Can we believe what politicans are tellling us?

Here's a good example of just how careful we all have to be when listening to the election rhetoric of elctioneering politicians. 

Not only can you discount many (most?) of the promises they make, because in practice political parties of all stripes tend not to be able to deliver on their election promises when faced with the realities of running the country. But many of their claims about the other parties made on the hustings cannot be trusted either.

Case in point: all three main parties - Liberals, Conservatives and NDP - are claiming that the other parties have made, and/or are planning to make more, cuts to healthcare transfers to the provinces. Turns out, none of them is quite correct.

The Liberals are claiming that the Conservatives reduced healthcare transfers last time they were in power (under Stephen Harper), and that Erin O'Toole can be expected to do more of the same. In fact, Harper proposed reducing the rate of increase of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) back in 2012, but never actually got around to doing so. Note that this was not a proposed cut, merely a slowing down of the annual increases. Also, there is no evidence that today's Conservatives under Erin O'Toole are looking to cut the CHT; in fact, they have specifically said that they will reverse the Liberals'cuts.

Which brings us to the Conservatives' claims: that the Liberals under Justin Trudeau did in fact cut healthcare transfers in 2017, neglecting to mention that it was the same Harper Conservative cuts that the Liberals acted on. Except that, of course, they weren't cuts at all, just a reduction in the speed of increase...

Anyway, surely, the NDP are above all this pettiness and fake news, right? Not so. The NDP is campaigning on a promise to "end the legacy of healthcare cuts" of BOTH the Liberals amd Conservatives. Except there weren't any cuts, remember, under any previous government in at least one-and-a-half decades, just a slow-down of the inexorable increases in CHT to the provinces.

One has to assume that all of the leaders and their party apparatchiks are quite aware that there have been no actual healthcare cuts. (If they are not, then they should be.) So, are these just lies, then, or "mis-speaks", or misunderstandings? A look at a graph of federal healthcare spending shows a steady increase, even when adjusted for population growth and inflation, and even as a share of GDP, and as a share of total healthcare spending in the country. It's pretty clear, and pretty incontravertible. So, I'm thinking lies.

It's almost enough to make you vote for the Bloc Québécois, or the imploding Green Party. You can see why people are so cynical about the main parties, and why the popular vote is so low (I'm guessing that this election will mark an all-time low). It's quite depressing.

Pushing back against the mainstream of race politics

I am finding Christine Louis-dit-Sully's latest book Transcending Racial Divisions: Will You Stand By Me both illuminating and thought-provoking.

Ms. Louis-dit-Sully is a black woman brought up in the French West Indies, France and the UK, and has only recently moved from academic biology research to political theory and commentary, since becoming disillusioned with the current state of race politics, identity politics, critical race theory, etc. It's a crowded field, but she brings her own lived experience and her clarity of thought and expression to it.

To give a flavour of the book, here are just a few snippets from the early pages, some of which may seem quite controversial, even shocking, within the current Zeitgeist of anti-racist opinion and the climate of politic correctness:

• "Racism is about denying group members their individuality".
• "The caricature of Serena Williams was racist and used specific well-known cultural tropes, but this does not necessarily mean that the author was or is racist."
• "I am very open about my strong opposition to identity politics and to the anti-white bigotry promoted by some black activists."
• "I do not agree with the notion that white authors writing about black characters in their novels, plays, comics, are necessarily being racist."
• "I do not agree with the view that 'blackface' is always racist. People have blackened and blacken their faces for various reasons including just for the fun of changing their appearance."
• "The prejudices, in the past, toward strangers or people from other communities like African tribes, Slavs or Germanic tribes were not racial prejudices unless one imposes our current view of the world onto people long gone."
• "Self-defined identity groups are based on real or imagined grievances, the members of that group are defined as victims, and the identity is seen as positive."
• "One of the reasons I strongly challenge identity politics is down to my opposition to the belief that emotional exhaustion, skin color, race, ethnicity, culture or personal experiences automatically give one access to the truth, and that that supposed truth cannot be discussed or challenged."
• "Only a single individual would need to feel offended for a claim of cultural appropriation."
• "Activists who describe racism as systemic white privilege or as the original sin have divided people into two immutable categories: the oppressors and the oppressed, showing their underlying mistrust in reason and autonomy."
• "If an individual wants to see himself as black, he is forced to follow the norms and rules of the identity group, otherwise he is seen as 'inauthentic' or 'non-black'. The identity classification denies individual agency."

Strong stuff! Many (not all) of these views are similar to ones I have expressed myself in these blogs. The difference is, though, that I am white, and I walk on eggshells and risk online opprobrium and chastisement for espousing and disseminating such views. How refreshing, then, to read similar fare from a card-carrying black activist.

Canada's very own anti-mask lunatic fringe

We, here in Canada, are used to taking the Mickey out of our oversized neighbours to the south, and we like to flatter ourselves that there is no way that a phenomenon such as Donald Trump, or the January 6th Capitol riots, or even a political party remotely like the US Republican Party, could ever happen here. And, to a large extent, that flattery is reasonable and justified.

Nevertheless, we do have our own loony fringe here too, and they have been on full display over the last few days. Justin Trudeau's election campaign stops have been plagued by loud, raucous and potentially (but not yet actually) dangerous demonstrations by anti-maskers and anti-vacciners. And this has not occurred in redneck Alberta or Saskatchewan, but right here in relatively civilized and peaceful Ontario, the latest and perhaps worst example being in the sleepy commuter town of Bolton, Ontario, where Trudeau had to cancel a campaign stop because he could not guarantee the safety of attending supporters or politicians. 

It is worth following this link (or this one) to see some of the video footage taken at the rally. I don't remember ever seeing that degree of unhinged vitriol and hostility being levelled at a Canadian politician. Interestingly, a good proportion of the crazies seem to be women, and many had dragged their hyperactive kids along to add to the noise levels. And this, mark you, is apparently all over the relatively innocent (you might have thought) issue of vaccine passports. 

Many reporters seemed to be in a state of shock after the event, and the leaders of the main opposition parties were united in expressing their alarm and outrage at such scenes at a political rally on Canadian soil (several Conservative Party campaigners were prominent among the protesters, so O'Toole had to say something). It remains to be seen how all this might affect Justin Trudeau's re-election prospects.

So, anyway, it has been a salient reminder that we too have pockets of the crackpot right wing, perhaps not as established or organized as the American ones, but a threat to democracy, order and common sense all the same. 

In case you think I am exaggerating when I talk about "crackpots", some of them were talking about "microchips" in the vaccines, Trudeau as part of a human trafficking ring and a pedophile, Trudeau as Fidel Castro's son (I kid you not), many of which claims are familiar as part of QAnon's catechism. Some of the placards just basically consisted of swearwords; one showed Trudeau being hanged. Many of the protesters were literally screaming, manically and uncontrollably, and jabbing fingers and whole arms aggressively in Trudeau's general direction. This was protest at its most basic and it's most violent (short of actual bodily harm).

Maybe these people would prefer to go and live in Florida, or perhaps Tennessee. They really don't seem happy here. They don't seem to fit in.

UPDATE

To add insult to injury, these people - I'm guessing it's mainly the same people - have started protesting and picketing provincial legislatures, police stations and hospitals in Toronto, ostensibly over vaccine mandates, in an attempt to intimidate and demoralize the very people who are doing their level best to keep us safe and get us through this damned pandemic. This follows similar violent protests in British Columbia.

Once again, they were loud, disrespectful and aggressive, this being apparently the only way they can think of to get their point across. God forbid they should actually have a reasoned debate about it. In some cases, they were actually blocking access to hospitals, which seems particularly ill-advised.

UPDATE UPDATE

And now anti-mask, anti-vaccine protesters outside hospitals, some of them led by the shady and poorly-named Canadian Frontline Nurses organization, a tiny but outspoken outfit which opposes lockdowns and vaccine mandates, and which does not represent nurses, but does include some sacked and/or non-practising nurses.

Have these people no shame, no respect? Nobody really understands why they are targeting hospitals, as far as I know, but most people know it's seriously wrong. Hell, even Jason Kenney knows it's wrong.

The skinny on breakthrough cases in the Delta era

My wife (and therefore possibly me too) has had to get tested for COVID because a double-vaccinated friend of hers, whom she saw briefly last week, has tested positive. (UPDATE: Negative. Panic Over.) Welcome to the Delta era.

It's no secret that double-vaccinated people are catching the Delta variant of the virus. Indeed, these so-called "breakthrough cases" are expected to increase in frequency as more and more people are vaccinated (a still small percentage of an ever increasing number). Positive tests in vaccinated people still only account for about 1% of cases overall, although in recent weeks, when the more infectious Delta variant has been dominant, this is creeping up to 10%.

The vaccines are still doing their job, though (bear in mind that there are now three times as many vaccinated as unvaccinated people in Canada, and yet their infection rate is ten times less, not three times more). And, in particular, the vaccines ensure that those who do catch it have a much milder experience, and very few end up in hospital (and even fewer dead). Those vaccinated people who do end up hospitalized also tend to have other risk factors (e.g. old age, compromised immune systems, etc).

It may also be the case that some of the older (and more vulnerable) people who received their vaccines early may becoming due for a booster shot, as we now know that the efficacy of the vaccines starts to wane after several months, although this should not yet be the case for the general population. Protective T-cell responses to the virus seems to maintain their efficacy, though, even as antibody counts fall.

There has been a lot of media attention to the fact that fully-vaccinated individuals can carry as large a viral load as the unvaccinated, suggesting that they are just as contagious as unvaccinated people, but there is nuance here too. For example, the viral load falls off much quicker in vaccinated people, so they may be contagious for just a day, rather than five days. The vaccinated will also tend to have less of the live virus in their viral load, and so will be less contagious for that reason too.

All of which points to what we already knew: we need more people vaccinated, and we need to continue with other protections too, like mask-wearing and limiting large gatherings and indoor groups.

Man photographed as a baby for Nirvana album cover suddenly decides to sue

Forgive me for being a mite cynical about the news that the guy who was photographed naked as a baby for the cover of Nirvana's classic 1991 album Nevermind is now, as a 30 year old, suing anybody he can think of for child exploitation and pornography.

Spencer Eldon is suing the band, the estate of deceased band-leader Kurt Kobain, photographer Kirk Weddle, Universal Music, Geffen Records, Warner Music and MCA Music, for $150,000 each in damages. The photo was taken by Weddle, who was a friend of Eldon's father, and no official release was ever signed and no compensation paid (those were certainly simpler times and, hell, this is rock and roll...) 

Eldon's lawsuit claims that the photo - an iconic album cover, and one of the most recognizable in history - is sexually graphic, and claims to have experienced emotional distress and interference with emotional and educational development as a result of it.

Funnily enough, though, Eldon was interviewed as an apparently well-adjusted 17-year old high school student in 2008. At that time, he seemed fine with his fame (or notoriety): "Quite a few people in the world have seen my penis. So that's kinda cool. I'm just a normal kid living it up and doing the best I can while I 'm here."

Can you say "opportunistic"?

Where we currently stand on vaccines vs. variants

If you were wondering where we are currently on vaccine efficacy and virus variant spread, in amongst all the other data hitting our newsfeeds, a recent British report stands out.

The University of Oxford and the Office for National Statistics has produced a study into the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines (the two most widely-used vaccines in the UK) against the Delta variant (now by far the most common virus variant worldwide).

We already knew that the Pfizer vaccine is 92% effective against the Delta variant, which is, of course, excellent. What this new updated study tells us, though, is that this efficacy drops to 78% just three months later. AstraZeneca, on the other hand, only showed an efficacy of 69% at first, but after three months this had only fallen to 61%. The researchers estimated that after 5 months the two vaccines may be about equally efficacious against the variant. 

The study did not look at the Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines, but it seems likely that Moderna will behave similar to Pfizer, and J&J will behave similar to AstraZeneca. The reasons behind the differences are not entirely clear, but likely stem from the very different ways in which mRNA and viral vector vaccines work.

This sharp drop-off in efficacy for Pfizer may be part of the reason why Israel, which largely relied on Pfizer vaccinations, has seen a large increase in cases recently, despite one of the fastest and most comprehensive vaccination drives in the world. Either way, it has muddied the picture still further. Like we really need that right now. It may also add ammunition to the calls for contentious third booster doses, like US President Joe Biden recently called for, despite most of the world not having even had one.

How popular are the Taliban in Afghanistan?

As disturbing images and videos of desperate Afghans fleeing a newly Taliban-ruled Afghanistan crowd our screens - people clinging to, and falling from, the outside of a departing American transport aircraft being perhaps the most disturbing of all - the impresssion we are left with is that Afghans hate the Taliban and will go to almost any length to escape them. There have already been many protests and demostrations against the Taliban coup (and several deaths as a result), but these are the bravest of the brave, remember, people who are literally risking their lives, and not a good metric of how much grass-roots opposition there really is.

So, just how popular are the Taliban within the country, really? Well, this is far from clear, and there seems no way to obtain an objective view of it. Taliban spokesmen say they weren't surprised at the speed of their occupation after the Americans pulled out, "because we have roots among the people, because it was a popular uprising of the people". But forgive me for not having much faith in the Taliban propaganda machine.

The Taliban is essentially a brutal Islamic fundamentalist army, with an estimated 85,000 members according to NATO estimates, in a country of around 38 million. But how many of that 38 million actually approve of the Taliban's methods, or even of their stated goal of establishing an Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan, along with strict Sharia law and the institutionalized oppression of women? How many would be comfortable providing a safe haven for al-Qaida, ISIS and other terrorist organizations (because you just know that is going to happen)?

If most Afghans were in fact in favour of those ideas and ideals, then you could argue that we should just leave them to their own little theocratic dystopia, however inimical to our western ideas and ideals it may be. But I have tried, and failed, to get any inkling of that. 

Although the Taliban have been comparatively restrained thus far, at least compared to most people's expectations, many Afghans are clearly anxious and afraid. There have already been some reprisals against people known to have been pro-American. As one man commented, "We have to smile at them because we are scared, but deeply we are unhappy". You have to think that most women and girls in the country must be doubly apprehensive, given the hardline marginalizing, anti-woman philosophy underpinning the Taliban, and there have already been a few examples of women being summarily removed from their jobs. The schooling of young women over the age of ten will certainly soon be a thing of the past in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. And, despite Taliban protestations that they are a reformed, much more moderate force than in their 1990s heyday, reprisals and targeted killings are starting to occur with increasing frequency.

But a good profile of what the general public really feel about the Taliban is difficult, perhaps even impossible, given the closed nature of the country, the poor communications within the country, and the general fear of Taliban reprisals. The best I could find was a 2020 Flash Survey by the Asia Foundation, which concluded that, at that time anyway: fewer than half of respondents believed that peace was achievable in the country within two years; a substantial majority (nearly 90%) were unwilling to accept a peace agreement that compromised women's rights (such as the right of women and girls to attend school); and there was strong support for women in leadership roles. 

If that does indeed serve as a snapshot of Afghan attitudes, then Taliban policies (being diametrically opposed to those attitudes) are unlikely to please most people, and they are therefore being coerced along a path not of their own choosing.

UPDATE

So much for the Taliban's reform. They now occupy and rule by force and intimidation a country in deep crisis: poverty, fear, displacement, overwhelmed healthcare facilities, closed schools. Sounds like the old Taliban to me.

UPDATE UPDATE

Seems like the "kinder, gentler" Taliban are also bringing back executions and amputations which are apparently "necessary for security".

Canadian federal election a cynical exercise in politicking

As far as I can see, just about the only people excited about the announcement of a federal election in Canada are Liberal politicians.

Using phrases like "pivotal, consequential moment", and "who wouldn't want a say?", and insisting that Canadians "deserve" a chance to "weigh in" on how the country is run post-pandemic (what, the pandemic is over? the pandemic is nearly over?) 

Opposition politicians, on the other hand - and pretty much everyone else I have heard from, including most Liberal-leaning voters - just see this as a cynical Liberal gambit to snag a majority at a propitious and opportunistic time. Nobody really wants an election right now (other than those Liberal politicians). Government has been working pretty well, even by Liberal standards, with the NDP (and occasionally the Bloc Québécois and the Greens) supporting the Liberals in almost everything they have wanted, and even the Conservatives not putting up much opposition, particularly as regards pandemic-specific policies.

But, tempted by a few recent polls showing the Liberals in majority territory, Trudeau just couldn't resist the lure of more power. That window of opportunity, though, may be already closing. Newer polls have been suggesting that a Liberal majority may not be achievable after all, and that all this disruption and expense will probably result in ... a Liberal minority government, exactly as we have right now. 

In fact, the very act of calling an election, two full years before the natural life-end of the current Parliament, may have dampened Liberal support. I can see that; I kind of feel that way too. I can't help thinking of David Cameron's ill-fated call for a Brexit referendum - what could possibly go wrong? Yet another case of: be careful what you wish for, or, at the very least, a rather ironic backlash.

UPDATE

Lo and behold, just a couple of short weeks after calling an election aimed at turning a Liberal minority into a majority, polls are showing the Conservatives with a five point lead over the Liberals. How's that minority government looking now?