Trump's tweets consitute an attack on the free press

As the fallout continues to settle around President Trump's latest batch of ill-advised tweets, concerns about his mental health and fitness to continue as President also continue to swirl.
Trump's tweets against MSNBC journalists "Morning Joe" Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were among his most offensive, labelling Mr. Scarborough "poorly rated" and "psycho", and Ms. Brzezinsky "low I.Q." and "crazy" and "bleeding badly from a face-lift". The journalists wisely declined to sink to Trump's level in their immediate response, although Ms. Brzezinski did allow herself a tweet of a Cheerios "Made for little hands" ad. Democrat and Republican politicians publicly expressed their outrage that perhaps Trump had "jumped the shark", and even the normally suppportive House Speaker Paul Ryan remarked, with a long-suffering sigh, "Obviously, I don't see that ad an appropriate comment".
The next day, though, the two journalists did also indulge in a little fact-checking of the Trump tweets, which appear to be incorrect in a number of different ways, in an op-ed for the Washington Post entitled "Donald Trump is not well", as well as floating the idea that Trump is "unmoored", an idea that politicos and psychologists have been tangling with since the Republican primaries.
But Mr. Trump loosed what was perhaps an even more egregious barrage of tweets just two days earlier. CNN's had voluntarily retracted an earlier story allegedly linking a Russian investment firm with a former Trump advisor, a report that, although not necessarily incorrect, CNN saw as insufficiently sourced. The network publicly apologized for the retracted report, and three journalists who worked on the story, which never actually made it onto any CNN television networks, resigned.
Of course, Trump couldn't help but crow "FAKE NEWS!", and "What about all the other phony stories they do?", culminating in the positively unhinged rant, "So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!”
So, just so we are clear, this is the sitting President of the United States publicly stating that three major television networks, one major cable news channel and two of America's most respected newspapers are not legitimate sources of news. This is new ground, and a new low even by Mr. Trump's low standards. It is nothing less than an attack on the free press, and it should send shivers up all of us.
Furthermore, putting words into action, the administration is reducing the frequency of news briefings, and even banning television cameras from many of those briefings, actions that may reasonably be described as hobbling the mainstream media, otherwise known as censorship.
Pro-Trump "news" sources like Fox News, Breitbart and National Review, organs which really do engage in fake news, will presumably benefit from this, and have been quick to collude with the Trump administration in accusing CNN and others of "endemic absence of journalistic ethics and chronic malpractice". This is rich indeed coming fron the National Review.
Where, then, does this leave the free less in modern America? In a very perilous place indeed, is the only conclusion we can reach.

UPDATE
If there was any doubt at all about Mr. Trump's psychotic attitude towards the press and his borderline mentally unbalanced lack of perspective and appropriateness in his use of social media, then it came just a few days later, when he posted a tasteless mock video of himself as a wrestler bludegeoning a CNN character to within an inch of its life.
Once again, both Democrats and Republicans have joined together in protesting Trump's latest enormity, which comes over as an incitement to violence against the journalists. White House lackeys, predictably, continue to back Trump by characterizing it as a harmless barb against what he sees as a hostile and antagonistic press corp. Trump himself says he sees his social media usage as "MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL". He followed this up with yet more diatribes against "fake news" and "garbage journalism", culminating in the devastatingly poignant rhetoric, "I'm President, they're not", which drew a standing ovation at a "Celebrate Freedom" event in New York recently.
It gets more Orwellian by the day.

Is the bush back? It's complicated

An interesting and fun documentary piece on CBC's Out in the Open explores the delicate subject of pubic hair and the age-old dilemma of "to shave or not to shave".

In recent years, the fashion trend has been for complete shaves, or Brazilians (why Brazilian, I have no idea). Any random sample of Internet porn - which is an important pubic hair fashion driver, like it or not - will still confirm that. But, more recently, some fashion commentators (notably The New York Times) have suggested, largely on the evidence of a few celebrities from what I can see, that the pendulum is now swinging back to a more natural, hairy look.

Well, interviews with aestheticians, doctors and students (some, at least) suggest that is not the case in the real world (or at least in Canada). Women still feel a distinct social pressure to shave, and many have convinced themselves that it "feels" cleaner and more hygienic (even if there is no real correlation between hairlessness and hygiene), and even somehow more feminine.

Not everyone waxes, of course, and older people and those who consider themselves strong feminists are more likely to sport a bush. Apparent there is something called the "full bush Brazilian", which is a full bush on top with a shaved "undercarriage", but, like the "landing strip" fashion which had its moment a few years ago, this seems to be very much a minority trend.

So, there you have it. The bush is back. Or not. It's complicated.

Falun Gong - evil cult or unfairly persecuted religion?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail by a Falun Gong apologist has prompted me to question: what are we really to think about Falun Gong?

According to the Chinese government, Falun Gong is not a religion but an "evil cult" that causes "physical and psychological harms" to its practitioners, who need to be protected from the organization's depredations. Murky but largely unsubstantiated stories of mutilations and mass suicides were spread around by state organs.

Supporters, on the other hand, insist that Falun Gong is a harmless spiritual faith based on meditative exercises and a set of moral teachings based on truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. Most westerners only come into contact with Falun Gong through their ubiquitous marching bands, that seem to attend every little community parade, or the popular Shen Yun dance company (which also acts as a propaganda arm for the organization).

But there is more. Supporters maintain that, given the estimates of around 70 million Falun Gong practitioners in China, the Chinese Communist Party sees it as an ideological challenge to its own power, which is why it has been pursuing a campaign to eliminate the organization since about 1999. This includes subjecting practitioners to arbitrary arrest, torture and even, allegedly, widespread deaths. Claims that the internal organs of Falun Gong detainees are being sold for profit in a state-sponsored scheme are less well-attested, but are now an integral part of Falun Gong lore and campaigning.

Now, it is well know that China's approach to law and civil rights is notoriously blunt and heavy-handed, and not always respectful of international law, but are these claims really to be taken seriously? Who, in the end, is right about the organization?

Well, Falun Gong (or Falun Data, as it is also known) is a spiritual movement or religion of sorts, based as they say on meditation and morality, a sort of offshoot of both Buddhism and Taoism. It was founded by Li Hongzhi in 1992, one of the many qigong-based sects established in China during the 1980s and 1990s.

It is also uncontestable that, after initial state support, the Chinese state declared in 1999, after some increasingly high-profile demonstrations and calls for freedom from state interference, that Falun Gong was a "heretical organization" that threatened the social stability of the country, and instituted a crackdown and propaganda campaign aimed at eradicating the organization. Hundreds of thousands of extra-judicial arrests followed, and the widespread use of forced labour, psychiatric abuse and torture does indeed seem to have occurred. Human rights organizations estimate that over 2,000 Falun Gong practitioners may have died in custody.

Is Falun Gong a cult? Founder Li Hongzhi is certainly venerated by the group's adherents, although he does not seem to be excessively intrusive in the day-to-day operations of the organization. He caused some embarrassment in his early interviews, when he babbled almost incoherently about apocalyptic visions and ghostly aliens infiltrating humanity, after which he wisely kept a much lower media profile. He is a mysterious, divisive and somewhat flaky presence, but he does not fit the usual descrition of a cult leader. Yes, members are expected to contribute materially to the running of the organization, but most observers have concluded that Falun Gong should not be classified as a cult, given that its members may marry outside the group and retain old friends, hold normal jobs, do not live isolated from mainstream society, and do not believe that the world is about to end.

So, all in all, it does seem like a cut-and-dried case of state oppression of an innocent and harmless group. This is not to say that Falun Gong should be encouraged - any group that believes that meditation and prayer can heal all diseases should be given a wide berth, as should any organization that whips its members into such a frenzy that they are inspired to self-immolation (yes, that happened too). But China's persecution of the group is definitely disproportionate to the threat it poses.

Canadian record kill shot - advice and assistance or combat?

There's been a lot in the Canadian press recently about the record-breaking "kill shot" by a Canadian sniper in Iraq the other day.
The Joint Task Force 2 sniper, who remains nameless for the time being, presumably so that his family do not become the targets of reprisal actions, used a McMillan TAC-50 rifle to kill an Islamic State fighter 3,540 metres away, disprupting the imminent IS attack, and allowing Iraqi security forces to continue their advance.
It seems that Canadian sharpshooter are among the best in the world. This record shot blew away the previous world record of 2,475 metres, which was by a British sniper in 2009, but the two record sniper shots before that one were both by Canadian soldiers.
It was certainly an extraordinary feat, especially considering that a bullet takes about 10 seconds to cover that distance, and is subject all sorts of variables like wind speed and direction, the curvature of the earth, and of course gravity. In fact, it's almost too good to be true, even if it was independently verified by at least two different sources. Could it not have been just blind luck? Could he actually have been shooting at the guy next to the one that died?
Anyway, I don't mean to demean the achievement. I'm just a little concerned that we are talking about this like it was just another entry in the Guiness Book of World Records, along with the world's fattest cat and the largest outdoor yoga class. This was an assassination and someone died in the setting of this record.
The other thing that few people are taking about was brought up by Thomas Mulcair, leader (for a while at least) of the federal NDP party. Mulcair contends that, although the shot was a technical marvel, it represents an act of war, and is effectively ground combat under another name, which goes directly against the repeated claims of the government that Canada is only in the Middle East in an "advise and assist" capacity. Mulcair: "It seriously calls into question [the] government's claim that Canadian Forces are not involved in direct combat in Iraq."
Now, you could argue that Mulcair is just taking cheap political "shots" against Justin Trudeau, as his job description requires, and you would have a point. I'm also not sure that I agree with Mulcair's assertion that milirary actions and shots like this are called by politicians (and specifically by Justin Trudeau, to hear Mr. Mulcair tell it), and not by the military forces on the ground. I would have thought that such an action could well come under the auspices of "advise and assist", and whether it constitutes "combat" (which Mr. Trudeau was elected on specifically avoiding) is largely a matter of semantics and opinion.
But I think that Mulcair is right to bring the point up. Someone (and who better than the leader of an opposition party) has to keep tabs on the government's foreign policy, to ensure that there is no "mission creep", and to make sure that the government sticks to its election promises. This is particularly important since, in recent months, a lack of transparency has started to become a worrying trend for the Trudeau Liberals.

Mr. Trump's new (not new) idea for that Mexican wall

While Rome burns and his administration teeters and most of his election pledges lurch towards the abyss, that Donald Trump guy (remember him?) is still harping on about that wall (remember that?).

The other day, he announced that he had had a great new idea, "an idea that nobody has heard about yet": the security wall along the US border with Mexico could also have solar panels, which would help pay for it. He seems to think that this is his idea: "Solar wall, panels, beautiful. I mean actually think of it, the higher it goes the more valuable it is. Pretty good imagination right? Good? My idea!" In fact, at least one of the designs submitted for the wall by construction contractors includes solar panels. He still seems to think that Mexico will pay for the wall, but "this way, Mexico will have to pay much less money, and that's good, right?"

The fact that he is still thinking about the wall is one thing, but it's more the child-like way he comes out with these things that concerns me. Supposedly, many people voted for him because they felt they could relate to him, that he seemed like the guy next door (and this is a good recommendation for a President?). But it seems the Western World is being "led" by a man who talks like a tween.

Tip inflation and tip shaming

In recent years, "tip inflation" and "tip shaming" have become legitimate issues, at least in North America.

Notwithstanding the ongoing problem of having to decide whether a tip of any kind is appropriate, generally speaking a tip of 10% would traditionally be considered low (but not an insult), 15% would be fairly standard, and 20% would be seen as generous or marking service above and beyond the call of duty.

However, more recently, and particularly in the United States, tipping rates have been on the increase, and tips of 20%, 25% and even 30% or 35% are more common. Recent data from Square, a popular digital payments system, shows that the average tip for taxis in the USA is now 16.5%, for food and beverages 17%, and for hair salons a whopping 18.6%.

At least part of the impetus for this hike is the advent of customizable payment screens with pre-calculated tip options. For example, Square's default top suggestions are no tip, 15%, 20%, and 25%. If, therefore, you see tip options of 20%, 25% and 30%, you know that the business owner has deliberately over-ridden those defaults (and notice that 10% is not even an option on the default settings!) We came across this very often on a recent trip to Hawaii, where digital payment systems like Square are immensely popular.

So, faced with an unpalatable selection of tip options after some distinctly so-so customer service, what is a fair-minded consumer to do? Most are too embarrassed to look for alternatives, and just tap one of the available options and swallow the cost. This kind of "tip shaming", though, leads to simmering resentment among consumers, and to even more tip inflation, thus snowballing the whole problem.

If you hate the whole idea of tipping, then many Asian countries like China, Japan, Korea and Hong Kong typically do not expect tips and tipping may even lead to awkwardness and offence (although you can of course still tip - discreetly - for exceptional service), and this is also a common practice in several other countries including Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand. And don't get me started on countries like France and Italy, which add in a "service compris" or "coperto" line on the bill, whatever the service was like!

Sweden leads the push to take GHGs out of the cement industry

Sweden is utilizing a new technology that might help green the cement industry, a problem that has proved quite intractable up until now.

Cement and concrete is the world's most-used building material, but it's production is a very carbon-intensive process: each ton of cement creates half a ton of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), and worldwide cement production on its own is estimated to contribute a huge 5-6% of global CO2 emissions. Part of the cement production process involves heating limestone to 1400°C in order to turn it into quick lime. This is very energy-intensive in itself, but the main problem is that this chemical process produces CO2 as a by-product, and lots of it.

Now, Sweden is one of the world's greenest countries. Only 25% of the country's primary energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, and its goal is to become a net-zero producer of CO2 by 2045. It first introduced a carbon tax over 40 years ago, after the shock of the oil crises of the 1970s, and currently has one of the world's highest carbon taxes, at $150 per ton. However, only power companies pay the full whack of these carbon taxes - most industrial companies can take advantage of EU loopholes allowing them to circumvent national taxes by trading emissions on the open market, which means that they may actually pay as little as $10 per ton. That EU price will increase, though, and more environmentally-conscious companies like the huge German-owned cement producer Heidelberg (which has its own ambitious goal of achieving net-zero CO2 production by 2030) are looking for ways to improve their own industry's record.

At their facility in Degerhamn, Sweden, Heidelberg is now using a process in which a green goo of naturally-occurring algae from the nearby Baltic Sea makes use of the CO2 from the cement plant in its own natural photosynthesis process. The science behind it is not particularly new, but the supercharged process used by Heidelberg was developed by environmental scientist Catherine Legrand and her team of researchers at Sweden's Linnaeus University. A single pass through the algae removes up to 45% of the greenhouse gas, and a few more passes remove almost all of the CO2 before the cleaned-up exhaust is released into the air. Even better, the resulting algae is rich in fats and proteins and can be used in feed for chickens and farmed fish.

It is not yet clear whether the new process will translate well to other sites and other types of algae, and the economics are partially dependent on the price farmers and feed companies are willing to pay for the algae animal-feed product. But full marks for Heidelberg and Sweden for leading the charge to address a particularly knotty greenhouse gas problem.

Medical life-and-death decisions just got even harder

British-Canadian neuroscientist Dr. Adrian Owen has added yet more confusion to an already murky and fraught area of medical ethics, with his new book Into the Gray Zone: A Neuroscientist Explores the Border Between Life and Death.

Dr. Owen's contention is that up to 20% of seriously brain-damaged patients who are in a minimally-conscious, vegetative or non-responsive state are actually more aware than they may seem. He has spent the last 20 years using brain-scanning technology like fMRI to try and communicate with such patients in a kind of "20 questions" type of yes-no query approach.  He maintains that these patients can see, hear and understand what is going on in the world around them, but are unable to communicate their understanding and their wishes.

Other scientists are more skeptical about Owen's methods, results and interpretations, claiming that some of his studies are not scientifically valid, and that there is no way of telling which responses are mere automatic responses, and Owen himself accepts these criticisms as part of the scientific process. He is the first to admit that he and his fellow researchers still have a long way to go in understanding and fine-tuning his findings and their ramifications.

Dr. Owen says it is "extremely naive" to assume that all such patients are unhappy, but the questions remain as to what assumptions are in fact justifiable, and just what it is that makes a life worth living. If a patient in a persistent vegetative state is deemed to have no chance of recovery, is it doing more harm to keep him or her alive or to terminate their pain, ignorant as we are of their own feelings and wishes? Some relatives in high profile cases claim that only some imaginary friend called God is able to make such life-and-death decisions, but should we give any credence at all to such views? In Ontario, a medical ethics body called the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) are tasked with this unenviable determination in each individual case, and other similar bodies exist in other provinces and countries.

As medical ethicist Prof. Arthur Shafer asks, what is the point in keeping a person alive when they cannot possibly benefit from "aggressive life-prolonging medical care"? Prof. Shafer argues that, if there is no chance of recovery, such care is at best futile and at worst positively harmful, keeping people alive while in pain or distress, or in a condition they themselves might find undignified or repugnant. What's more, intensive care beds are scarce and expensive, and others may benefit from them more.

Dr. Owen's research is still not available for regular use at local hospitals, and it is not clear whether it will ever amount to a reliable or definitive technique, despite all the media attention his work has been attracting. But many experts in the field question how much value it might have anyway. If It turns out that some, even a relatively small proportion, of these kinds of patients are actually cognitively intact, how then should that affect clinical practice? As one intensive care physician puts it, "that scares the bejeezus out of me".