UCP's "alternative" electoral map would have more than a dozen new merged urban and rural ridings, which would effectively dilute the power of the urban vote in Alberta elections. The motion would also establish an expedited oversight process, which could see electoral boundaries changed without any need for public hearings.

By expressly rejecting the advice of the existing redistricting committee, and setting up this alternative committee, Smith has opened herself up to allegations of gerrymandering and anti-democratic behaviour. Former Alberta Premier Rachel Notley warns that the new committee and their proposed "alternative" election map could ensure a UCP super-majority for decades to come. She is sufficiently removed from day-to-day politics to call it what is is: cheating.

Certainly, such a bare-faced and undemocratic ("Trumpian") move is unprecedented in Canadian politics. It was only a matter of time to discover whether it would be Smith or Ontario Premier Ford who first ventured down that murky road.

Are Americans just bored with Trump?

It's no secret that Americans have had enough of Trump. Democrats, obviously, never wanted or liked him, but it's now becoming clear that even many Republicans are over him. Opinion polls show him to be more unpopular than ever, below even Joe Biden's worst numbers. Even Tucker Carlson and his brother have come out publicly to apologize to the American public and to admit that they made a mistake in supporting and glorifying Trump.

So, what gives? It's taken them long enough, but even those Trump supporters who thought they really liked his folksy-but-confrontational approach are starting to realize that folksy-but-confrontational ALL THE TIME can be exhausting. People are fed up with the constant low-level anxiety, the whiplash from repeated flip-flops, the exhaustion from dealing with his constant outrage, hissy-fits, insults, exaggerations and lies. Essentially, people are just bored with Trump. If nothing else, they are bored with his poor many decisions. (I know I am.) Clowns can be amusing for a while, but they quickly pall.

And that's not even taking into account the realization that is starting to take hold in some disillusioned voters that all those higher prices, the disrupted and limping economy, and the possibly irreparable hit to America's reputation and international standing, are actually all due to Trump's failed and misguided policies. Call it political caveat emptor. There is a limit to the number of economy-devastating vanity projects you can forgive a man.

Perhaps, the real surprise is that 30% or so of Americans are still willing to support him, although a good proportion of his base do not seem politically sophisticated enough to piece together what seems to so obvious to everyone else.

In my humble opinion (IMHO, if you're below a certain age), Donald Trump has contrived, singlehandely, to change the world, and none of the change is good. He - or at least his outsized influence - has damaged, perhaps irreparably, not just his own country but the entire world, including the environment, political debate, international relations, the economy, social mores, and more. He is a nasty, rapacious man who has made the whole world nastier and more rapacious, and he has opened the floodgates to almost everyone's baser instincts. Even where there are pockets of resistance, he has allowed, even encouraged, this baseness to spread in the background and in the opposition, like a blight across the globe.

Maybe, one day, I'll tell you what I really think about Donald Trump...

Is the Trump administration colluding in insider trading?

Throughout Donald Trump's second term, there have been many market-moving statements and announcement, more than in any other presidential term in living memory. Whether it is to do with the war in Iran, incursions into Venezuela, or just the never-ending series of announcements about tariffs early in his tenure, few (if any) presidents have made so many, and so consequential, public announcements that have had significant effects on the stock markets and resource prices. 

Often, they were just throwaway, late-night posts on Truth Social or other social media, but many of them were enough to send the already-jittery markets into a tailspin or a mysterious upsurge. Coincidence? I think not!

There is an increasing body of evidence that suggests that there was a suspicious surge in trading activity before many of these announcements, which has some commentators posing allegations of insider trading. There are many documented examples of traders betting millions of dollars on the exchanges just hours, or even minutes, before major policy announcements. The BBC details many such examples, and The Guardian has calculated that there may have been a least a billion dollars in suspiciously "perfectly-timed" trades, as well as online betting on platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, during the Iran war alone. Notably, Donald Trump's own net worth has nearly doubled during his second term, which is only, lest we forget, just over a year old.

Insider trading - stock trading based on non-public information about a company or sector - is hightly illegal in America, as elsewhere. Some US senators have called for a probe into possibly insider trading during the height of the tariff nonsense. 

It is, however, notoriously difficult to prove such allegations, and the laws are very difficult to enforce. There is a strong chance that no-one will ever be prosecuted. Including, of course, Trump himself, and his family and close advisors.

Should (could?) Canada join the European Union?

I confess I hadn't really noticed it, but apparently  there is talk in some circles about what a good idea it would be for Canada to join the European Union (EU).

Wait, what? That's nuts! Well, yes, it is. 

Now, to be clear, this is not a full-blown movement. It's a few off-the-cuff comments by minor (or sometimes not-so-minor) members of the Finnish, German and French governments. The only not-so-minor Canadian who seems sold on the idea is Thomas Lucaszuk, a former Alberta cabinet minister, and he's pretty minor. But a recent Nanos poll suggests that nearly 58% of Canadians would be open to the idea.

Access to the world's second-largest economic bloc might be nice. But the implications of such a union would be stark. I know we are in the throes of a bad break-up with the USA, but to then look to throw in our lot with another behemoth would be the worst kind of rebound relationship. 

This is not just Canada joining the Eurovision Song Contest. Becoming part of the EU, would mean de facto rule from Brussels - a common trade and tariffs policy (including the renegotiation of all current trade treaties), a common foreign policy, a common agricultural policy, a common fiscal policy, possibly a common currency. We would be subject to European laws and regulations, from the environment to finance to labour laws. It would amount to an almost complete loss of sovereignty, at a time when we're just realizing how valuable that is.

Luckily, it's not going to happen. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union reserves membership to "any European state", which, last time I looked, we are most definitely not. And, anyway, we already have access to European trade through the Canada-European Union Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) - not perfect access by any means, but still pretty good. The experience of negotiating even that agreement was fraught enough - there is no way that all 27 member states would vote to allow Canada into their club.

I'm not sure that the suggestion was all that serious, just the kind of thing politicians throw around to make a point. But we should probably be grateful for that. Make nice with Europe by all means - it is a pretty civilized and sensible organization in an increasingly dysfunctional world - but don't even consider throwing caution to the wind and joining as a full member. Even the Eurovision Song Contest is controversial enough.