The European Parliament's centre did indeed hold

All the news media are describing the European Parliament election results in almost apocalyptic terms, highlighting the continued rise of the far right in European politics. "Far right parties surge in European Parliament vote", says the CBC. "Marine Le Pen's far right party makes historic gains in EU election", says EuroNews. "The far right made big gains in European elections", says AP. "Far right makes significant gains in European Parliament elections", says the Financial Times. Etc, etc.

But a particular graphic in the Globe and Mail, comparing the old Parliament make-up and the new post-election make-up, has me scratching my head. It really doesn't look that bad.

Yes, the Green's took an unfortunate tumble from 71 to 53 seats, as people continue to jettison environmental concerns in favour of their own selfish, short-term economic concerns. And yes, the liberal-centre Renew Europe party likewise suffered a sizeable 102 to 79-seat haircut, and the Socialists and Democrats party a smaller loss (from 139 to 134). The far left parties more or less held their own relatively modest share, losing only one of their 37 seats.

But the ruling centre-right European People's Party actually picked up ten seats (from 176 to 186), and remains far and away the largest single party in the Parliament. The centre-right European Conservatives and Reformists grouping also increased their seat count (from 69 to 73). As Ursula von der Leyen stresses, "the centre is holding", and her party remains very much at the helm of the European political enterprise. 

Like last time, she still needs to cobble together a coalition, preferably without having to involve the more extreme groupings. But she is a wily and experienced coalition, and I for one have great faith in her ability to do that.

So, where is the "catastrophic", "historic" and "unprecedented" rise of the anti-immigration, Euro-skeptic and climate-skeptic extreme right in all this? As far as I can see, the far right Identity and Democracy grouping (which includes France's National Rally, Austria's Freedom Party, Italy's League, and Germany's Alternative For Germany, among others) increased its seat count from 49 to 58, a big gain in percentage terms, but still pretty modest in absolute numbers. They will not be running the chamber with those numbers.

Probably of more concern are the far right gains in specific countries, particularly France, Germany, Italy and Austria. (Although, even so, what on earth was Macron thinking immediately calling a general election, thereby risking handing the far right domestic power as well as power within the broader European context? If you are down, keep a low profile until you can do something about it - don't expose your vulnerable underbelly to more abuse.)

But overall, the centre did indeed hold, and the sky is not yet falling. The prospect of a surging extreme right is admittedly alarming, but it hasn't happened yet. Let's keep this in perspective.

The simple problems that AI can't handle

It's interesting to hear that AI can have problems answering some pretty simple logic problems, problems that humans typically have no problems with.

The problems in question are often referred to as Alice In Wonderland (AIW) problems, and are usually stated as follows: "Alice has four sisters, and she also has a brother. How many sisters does Alice's brother have?" Humans, even relatively young humans, typically have no difficulty in figuring out that the brother has four sisters plus Alice herself, i.e. five.

As often as not, though, AI applications like ChatGPT, Opera's Claude 3, and Meta's Llama 3 get this wrong, often offering confident and detailed step-by-step workings and explanations of its erroneous thinking (one even with a drum roll!) 

OpenAI's new GPT4o model had the highest success rate, but even that only achieved about 65% success. Claude 3 only managed a 43% success rate, while the best version of Llama languished at just 30%. Google's Gemini Pro only got it right 0.8% of the time, so the less said about that the better.

It's not quite clear why they have such difficulty with these apparently simple tasks. The AI systems' official ratings for problem-solving ability is 88%, 87%, 64% and 72% respectively, but that does not seem to be reflected with these particular problems. Maybe the problem-solving evaluation needs to be re-evaluated?

How much special treatment for Jews is apparopriate?

It's no secret that there have been attacks on Jewish schools and synagogues in Canada - B'nai Brith Canada has compiled a list of 18 such attacks since early November last year, however it might define them - and these seem to be genuine antisemitic attacks (or, to a use a more useful term, anti-Jew), rather than just anti-Israel. Despite repeated protestations from politicians that "this is not who we are", it apparently is who who we are, or at least a tiny unrepresentative minority of us.

Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, self-appointed upholder of all things Jewish in today's Canadian Parliament, is calling for specific responses and protections for Jewish people and their institutions in Canada - the creation of policed safe zones around Jewish schools and synagogues, the recognition of Samidoum and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as terrorist organizations, and some changes to the Criminal Code. And, given the political climate and the all-consuming fear of being labelled antisemitic, he will probably get them. And perhaps that is right.

Where things get slightly problematic, though, is when one minority group gets too much preferential treatment. Squeaky wheels are one thing, but the oil needs to be spread across the whole vehicle fairly. So, how much attention should the beleaguered Jewish community receive, at the potential expense of the beleaguered Muslim community (which has been experiencing this kind of opprobrium for many years now). Or the LGBTQ community? Or the Black or Indigenous communities?

It's really hard to complain about Housefather's demands, but there is a potential for favouritism here. Just sayin'.

Are great artists magical beings or vessels of God, or is all art really theft?

Canadian author Michael Harris has written a brave and compelling article for the Globe and Mail. Brave because he calls out and all-but-destroys some longstanding shibboleths about art and artists.

He approaches the subject by questioning whether the process followed by artists (of all kinds) is really any different from the process employed by artificial intelligence (AI). This is, of course, dangerous ground. Haven't Hollywood screenwriters and animators just spent weeks striking about incursions by AI into their own artistic fiefdom? Haven't some famous authors sued OpenAI over its false literary pretentions?

The argument is that all a computer does, and all they can do, is aggregate examples of previous art to produce faux "new" art, whether that be poetry, music, pictures, or stories. Surely, this is different from human art, which requires novelty and individuality to make creative work meaningful. Human art is an expression of the soul that machines can never achieve.

But in reality, even the most radical art merely builds on what has gone before. Art is not spontaneously conceived (whatever artists might tell you). The solitude chosen by the proverbial artist in a garret is merely a romantic notion, and at best is a means of managing the constant flood of inputs from our big crowded world. So, are great artists unique and magical in some way, or just particularly clever utilizers of freely available ideas, merely individual steps in an ongoing evolution of artistic endeavour.

As Mr. Harris puts it, "The truth is: no art emerges without enormous quantities of material borrowed or stolen from others ... That material is absorbed, re-assembled,  and finally presented as 'new' ideas that we happily receive."

This is never more apparent than when artists are taken to task over plagiarism claims. Was the music "sampled" or stolen? Is the movie a "homage" or a rip-off? Did the author "reference" a prior work or plagiarize it. Often, the distinctions are fuzzy and indistinct, but individuals may get socially cancelled and even lose their livelihoods over such fine distinctions.

It may be that generative AI may just have exposed a fundamental truth about the creative act, and Mr. Harris is just the one brave enough to call it for what it is. In his words, again: "By consuming, digesting and repurposing stacks of content, AI does exactly what humans have always done ... they are learning to do our jobs in far less time and at far less cost". And who's to say they can't do it just as well? Or better?

Maybe, in time, human artists will learn to use AI as a tool, much like the 19th century impressionists used the then emerging technology of photography as a tool. A final word from Michael Harris? "All generation is regeneration. All art is theft." Ouch!

The raccoons are taking over

I hadn't realized it, but apparently raccoons are on the move. Indigenous to the USA and southern Canada, they are increasingly being found in places like Western Europe, Central Asia and Japan. And, with climate change, they are moving into areas where they used not to be found. One study suggests that over 60% of the world is currently suitable for the "raccoon invasion". And wherever they go, they establish a love-hate relationship with the local humans.

We are used to raccoons (affectionately known as "trash pandas") here; they are just part of the environment we live in. Toronto, in particular, is Raccoon Central. We can admit that they are cute, smart, dextrous, curious and interesting animals, but at some point this always tips over into annoying, troublesome, destructive, even detested. The residents of some of the newer raccoon habitats are just starting to realize that.

Raccoons were imported into places like Germany in the 1930s and 40s to farm for their pelts, and of course some of them eventually escaped (or in some cases were deliberately released, just for the hell of it). Japan had something of a love affair with raccoons after a popular children's book was televised in the 1970s, and thousands of Japanese children wanted pet raccoons of their own. Of course, that didn't go well, and many escaped or were quietly released when it was realized that they don't make good pets. In other places, they were used for medical experiments, alongside mice and rats. But, unlike the mice and rats, they managed to escape from there too.

Raccoons as an invasive species have proved difficult to eradicate. They are consummate survivors. Their birth rate is prodigious, and a surprising proportion of babies survive into adulthood, even in a hostile city environment. They can eat almost anything, and can find their way into the most unlikely of hiding places. 

Several years ago, the city of Toronto spent millions of dollars on raccoon-proof compost bins, only to find that their strong, clever little paws found a way into them anyway. (The most recent version of a city compost bin seems to be keeping them at bay ... for now!) Bungee cords just don't cut it. You can now buy t-shirts with "Raccoons vs. Toronto" logos here, or "Home is Toronto" with a raccoon poking out of a trash can, or "Raccoon City". For the most part, we have come terms with living in their city.

So, good luck Germany. Good luck Japan. From our experience, the best you can hope for is a grudging coalition; at worst, expect them to take over. In the meantime, maybe invest in some raccoon-proof bins. And maybe a t-shirt.

Poilievre knows alleged foreign collaborators can't be named, but demands it anyway

Ah, how easy it is to be an opposition politician. 

Pierre Poilievre can, quite reasonably, call on the Prime Minister to identify the alleged foreign collaborators in Parliament, secure in the knowledge that, if he were in charge of the governing party, he would not be able to do so either, because of, you know, intelligence and national security reasons. 

Given that the allegations could amount to treason, there is no way that the government could, or should, be releasing names publicly at this point. Releasing any uncorroborated and unverified names would be irresponsible and probably illegal. It would violate the due process of any criminal legal proceedings that might ensue from the allegations. 

As the phrase goes, "intelligence is not evidence", and we should not be ruining the reputations of major public figures on the basis of allegations and suspicions alone. Expose the culprits by all means, but not until they have been proven to be collaborators. This is not a partisan reaction - I have never voted Liberal - it is just common sense. Even the (non-partisan) Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) counsels against precipitous denunciations.

Comparisons with Prime Minister Trudeau's public disclosure in September last year of allegations that agents of the Indian government may have been involved in the shooting death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar are equally disingenuous. No names were mentioned there, and it was pointing fingers at another country, not at our own lawmakers.

But, by loudly calling for the government to disclose names, Poilievre can still appear to be doing something, protecting the Canadian people and democracy and all that. You could call it disingenuous or cynical or whatever you like, but it's effective politics, and Poilievre's core base will be loving it.

CSIS recommends that all party leaders obtain security clearance to allow them access to the full report. Jagmeet Singh has done that. Yves-François Blanchet says he probably will. Pierre Poilievre, notably, has not, and yet most of the noise for the release of names is coming from him.

The names will probably come out eventually, and MPs and/or Senators will fall. Some of them may be Liberals, some may even be Conservatives or NDP-ers. But, in the meantime, Poilievre can take what appears to be the moral high ground, and make hay while the Liberals squirm. Should he? That's a moot point. Poilievre is the consummate politician, with all the good and bad that entails. He's not going to let a little matter like morality get in the way of a good soundbite.

China's highest waterfall is actually fed by a pipe

If you thought that it was impossible to believe almost anything China does or says, well, this will only strengthen your opinion.

Deep in the mountains of Henan Province in northeastern China is Yuntai Mountain, a UNESCO Geo Park and one of China's premier natural tourist areas. You may remember it from news reports back in 2015 about a newly-installed glass walkway that cracked just two weeks after opening and had to be closed down. 

One of the major attractions within Yuntai Park is Yuntai Falls, at 314m the highest uninterrupted waterfall in China. Well, it turns out that it is actually fed by a hidden water pipe, high on the mountain, and so is not a natural feature at all. An intrepid hiker discovered the pipe at the source of the waterfall and posted video of his findings on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok. Since then, it has attracted some 10 million views on Douyin and 14 million on Weibo.

The waterfall itself (yup, I know!) issued an apology, saying it was only trying to help give people a good show, and a surprising number of people were sympathetic (albeit a minority). Only in China, you say.

It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened. Hangguoshu Waterfall in the southwestern province of Guizhou was shown to be benefitting from a water diversion project from a nearby dam in 2006.

You can't help but think that China is somehow missing the point here.

LNG may be even dirtier than coal

The scourge of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, Robert Howarth, is back. Howarth, a biogeochemist and environmental scientist at Cornell University, has already raised the hackles of the oil and gas industry with his analysis of the hidden carbon footprint of the LNG industry. He has now published a new study (still in preprint and not peer-reviewed) that paints the LNG industry in an even worse light, concluding that LNG is even worse than coal from a cradle-to-grave carbon pollution viewpoint.

Howarth argues that, taking into account methane emissions and the whole lifecycle (including extraction, liquefaction, tanker transportation, regasification, distribution and consumption), LNG maybe up to 2.7 times worse than coal for the environment. Even taking transportation out of the equation, LNG is still slightly higher in emissions than coal.

Howarth is a polarizing figure in this area of research, and both this and his previous publications have met with stiff resistance in some quarters. But I have always had a sneaking suspicion that LNG is not as good an alternative fuel as many in Western Canada and the USA maintain, and I have not been swayed by arguments that LNG is a  "transition fuel", or a "bridge to the new energy economy". Other studies have also come down against that kind of thinking.

But Howarth's research seems to have been instrumental in Joe Biden's recent decision to temporarily halt new LNG terminal expansions in the USA until their climate impact can be fully investigated. Future "market need" is also being analyzed as part of the investigation. The USA is now the world's largest natural gas exporter, having overtaken both Australia and Qatar, so to "tap the brakes" on LNG while a time-consuming environmental review takes place is a brave move on Biden's part. 

There is no sign of such bravery in Canada, although the federal Liberal government has said that it is not interested in subsidizing the industry: "The government is opposed to using government money to fund inefficient fossil fuel subsidies ... We are not interested in investing in LNG facilities". Well, that's something, I suppose.