"The happiest place on earth"

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Wednesday, May 08, 2024

Ridiculous Zuccs: Daniel Dennett

Not exactly a zucc, but a near-zucc. An article on Daniel Dennett's death seems to go against Community Standards for Violent and Graphic Content:


"We moved one of your posts lower in Feed.

Daniel Dennett, fiery atheist philosopher who saw human brains as 'programmes' - obituary

What happened
Our technology showed that this post looks like others that go against our Community Standards for Violent and Graphic Content.

. We don't allow people on Facebook to share things that show graphic violence."

Links - 8th May 2024 (1 - Housing in Canada)

Why doesn't the original canadahousing subreddit allow any discussion on immigration? : CanadaHousing2 - "Someone posted a stats canada graph showing the all time historic highs for immigration and the mod banned the user and locked the post with "canada has all time low immigration". Mods from that sub cannot even use 0.01% of their critical thinking. Even coming face to face with facts they hold this grand fairytale belief in their minds and they cannot be wrong...  Someone posted the IG of one of the mods and she literally looks like she reaks of cat piss. Shes one of those types of people. A literall troll.  Oh also thank you to the other user who pointed it out since I missed it, this mod in question does not even live in Canada. She resides in Utah or Ohio or something and shes modding a canada housing sub reddit and pushing an agenda..."
Foreign influence is only bad when it hurts the left wing agenda

In Victoria, former Airbnbs are flooding the market — but no one is buying - "the B.C. government announced a ban on short-term rentals that are not in the owner’s principal residence. These units are the most troublesome, because they take housing off the market for long-term residents.  The ban includes units like this one in downtown Victoria — condos that were previously grandfathered-in despite a ban introduced by the city in 2018. That “legal non-conforming” designation kept thousands of homes off the rental and condo market in Victoria alone, and by some estimates boosted their value by as much as $50,000 to 100,000 because of their substantial revenue-generating potential. Before the new legislation, that premium could be made back in a year or two — but now the clock is ticking down to May, when these condos’ ability to earn money as short-term rentals will evaporate. That’s leading to a rush of units hitting the market as owners try to get out of pricey investments that seem destined to plummet in value.  So far, listing prices haven’t reflected this new reality"
Weird. I thought AirBNB was the reason housing was pricey

Bank of Canada: Interest rates not to blame for housing crisis - "Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem says the central bank can't solve the housing crisis with interest rates because the root cause is a supply shortage... he noted that shelter price inflation has remained high during times of both low and high interest rates... Macklem said government should be focused on increasing housing supply to improve affordability, and warns policies that increase demand will worsen it."
Japan, which has had negative interest rates for a long time, does not have a housing crisis because the Japanese are not "greedy". Supply and demand are racist and xenophobic

Canadians want denser housing, but not next door: Poll - "About 60 per cent of Canadians say they support increasing density in cities across the country, according to polling data published today by Pollara Strategic Insights, a market research group. However, when asked how they would feel if a single-family home on their block was converted into a triplex, only about 20 per cent said it would be a “good thing.”... About 43 per cent of Canadians said they would view a triplex replacing a single-family home on their block as a “bad thing.”"
Damn greedy landlords and developers keeping housing expensive!

'Lackluster': 6 garden suites built in Toronto since approval to address 'missing middle' housing - "Only six garden suites have been built in Toronto since the city began to search for new ways to bolster the housing supply and address the “missing middle,” stats that industry experts are calling lacklustre...   That need for this kind of “gentle density” can be helped by laneway housing as well which was approved by the city in 2018. More and more laneway homes can be found through the back alleys where garages normally stand, but there are still less than 200 in Toronto."
East Toronto garden suite dispute puts focus on city’s notification rules - "The reality of garden suites and the impact they will have is sinking in for residents of an Upper Beach neighbourhood.  A garden suite under construction at a house on Eastwood Road between Woodbine and Coxwell avenues has raised a range of emotions for both those who initiated the process and those who found themselves affected by the structure.  For the neighbours surrounding the property, they said news that a garden suite was being built in the backyard of one of the houses on the street came as a shock and they are not happy about it at all.  On the other hand, the property owners feel they are being unfairly treated by some of the other residents in the neighbourhood because of their decision to build the garden suite. In this story, Beach Metro Community News has decided to put the focus on the rules surrounding garden suites, and the rights of the property owner and their neighbours when one gets built. As for the relationship between the neighbours, it is accurate to say it has “soured” because of the garden suite... The neighbours directly to the west of the Eastwood project have a sign on their front lawn objecting to the “monstrosity” of a garden suite being built beside their backyard...   “It’s a warning to all, that inappropriate, ill-considered, and ill-approved garden suites will have negative impacts on you and your neighbourhood,” said those neighbours in a statement to Beach Metro Community News. “And if they come to your neighbourhood, know that city planning people and your city government are not on your side. Expect to be dismissed and ignored.”... “The members of the community know that they can’t stop the building of this ‘garden suite’. However, they want to change the bylaw to ensure that future ‘garden suites’ can’t be built without community consultation and an environmental assessment,” said a news release from a number of residents in the area"

Libertas Fund’s Returns Hurt by Bad Bet Against Canadian Housing Market - Bloomberg - "Last year marked the fifth time the fund posted a double-digit annual loss, and overall it’s down about 80% since its inception. Canada’s housing prices have ballooned in the past two decades, spurring speculation of an implosion that would cause a recession"

What keeps a financial planner up at night? ‘People withdrawing all of their savings to meet their new mortgage needs’ - The Globe and Mail

Pierre Poilievre on X - "Former Immigration Minister Fraser admits he knew his policies would impact the housing market but he proceeded with them anyway. Now Trudeau has made him the Housing Minister. Good luck finding a home under this guy."

The Impact of Greenbelts on Housing Markets: Evidence from Toronto - "Greenbelts are a widespread policy tool used to protect natural spaces from urban sprawl. With rising housing costs in many metropolitan areas, numerous questions have been raised about the impact of greenbelts on housing markets. Yet despite the intense policy debate, there is little empirical evidence to assess how greenbelts affect housing supply and prices across a metropolitan region. In this paper, I set out a new approach to estimate the impact of greenbelt policies on housing market outcomes and use it to evaluate the introduction of the world’s largest contiguous greenbelt, which formed a protected zone around Toronto in the early 2000s. Using rich project-level data on housing developments, I first show that the Ontario Greenbelt affected housing development patterns, where restricted, developable census tracts saw less housing built relative to unrestricted tracts. Next, to quantify the effects across the metropolitan area, I build and estimate a model of housing supply and demand with heterogeneous supply elasticities at the census tract level. Using the model, I simulate the scenario in which no Greenbelt was implemented, finding that the Greenbelt led to a reduction in aggregate housing supply of almost 10,000 units and price increases of 4.1% for houses and 6.1% for condominiums; this corresponds to an increase in condo rent of $675 a year. Finally, I show that had the Greenbelt been paired with a small relaxation of zoning regulations within cities, these negative consequences from the Greenbelt would disappear, suggesting a viable alternative to developing greenbelts in the face of rising housing prices."
Damn greedy developers and investors!

Why Olivia Chow is spending millions on Toronto renters - "Chow’s proposed changes include $41 million more for the multi-unit residential acquisition program that helps non-profit organizations buy rental buildings, both to keep units affordable and to make sure no one comes along with a wrecking ball to make way for luxury condos.  There’s also more than $2 million extra for programs that prevent evictions and $865,000 for more inspectors to work on the municipal RentSafeTO program designed to crack down on bad landlords, funded by a hike to the fee large landlords pay to register their units with the city."
When you prevent urban renewal and the creation of new housing, and impose costs on landlords that invariably will be passed on to tenants. Of course, greedy landlords and developers are why housing is so expensive. And of course, the writer repeats the complaint about overly-low property taxes, when left wingers repeatedly promote density because it's supposedly more efficient. Maybe the reality is that the left wing agenda is expensive, and there're alternative models to what left wingers claim is the only possible one

UBC student flies in from Calgary to save money - "Chen is originally from Calgary. He had previously been living in Vancouver while studying at UBC, but gave up his rental unit while he went on vacation during the fall.  When he returned, he was met with sticker shock.  "When I checked the house price I thought, oh shoot, there was a big increase!" he said. “I need to pay like $2,500 for the rent, so I don't feel like it's viable."  He began looking at the price of flights from Calgary to Vancouver and realized they were about $150 round trip.  He takes two classes per week at the university.  In total he’ll pay about $1,200 for the flights per month while he lives at home with his parents in Calgary. Ultimately, it's much cheaper than the average price of a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver, which sits at about $2,100."

Forget downsizing: Canadian seniors staying in large houses well into their 80s, due in part to lack of options - The Globe and Mail - " “better health and better wealth” is part of what is keeping people at home longer, but so is a lack of options. Those who would be willing to downsize, he said, are often stymied by a lack of housing variety in their communities, so they stay in their homes to remain close to their friends.  “Solutions aimed at increasing supply from existing units (by creating secondary suites or laneway homes, for example) could be increasingly considered.” the report said. Mr. Cortellino said that in many of Canada’s large cities, seniors living alone or couples over age 75 are more likely than young families to live in single-family homes with three or more bedrooms... He said he’s found anecdotally that many people are instead “downsizing from the inside” – only using a small part of their house, often the ground floor, and often closing off or limiting heating in the rest.  Several other reports confirm parts of his findings. Real estate and mortgage company Redfin published a report in January that found that in the United States, “empty-nest baby boomers own 28 per cent of the nation’s large homes [with three or more bedrooms], while millennials with kids own just 14 per cent.” A September paper by University of Waterloo and McMaster University researchers states seniors are most likely to leave their homes for a retirement home only when access to home care and other services become a challenge. And a Deloitte report from 2022 found “91 per cent of Ontario seniors hope to stay in their own home for as long as possible.”... there’s also a cultural element: Canadians are very driven by home ownership... The cost of moving – especially for someone living in a home that is paid off – is also a barrier to many seniors who would otherwise consider downsizing"... “Moving costs will be higher than most people expect,” Ms. Chung said. Among her clients who are staying in their homes instead of downsizing, “either they find that they would not have the net financial gain from downsizing that they’d expected, or they even might find that it costs more for this smaller home because of the location, amenities, age, and of course, the market that wants the same thing.”"

Bank of Canada says government efforts to curb housing crisis will help 'gradually' - "The Bank of Canada says record levels of immigration are driving up the cost of housing and recent government efforts to cut the number of non-permanent residents and encourage home building will help lower housing costs, but "only gradually."   "In the short term any increase in population, particularly in an environment of constrained supply, is going to put upward pressure on prices," said Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada."
Damn racist xenophobes!

Ontario family could lose its farm due to Ford government's Highway 413 : ontario - "Except according to our housing task force that isn’t going to solve anything:  “Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules. For example, it's estimated that 70% of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.' This type of zoning prevents homeowners from adding additional suites to create housing for Ontarians and income for themselves.  …it's estimated that about half of all residential land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing, meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law.  Most of the solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and farms provide food and food security.”... Environmentalists agree too.  You know who doesn’t agree? The developers and builders."
"While we wait for those municipalities to figure its shit out (which could take a decade).  We just need to build, build up, build out, build as much as we can.."
What sort of voodoo logic is this? Zoning prevents land from being used for dense housing, therefore the solution can only be densification, and we must prevent housing from being built where and when it's easily built, and developers are evil

Calgary sprawls into open fields around it, while existing areas are closed off to change - "This is the reason why a rundown old bungalow in places like Rundle or Southwood will languish for years, because a teardown can't be turned into a duplex or side-by-side like it can in other areas. It's also the reason why almost all the infill redevelopment is happening in neighbourhoods like Killarney, North Glenmore Park or Tuxedo Park — it's because those areas have RC-2 or R-2 zoning, and you can't legally replace one wide-lot house with two anywhere else in the city. Well, you can get it done. But on any of those lots in those orange zones, property owners must apply to the city for rezoning, a costly process that includes having to get your individual proposal accepted at a city council meeting.  Remember that longstanding absurd spectacle of homeowners' one-at-a-time pleadings to councillors to allow them to add in legal basement suites, before council finally relented and eased those stubborn limits on suites? Most Calgary homeowners need that same special permission to develop semi-detached homes... there can even be pushback getting neighbourhoods used to duplexes to stomach more than two houses where a single house once stood.  At a council hearing into Pabla's four-unit proposal on a 20th Street S.W. corner lot in Altadore, several residents spoke out.  "Please consider the traffic and safety of our community," said one neighbour, who also fretted that potentially losing the lot's trees made it bad for the climate. (Council approved the rezoning, 9-5.)  Duplexes face similar resistance in R-1 zones, with many community association leaders explicitly defending the preservation of "R-1 neighbourhoods."  Kourtney Penner is councillor for Ward 11 in Calgary's suburban southwest, and lives with her children in a skinny infill.  "You hear the comments: it's gonna bring increased parking, or increased cross traffic, or it's going to lower my house prices," she says. "And those are all urban myths."...  the city has let the lion's share of housing growth happen at the edges where, interestingly, R-1 zones don't exist. In developing neighbourhoods like Keystone Hills in the far north and Belmont in the southwest, they've instead zoned everything as R-G, which allows duplexes without special permission.  In those new subdivisions, there are no established community groups or residents to push back against potential change.  Elsewhere, change to find the missing middle won't come easily."
Damn greedy developers keeping housing expensive!

Public spat erupts on social media over city council housing decision - "“The Trudeau government wants us to allow 4-plexes to be developed in ANY residential neighborhood and on ANY residential street ANYWHERE in Forest Glade, Riverside, East Riverside, Walkerville, Ford City and South Windsor;” Dilkens said. “This intensity will have big implications on the underground (sewer) and parking infrastructure throughout the city….for which we will ALL pay!” Dilkens went further in his comments, saying, “The majority of residents in our city don’t want these types of developments next door or across the street. City Council respects our residents and their opinion. “We have offered a fair, reasonable and sensible solution to allow more housing to be built but we won’t be bullied into a solution that alters the quality of life of residents who have worked hard to buy a home in a great neighbourhood,” he wrote... One Dilkens supporter wrote, “Thank you for exercising some common sense and standing up for Windsor!”"
Clearly the way to make housing cheaper is to outlaw renting

Ontario pushes false narrative we don't have enough land - "Premier Doug Ford claims his new so-called “Get it Done Act” will make it easier to build houses in Ontario, but in reality it’s a disingenuous piece of work that quietly slips in changes that will make Ontario’s housing crisis worse.  Hidden in the middle of this messy omnibus bill is language that will require many Ontario municipalities to allow new development on previously protected farmland, forests, river valleys and wetlands... if the bill is passed we’ll see builders encouraged to put up more large, expensive houses that are unaffordable to average Ontario families"
I'm sure liberals blocking housing construction will make housing cheaper, since according to them, increasing the supply of housing will make the housing crisis worse. Because of course, they don't understand supply and demand and how new high end housing leads to a ripple effect, lowering the price of lower end housing

Chrystia Freeland touts 'affordable' 330-square-foot units for $1,600 - "Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland toured a new building on Monday offering micro-apartments starting at $1,600 per month that she said was illustrative of the homes that her government is getting built for “low and middle income Canadians.”... What the deputy prime minister did not mention is that Hudson House will be renting its 227 units at rates considered high even by the wildly inflated standards of Coastal B.C.  Two-bedroom units at Hudson House start at about $3,300 per month. The lowest priced one-bedroom unit is advertised at $2,410 per month.  The absolute lowest priced Hudson House unit being advertised is their A2 Studio Apartment, a micro-unit of just 330 square feet — about the size of two parking spots. The A2 starts at $1,680 per month. Even with Victoria at the sharp end of some of the most inflated rents in Canadian history, units at Hudson House have asking rents that are higher than average. According to the most recent report by Rentals.ca, the average asking rent for a Victoria two-bedroom is $2,743, with one-bedrooms averaging $2,116.  And all of these figures are well beyond the rents paid by the average Victorian. Since most Victoria renters are locked in at lower rates, according to CMHC the average rent paid in the city is $1,516 per month...  like all Trudeau government housing announcements these days, Hudson House represents an infinitesimal contribution to a housing shortage that is being utterly swamped by record-high immigration. In just a three-month period last year, Canada added 430,635 new people — easily placing Canada among the top five fastest-growing countries on Earth. That’s an average of 5,000 newcomers per day.  This means that even if every single Hudson House unit ends up housing a family of five, it will account for just five hours’ worth of new immigration. Freeland’s visit to Hudson House also included an aside in which she seemed to hint at B.C. being superior to her home region of the Prairies. “How lucky you are to live in this amazing city — wow,” Freeland told the assembled Victoria press corps, before referring to a line from the Margaret Laurence novel The Diviners that “for Prairie people the real-life version of dying and going to heaven is to move to B.C.”"

Petition For Non-Payment of Rent Gaining Momentum : TorontoRealEstate - "There are no statistics that support the assertion that there's a huge 'increase in landlording' - that's simply not true in the city of Toronto. The city actually saw a slight rise in home ownership during the 90s, which has now gone back to previously stable levels of about 50% owner vs. 50% renter (which has been the aprox split for about 40 decades which you can see in the city of Toronto's public data).  The Ombudsman did a very lengthly investigation into the state of the LTB which doesn't align with anything you've said - so if you actually want a source of truth on the matter here you go: "
Ombudsman calls for legislative change, overhaul of “moribund” Landlord and Tenant Board - Ontario Ombudsman - "The investigation, conducted by the Special Ombudsman Response Team, reviewed the Board’s existing systemic problems, as well as its struggles with COVID-related challenges, including a shift to online hearings and a glitchy application portal. Throughout, Ombudsman staff helped numerous tenants and landlords resolve their individual cases. Among the “host of inefficiencies” the investigation identified were:
A shortage of qualified adjudicators (members), compounded by a lengthy, cumbersome appointment and training process
A complex application process that sometimes forces applicants to start over for errors
Antiquated systems that are not equipped to triage or expedite urgent cases, track orders and member caseloads, or identify members near the end of their terms
   A lack of available bilingual adjudicators, and issues with application forms that only identify if applicants require services in French, not respondents"
This doesn't stop the left wingers and their conspiracy theories about how Doug Ford is trying to destroy the LTB

Some Ontario landlords are calling for 'automatic' evictions for tenants who don't pay rent - "In B.C., if a tenant has not paid their rent, a landlord can serve them with a 10 day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant then has five days to either pay the rent or apply to the province's Residential Tenancy Branch to dispute the notice.   If the tenant does neither of those things, the landlord can then apply for an order of possession without a hearing.   Lawyer and tenant advocate Robert Patterson, with the Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre, says the system may lead to speedy evictions, but it can also be taken advantage of by "bad actors." He encourages other provinces not to look to B.C. as a model for handling evictions... When it comes to landlords facing debt due to months of unpaid rent, Dent argues that's simply part of the risk of business.   "I have no sympathy for landlords right now in this rental market. I have no sympathy for investors that have to learn about investment risk. But I have a lot of sympathy for tenants," Dent said... Seepe says the level of support and interest from landlords has surprised even him, which he says is a clear indicator that there's a growing number of landlords who are fed up.   He argues that if landlords didn't need to worry about lengthy processes, it could improve the rental market for everyone. "I wouldn't even worry about bank statements or pay stubs or identification and so on," Seepe said. "If I knew that the tenant could be gone in 30 to 60 days because of non payment of rent, I believe that the great majority of housing providers would open up their doors."   Mahmood, in Oshawa, says that after his ordeal he will think "100 times" about ever renting out a property again. Right now his plan is to save money in order to fix up the property so he can sell it and recoup some of his losses."
In left wing land, tenants are too stupid/incompetent/lazy to dispute falsified claims of non-payment of rent. But then they also think landlords don't price in risk and just mock them for not being wise investors, while excoriating them for being greedy and unreasonable

Brampton home renting out multiple rooms, people living in car - "“A house in Brampton has multiple rooms being rented and people living in a car on the driveway,” according to an Instagram post shared by NMG Brampton. “They’ve also been seen urinating on the side of the house.”... “The Walmart parking lots in Brampton have cars with entire families sleeping in them every night,” they continued. “It’s just insane how two people that work full time can no longer provide basic housing for their children. What have we done?”"
Clearly, more regulation making housing even scarcer is the answer!

Business leaders say housing biggest risk to economy: KPMG survey - “Housing issues are forcing businesses to boost pay to better attract talent and budget for higher labour costs, agreed 87 per cent of respondents… The need to pay more not only directly affects business finances, but is also making it harder to tamp down the inflation that is keeping interest rates high, said Charest… Higher housing costs are themselves a big contributor to inflation, also making it harder to get the measure down to allow for lower rates ahead, she said”

Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Links - 7th May 2024 (2 - History Extra Quoting)

Surviving Hitler and Stalin | HistoryExtra - "‘The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact divides Poland in two. The Germans come from one end when the Russians invade from the other end. The first reaction of some Poles was they'd come to save us from the Nazis, in fact they were in alliance with the Nazis and they had come to take their part of the deal, their end of the deal and they then set about trying to destroy the elite of Poland and when I say Elite, what the the Nazis meant by Elite, uh everybody who was Jewish, some of whom happened to be shopkeepers, and the Soviets meant by that people who happened to be shopkeepers, some of whom happened to be Jews. And they mean by Elite everybody who was a teacher. Everybody who'd been in the Army. Anybody who had religious practice. Anybody who was in touch with a philatelist or or spoke spoke Esperanto. Anyone with any international connection at all. And all of those people they regarded as an elite and they began to arrest them... No one ever asked my father to tell his story. I'm sure he'd have happily done so. But no one was interested in knowing about Stalin's crimes and the Katyn  massacres and um the deportation he faced, so he never was asked um to do any of these things… because the Soviets were on the winning side and nobody was interested in what they'd done… had it not been for the fact that the association of Jewish refugees has a project of taking the testimony of refugees, it might have been much more difficult for me to turn that childhood knowledge into a book’"

Secrets of ancient Chinese tombs | HistoryExtra - "‘Horses can't be easily bred in China, they have to be brought in from the far north, towards Mongolia where the conditions are better for breeding horses. China's really too hot, too humid and lacks certain nutrition in the soil’...
‘Some tombs are deliberately looted, and some are looted in ancient times. So the royal tombs of the Shang Kings buried before 1000 BC, those have all been looted, and they were probably looted immediately by their successors who are called the Zhou, because we can see that there are enormous pits dug down, straight down in the middle of the tombs. They must have been easily located, they perhaps had small buildings on top of them, and it's very important for the succeeding Dynasty to do away with the power of the ancestors of the preceding Dynasty. So, it's a confirmation to us,  telling us that the Zhou leaders feared the ancestors of the Shang Kings… quite a lot of trouble is taken to hide Royal tombs and in some areas they were successful probably, because we've never found them. What later happens is they put great mounds on them. That makes it harder to dig in’"

How did empire shape modern Britain? | HistoryExtra - "‘During the 1950s British people are kind of going to these places to make new lives but white British people, Australia in particular has a very kind of string migration policy called the white Australia policy which means it's white British people are particularly welcome to go to Australia. White British people seem to talk about immigration during the 1950s without ever really acknowledging that they are also a nation of migrants. There's this huge outflow as well as a huge inflow that that never really comes up right when people talk about Imperial immigration...People who migrated to Britain across the 20th century, did these people view themselves in general as as Imperial subjects? Did they view themselves as British citizens? How did they conceptualize the idea of Britishness and the idea of Empire and how did those kind of things intertwine?’  ‘You often when you read, reading the accounts of people who are coming to Britain, you often see this huge moment of disillusionment, because they had been you know put through school systems, in the colonies where they had been told, you know, you're part of the British Empire, they learned about, you know, what they often refer to as the mother country. They often talk about England as the mother country or Britain, you know you see lots of accounts of people saying, oh you know, I could name all of the lakes in the Lake District. In my Village School in Kenya I could, I could tell you the name of every river in England. You know this is what, but that their kind of education was totally framed about learning around England and Britain but actually predominantly England, and they had this real sense of you know, you're part of kind of particularly into the sort of mid 20th century, you're part of this Imperial Community, and then they come to Britain and they find themselves unwelcome and they find themselves a target of of real explicit racism, and so for a lot of people there's this real moment of kind of psychic crisis I think. The writer Donald Hines who wrote a memoir about his migration called Journey to an Illusion which which is a title which gives you a kind of sense of his feelings about this. He's part loosely, kind of part of the Windrush generation, and he interviewed lots of his friends about migration and one of the accounts in the book is about coming to Britain and seeing white British street sweepers. It's like white men cleaning the streets in London. And and the narrative is like you know this person's heart just sinks because he says if this is the kind of jobs that white people are doing in the UK what, you know what jobs are there? They're not going to give us jobs, right. They're not going to be happy with us being their bosses and if if these jobs are being done by white people, we're not going to be included in this, we're going to be completely excluded... This country that's like poor, it's it's gray. You know there's no food in the shops. There's, you know, what this like this is what we were being told was this wonderful beacon of civilization'"
I like how she admits that she says that she refuses to change her mind to consider that Empire might have been a good thing

Did our ancestors really think the world was flat? | HistoryExtra - "‘When Aristotle first suggested it this was a really radical idea, and some of his contemporaries must have thought it was completely bonkers. And some really quite big name Greek philosophers like Epicurus didn't believe it. The Roman epicurian Lucius for instance who is often held up as almost being a kind of protoo scientist, but he was convinced that the Earth was flat and and in his book On the Nature of Things he mocks people who think it might be a sphere saying well obviously anything on the other side of the world would indeed just fall off. It spread relatively slowly over the next few centuries but I think in the Roman world it was really helped because of the cachet of Greek thought. And if you were an up and coming Roman you sent your children off to Athens to be educated and you wanted to show that you were you know totally on top of all the trendy thinking coming out of ancient Greece. And one of those things was that the Earth was spherical. So in a way you could feel smugly superior to ordinary people because you were aware of this and you knew your Greek philosophy but gradually it became better known in the Roman world. For example Roman emperors started putting globes onto their coins as sort of to represent their power over the world’...
‘After around about 700, 750 AD, we don't find any sign of anybody who was vaguely literate believing that the Earth was anything other than a sphere, it becomes very much a commonplace. And it's also a common place in medieval art and even medieval poetry for instance. The troubadors of France, they seem to be aware that the Earth was a sphere. So probably common people may well have known it, as well. In one poem, Alexander the Great is presented with an apple, and he takes this as as a symbol of the world that he's about to conquer. So obviously he was aware that the Earth was round. And of course kings and queens, they were presented with an orb when they were crowned, there there's a picture of it happening in the Bayeux Tapestry, and that orb represents the Earth, it represents the secular power of the king under God, because it has a cross on top of it. And presumably if  people in the Middle Ages had believed that the Earth was flat they would have presented their king with a dinner plate rather than with an orb... I think it's very clear that the people who wrote the Bible or the Vedas or, or the Quran, they assumed that the Earth resembled traditional cosmology, they assumed it was flat...
I went into [writing the book] very much of the view that the globe is counter intuitive and if I had been born in China 500 years ago I would have been a convinced flat earther because that's what I would have learned at school and I therefore was quite surprised at how defensive a lot of people are about the idea that people in the past in one culture or another believed in traditional cosmologies. Of course they did but I've read entire books on Chinese science which don't mention the Chinese picture of the Earth at all. Or try to gloss over it or try to suggest that actually it wasn't what they really thought, or it didn't matter, or something along those lines. And similarly in the Roman world there just seem to be an assumption that as soon as one person was able to articulate Aristotle's theory, everyone would immediately accept it. But that's not how things work out at all’"

Tokyo’s devastating 1923 earthquake | HistoryExtra - "'People in Tokyo, A, they have grown up being taught that people in Korea, people in China are backward in terms of, relative level of civilization Japan sees itself as being the great modernizer, and modernized nation in Asia. Also there's a a heavy racial tinge to that. These people are lesser in all sorts of ways, and the expectation is that Koreans who live in Japan will feel not terribly good about their colonization and might take the opportunity of chaos like an earthquake and a fire to resist, to rise up against the authorities. And so a rumor starts to go around that Koreans in Tokyo are setting fires of their own, so they're making these fires much much worse, that they are maybe even plotting bombs, that they're doing all sorts of things to try and, at last, get some kind of payback for what the Japanese authorities have been doing on the Korean Peninsula. And it's really difficult now to know how exactly this happened, people think that it was some combination of thugs and opportunists. People who were seeking to raid Koreans’ homes and get something. Others who were, yeah, simply awful people looking for a fight. The result we think was about, and it's an incredible number, about 6,000 Korean people were killed, over the course of these few days after the earthquake. And they were killed you know in the most brut, brutal of ways. Thrown down wells, they were sort of chopped up with whatever blades people had in their houses, they were physically beaten up. And one extra element which seems to made it worse is that parts of the Japanese Armed Forces who were sent in quite quickly under martial law after the earthquake and parts of the Tokyo Police Force, some of the men who serve in those two institutions have not long come back from service on the Korean Peninsula. And to put it mildly they don't feel particularly warmly about Koreans. So far from trying to quell this violence, which is hard anyway, you know in a period of such chaos, they seem actually to be getting involved. Egging people on, helping them out and making it possible for this you know extraordinary slaughter to go ahead...
In 1945 it was roughly a quarter of the city destroyed. So not quite as devastating as 1923, but that's a a weird thing to say when you got 100,000 people losing their lives. And interestingly I think it was in the early 1960s or so the Japanese emperor emperor Hirohito made this comment… had they rebuilt Tokyo properly, done the more expensive job in 1923, those fires that killed so many tens of thousands of people in 1945 just wouldn't have been possible'"

Big questions of the Crimean War: the build up | HistoryExtra - "The crisis begins not in the Crimea or indeed in Turkey. It begins in the holy places in Palestine with a dispute between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Greek monks about who should place their emblems in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There is then a serious riot on the streets of Bethlehem and men of faith are killed by other men of faith using religious instruments as their weapons. The Turks think this is absurd but the Russians then demand a protectorate, the French demand a protectorate over these places, and so the Protectors of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are on the verge of war over who should bully the Turks most, about something the Turks care very little about. The British are involved not because of the religious issue but because if this issue of the future of Turkey is opened it will have implications for the British. The British want this to go away, they want the Russians and the French to stop bullying the Ottoman Empire and they want to negotiate a settlement. This doesn't happen, the Russians refuse to back down. They seize Ottoman territory essentially what is now modern day Romania and they demand that the Turks make major concessions which would have undermined the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Eventually the Ottomans get bored waiting for something to happen so they start the war. In October 1853 they crossed the Danube and attack the Russians"

Big questions of the Crimean War: into the Valley of Death | HistoryExtra - "Britain is the dominant Marine engineering and shipbuilding power. So the British have the latest weapons, the latest engines and the most number of powerful warships. They have the largest navy by manpower as well. But what happens at a cusp in technology? So while, if you look at the pictures it looks remarkably like the Battle of Waterloo. They're all dressed up in very colorful uniforms, marching in very tight formations. Most of the British and French troops are armed with rifles, not with muskets. Musket is accurate to about 50 Paces. A rifle is accurate to about 300. And this is a transformational moment on the battlefield. The Russians don't have rifles. Or very very few of them. So in any kind of infantry firefight the Russians are going to lose. And they're going to lose a lot of men in the process. And that happens in all of the Infantry fighting in the Crimea. It's why the Russians fight behind walls. It's the only way they can avoid getting slaughtered in the open field by superior technology. The Allies are even using rifled canon in the siege of Sebastopol as well, although not very many. Russia doesn't have access to high technology. It can't manufacture rifles. It can't import them because of the British blockade. And so it's condemned to fight this war with the weapons of Borodino, whereas the British and French are using the latest high technology rifles. That is a major transformation. Even more significant, everybody will be familiar with the famous Charge of the Light Brigade. And the most scientific thing the British took to the Crimea was horsepower. The British breeding program had produced some amazing horses. Big powerful fast horses that could cover long distances with fully equipped troopers on board. They absolutely transformed the nature of the cavalry charge from a short dash to a very long sustained gallop. It meant that when the British collided with the Russians on horseback the Russians were simply knocked out of the way by these much bigger stronger faster horses. And after the Charge of the Light Brigade the Russians never again came out on horseback to engage with the British...  but even things like mass-produced rations, the British are using machine made products where the Russians are using things that are handmade. And the supply lines are different. British logistics into the Crimea are better than Russian ,logistics because the British have 3,000 miles to cover with a steamship. The Russians are having to drag their stores over the steppe in winter and they're losing a lot of men and draft animals and a lot of supplies. So the Russians are actually out supplied in their own country... Napoleon always said this. He would rather fight two brilliant generals on the other side than one ordinary one, because the two brilliant men would disagree and nothing much would happen. Whereas one ordinary general could at least make a decision'...
‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’...
‘Lord Tennyson's great poem, the problem of of which is it's wholly inaccurate. He wrote it having read an initial report of the battle which suggested that the Light Brigade had been pretty much wiped out. He'd finished it when he found out that that wasn't the case but it was so good he published it anyway. So it's a piece of fiction... The first thing that turns up is the Times report from William Howard Russell who's on the spot. And he generates this idea that these men were massacred in almost entirely due to the incompetence of their aristocratic officers, so there's a class war element in the initial report. These posh guys have led these working-class fellows to their deaths and isn't that terrible? And Russell got it wrong, he had the numbers of men who mustered at the end of the charge. That's only the men who were able to ride back up the valley on unwounded and horses that were still fit enough to ride. Rost of the horses were either blown or wounded and were not able to get back to the muster line in time to be mustered. So, the real figures is 120 who didn't come back rather than 120 was all that came back. He later corrected himself, but by that time Tennyson had written the poem and expressed the sentiments which are in the poem. The battle becomes such a cause celebre that there's a court of inquiry held on the conduct of Lord Lucan who ordered the charge and Lord Cardigan who presided over it... Neither Lucan nor Cardigan are particularly admirable human beings so it's very easy to throw a lot of blame on them. Then Lord Raglan's life is written up in a grand style to exculpate him from being, from responsibility. So it's, it's serving a lot of agendas. A lot of people have a stake in this battle being something other than what it really was’"

Big questions of the Crimean War: aftermath and legacy | HistoryExtra - "Florence Nightingale is is a very interesting phenomenon. The one thing that the press wants in this war is a middle-class hero. And of course British wars are fought by aristocratic officers and working-class soldiers. The middle classes stay at home, make money and read the newspapers. So the nearest thing they find to a middle class hero is a heroine, using the old vernacular, who’s only just middle class. Florence is very posh, you know. She's not called Florence for fun, she was born in Florence. Her sister is called Parthenope, she was born in Naples. You know there, and she knows most of the Cabinet quite well, some of them very well. So she's very posh, very well connected and her job is not the nursing thing, it's the management. She's the hospital manager who turns a ramshackle effort to support the wounded into something that actually delivers. So she's taking control of organizations that are trying to help but don't really know how. She has the experience both of practical and a managerial level to create an organization that can deliver more effect.  It's not entirely clear that what she did in the war saved that many lives. Some of the statistics which she collected suggested that her hospital at scutari wasn't particularly successful in in saving men's lives. But it was successful in improving the conditions in which they were operating, so in that sense it may have worked. The Russians have ladies doing the same job in Sevastopol, so it's it's a kind of universal thing. The French already did. The French army always had taken um women with them who worked in essentially doing, delivering that effect. The British army had not. And so for the British army it was a bit of a shock. But the latest research makes it quite clear the the medical problems in the Crimea were solved by the Army's own doctors in the Crimea, not by Florence Nightingale down on the, near Istanbul. She was dealing with evacuated casualties, but the Crimean disease problems were solved in the Crimea by pretty straightforward contemporary medical knowledge... Florence nightingale's obsession wasn't with nursing as with sanitation. She was obsessed with, with cleanliness… that's her main contribution. The clean thing is is is where she's coming from. Hospitals were filthy and she understood that filth and disease went together... the heart of the war is a struggle for global strategic and economic dominance between Britain and Russia, and the British don't lose this war. The grand old late Victorian version of the war leaves you with the impression that somehow the British didn't really win. They did. Um, Russia was shattered as a pre-industrial state. It was forced to rebuild itself to, with revolutionary  consequences. This war opened up the Russian population's access to great cities and great cities are where great revolutions come from. Without this war you don't get a Russian Revolution, you don't get transformational change in Russia. It makes France briefly once again the dominant military power in Western Europe, but that's only briefly. As then knocked over by by revived Germany in 1871. So for 1871 onwards Britain is actually in a very strong position because the Germans are not a threat to British interests, the French are now worried about the Germans, and the Russians are not in a position to operate either. The last 30 years of the 19th century are a great period for Britain because it doesn't face a major strategic threat. So this war has finished the Russians, the Franco-Prussian wars finished the French, and the new German Empire until 1900 isn't looking at being a challenge to Britain’...
‘Putin does idolize Tsar Nicholas the First. The state portrait of Tsar Nicholas hangs in his, the anteroom of his office, I'm informed. And when the guardsman opens the door to let Putin through for his audience, that's a Romanov Double Eagle on the door and the guardsman is wearing the uniform of a mid-19th century Russian guards regiment. Putin is a Russian imperial revivalist. He's not post-Soviet, he's not a Communist, he's a Russian imperialist. And we have to understand that what we're dealing with in 2023 is a Russian Empire that wants to extend its control over territories that in the 1850s were part of Russia. So if you read the book that, that Putin reads, it's perfectly natural the Crimea should be part of Russia’
 ‘So this modern war has very much its roots firmly back in the 19th century and before, before then’
 ‘Really the thing everybody forgets is that Russia is different to most of the rest of Europe because it was occupied for 200 years by the Mongols. The Mongols created modern Russia. It's an administrative element of the Golden Horde’s Empire. And they created a regime in which nobody had any personal rights or any property rights, that political power was unaccountable and everything within the Empire belonged to the autocrat. Nothing has changed. So we're looking at a massive cultural division between Western Europe and the Russian lands. Everywhere where the Mongols operated is a different part of the world to the Western Europeans who avoided that'"

Tom Holland on Rome’s golden age | HistoryExtra - "‘The emperor Trajan and he presides over the Roman Empire at its height. Do you think there's a case to be made that he was Rome's greatest Emperor?’
 ‘Well he was called by the Romans the Optimus Princeps, so the best of Emperors and and that is how he is commemorated. Not just by the Romans but intriguingly right the way into the Christian period, so Christians when they look back at Trajan couldn't bear the thought that this great emperor um because he hadn't been converted to Christianity might have ended up in hell. And so they um they they came up with all kinds of um stories to uh suggest that perhaps he'd got a pass uniquely and had made it into heaven. My personal take is actually that Trajan is vastly overrated. He wins this great victory in in Dacia but he is essentially encouraged by that to aim at um conquests that over stretch Roman resources. Um and he does what has been disastrous to so many subsequent Western leaders - he invades Iraq. So the only real rival, geopolitical rival that the Romans take seriously on their own borders is the Parthian Empire... He sees a ship sailing away and he asks where is that ship sailing and he's told oh it's off to India and he kind of um he expresses an Alexander the Great type lament that he you know that he he can't follow in Alexander's footsteps and conquer Indiahimself but the truth is that  even conquering Mesopotamia has overstretched his resources and he essentially dies amid the implosion of those conquests.  Um and it's left to Hadrian his successor basically to clear up the mess. There's a point when Trajan is dying. Not only are his recent conquests in Mesopotamia are imploding but there's a massive uh Judean revolt that is kind of general across much of the Mediterranean. There seems to have been massive turbulence in Britain, in Mauritania, across the Empire and um I think when Trajan dies there's a very real chance that the whole fabric of the Empire is on the point of implosion. I think an emperor has to be judged by his legacy and I think actually Trajan's legacy is not nearly what it seems to be. The reason that a veil is cast over that by subsequent historians is that Hadrian does his job very well. Hadrian very very discreetly clears up the mess and because Hadrian is Trajan's heir, Hadrian has no, no stake in blaming Trajan'...
‘The year of the four Emperors was something of an aberration’
‘It's expressive I think of something that is a problem for Roman statecraft right the way up to the very end of the Empire. Which is that although the Roman Empire has become a monarchy, it hasn't become a kingship. Rome was originally ruled by Kings and the Kings got thrown out Rome, became a Republic. And the memory of that doesn't never entirely goes. The word King remains a dirty one for the Romans. And so therefore the question of how an emperor is to be succeeded is always a live one...
He comes to be seen as a very kind of brutal tyrant by the senatorial elites, but Domitian abs-, of course doesn't see himself as a tyrant. He sees himself as instituting policies that are designed to appease the gods. To restore the Roman world to the equilibrium that it previously enjoyed. And in the long run I mean who's to say that he, he wasn't right? Because it's under Domitian essentially that the Roman Empire does get put back on an even keel’"

Ancient Egyptian religion: everything you wanted to know | HistoryExtra - "'The King… the only Egyptian technically who can communicate between the gods and the people and he worships them. If you might have noticed, if you look at pictures of Egyptian temples, that the pictures on the walls all show the King making the offerings because technically that's what happened. Actually in in real life of course the King couldn't make every offering in in every temple in Egypt because there were way too many of them and some of these Gods needed offerings every hour. So he had priests who helped him'...
‘How many gods and goddesses were there, and who are some of the more significant ones?’
‘I would say well over a thousand, but it is difficult. Because sometimes a God can have several names. And sometimes Gods come together to form a sort of compound God. And sometimes very odd things like inanimate objects can be treated as a God so for example a birthing brick. Birthing bricks are what women squatted on when they're in labor. But there is a deity that actually looks like a birthing brick. So it seems that almost anything in ancient Egypt could be worshipped...  Although the these are Gods who are parents to other gods, they don't look like each other. So Osiris looks like a mummy. Isis looks like a woman. But Horus is a hawk... I don't imagine that the Egyptians themselves imagined the gods looking like a man with a crocodile head or looking in the case of Hathor like a woman with a cow head. I think this is how the artist depicted the gods. That they wanted to show the nature of the Gods. So they would show a human body which was capable of sitting on a throne or holding offerings or presenting things. And then they would put an animal head on which would show the nature of the person...  Classical people back home tended to see Egyptian religion as being very basic. Basically they worshiped animals and actually it's far more subtle and complex than that. They're not just worshiping animals, they're worshiping maybe a co-like essence in the form of a woman. It's far more complicated. It's very difficult for us to understand it because we don't have it explained to us. We, we're picking it up from archaeology and um from writings and and it's difficult for us. But I think we have consistently underestimated how complex this, this situation is'"

New Zealand: everything you wanted to know | HistoryExtra - "‘The Scots were very important for New Zealand, they're actually, New Zealand's one of the most Scottish places on Earth outside Scotland. Um Nova Scotia and Ontario and Canada may be competitors. But especially southern New Zealand was largely settled by Presbyterian Scots. Not just in the 1840s when the foundational, 1848 I think, was the foundational settlement. But that Scots attracted Scots and they became an important part of the population, I think about 24% of the population, so they played the role in New Zealand of Catholic Irish in Australia, they're about the same proportion. So New Zealand was less Catholic Irish, although they were also quite significant and important. And more Scottish than Australia. And this had all sorts of effects on Pākehā culture which is more Scottish than Australian culture, arguably to this day...
This is one of the things that bewilders the history of the uh the historians of the, all the British dominions. You know you cannot put your finger on when Canada, Australia or New Zealand became independent. There are various dates for New Zealand. One is 1856 when a colonial government was set up with its own Premier. The central government on top of that of the provinces. And you could say that was a date for Independence. There were, there was de-, when New Zealand became a Dominion in, um was it 1908. And then uh when New Zealand um sort of belatedly adopted the notion of independent but associated nations that was the kind of formula for the British dominions which was, I think 1949. And then you could argue that it was as late as uh 1973 when uh Britain ran off with the Frenchmen and joined the European Economic Community. Or, or alternatively joined the Franco German commune, as New Zealanders used to say at the time. Because even at that late date New Zealand did a, did a lot of its trade with Britain. In fact 1966 was I think…  the last date in which more than half of New Zealand's exports went to Britain, 12,000 miles away. So there was an intimate economic and cultural relationship between Britain and New Zealand, such that New Zealanders actually saw themselves as Britons, but not in a colonially cringy way. They thought themselves as better Britons, you know as demonstrated on the battlefield, on the rugby field and in the climbing of mountains. And to a surprising extent they're accepted not as better Britons but as kind of near enough to British. You know they might be the odd sneer, but no more than towards a Scott or a Yorkshireman...
 New Zealand was one of the big three of the Tasman world, and its interaction with Australia was, was pretty strong. Uh then when the Depression hit in 1890, if the Australians had federated then, New Zealand probably would have joined. But the nature of these federations, in Canada, in Australasia, in Southern Africa, was essentially that they were attempts to restore credit when the colonizing crusade had stalled. You know, there was a bust and no one would lend to these, um, these bankrupt colonial governments anymore, or near bankrupt. And so they federated to sort of renew the brand and uh that's what happened in Canada in 1867, or whatever it was. That's what happened in uh in Australia around about 1900 where the bust lasted longer than in New Zealand uh and because of that, New Zealand didn't join. But the notion of it being entirely separate from Australia in the 19th century is a bit of a myth, because at the time the Tasman Sea was more of a bridge than a barrier.'"

I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy

I May Have Gender Dysphoria. But I Still Prefer to Base My Life on Biology, Not Fantasy

"Feelings and opinions have displaced facts and evidence in many areas of the liberal arts. This is nothing new. A more recent phenomenon, however, is the extension of this trend into the realm of biology, which has fallen victim to the idea that men can become women—and vice versa—merely by reciting a statement of belief. It is an insidious movement that combines the postmodern contempt for objective truth with pre-modern religious superstitions regarding the nature of the human soul.

The subordination of science to myth was exemplified in the recent British case of Maya Forstater, who’d lost her job after pointing out the plain truth that transgender people like me cannot change our biological sex by proclamation. “I conclude from…the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate,” concluded Judge James Tayler at her employment tribunal. “The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

I’m not sure where that leaves me, a British transgender person who agrees with Forstater. As I know better than most, sex is immutable... As a scientist, I know this to be a fact. It’s Judge Tayler who’s the absolutist here: Under the guise of tolerance, he’s put the force of law behind a cultish movement that treats biological reality in much the same way that the Catholic Church once treated Galileo and his heliocentric ideas. Just like its medieval forbears, this neo-religious crusade demands that adherents chant an absurdist liturgy—in this case, “Transwomen are women. Transmen are men.”...

I made up a t-shirt with my own slogan: “Transwomen are men. Get over it.” It caused considerable outrage. But my question was sincere: Why can’t we, as trans people, just get over it? It’s merely another political slogan. What does it matter if we are men or women in some technical sense, so long as we can live our lives in peace, free from abuse, harassment and discrimination?

In recent months, I have been accused of hate speech and reported to my professional colleagues, while newspaper reports suggest that I am at risk of being banned from an LGBT committee connected to my trade union...

The most obvious problem with gender ideology is that it is entirely circular. It’s like defining an airline pilot as someone who just has that indescribable “feeling” of being an airline pilot. When Massachusetts legislators tried to nail down the idea of gender identity in legislation, for instance, the best they could come up with was “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.”

Moreover, when people begin trying to get around this circularity by actually detailing what it means to “feel like” a woman, they typically just catalogue a bunch of sexist stereotypes about how they always liked the idea of wearing dresses and maybe played with dolls as a child.

Yes, gender dysphoria is a real condition. I know, because I have it: the feeling that my male biology is at odds with my desire to have a female body. But I don’t have to invent some mystical spiritual force called gender identity to explain it.

Just as there is no single cause of chest pain or headaches, there doesn’t need to be a single cause of gender dysphoria. But there is a well-observed typology. In the 1980s, American-Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard proposed that transsexualism (as it was then commonly called) in males generally manifested as either (1) effeminate gay men seeking to further accentuate their appeal to other men (homosexual transsexualism, or HSTS); or (2) heterosexual autogynephiles—self-attracted men who prefer to conceive of themselves as women—who typically come out as trans women later in life (and often to the great surprise of family and friends). The most vocal and aggressive proponents of trans rights—biological males who often will express themselves aggressively to women who bring up the issue of biology—appear to be drawn disproportionately from this second, autogynephilic category.

Transsexualism in females appears to be substantially different, and more rooted in socially propagated factors, as suggested by the recent vast increase in the number of teenage girls being referred to gender-identity clinics (sometimes originating in self-reinforcing clusters of friends or classmates). As former Tavistock governor Marcus Evans recently wrote in Quillette, this is the first time in recorded clinical practice that females outnumbered males in this treatment area. Moreover, the girls who present as transgender are now disproportionately autistic, and affected with other developmental and mental-health conditions—which is consistent with the observation that many adolescent trans children aren’t driven by some mysterious gendered force field.

And yet, reporting on these facts in the scientific literature remains difficult. Lisa Littman of Brown University—who first published on the phenomenon now known as Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (or ROGD)—has been denounced as a transphobe, and concerted attempts were made to smear her research. Scientists in the field note that it is relatively easy to get a study published if it supports the idea of “affirming” a child’s self-conception, but difficult to impossible if the data leads to another conclusion.

As noted above, my own experience leads me to believe that efforts to protect gender ideology from critique are most vigorously led by a specific and identifiable sub-section within the trans community. Autogynephilic males who abruptly declare themselves to be trans often experience a sense of insecurity and even shame, especially since the transitioning process can have a traumatic effect on their wives and children. Demanding that the world recognize them as actual women is a strategy for absolving them of responsibility. If gender is an innate quality, like height or sexual orientation, how can they be morally responsible? Gender ideology is the tool they use to legitimize that emotional reflex. Their sudden rejection of their old life is reimagined as a mystical journey into their own gendered soul.

Of course, adults are free to act in this way—and to explain themselves to their friends and loved ones in whatever fashion they please. Unfortunately, this gender mysticism is romanticized in a way that makes the idea of transformation seem attractive to children, especially children struggling with identity and relationships.

Indeed, there is an especially ghoulish militant fringe within the autogynephilic subcategory that explicitly seeks to break family bonds in order to groom children for transition. This apparently includes notorious transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon (rebranded recently as “Veronica Ivy”), who has appealed to children to “dump moms on Mother’s Day and join the ‘glitter-queer’ family of adult trans activists.”

I speak from experience when I say that it’s difficult for autogynephiles to admit the simple truth that they are simply heterosexual males who use the conceit of female self-identification as a means to rationalize their sexual attraction to a female version of themselves. As any sex therapist can attest, people often feel ashamed about unusual sexual proclivities. Shame is a powerful emotion, and a person who suffers from it often will be driven to control their narrative in a way that protects their sense of self-worth...

Rather than protect the emotional fragility of people who don’t want to investigate the nature of their autogynephilia, a better strategy would be to simply demystify and destigmatize autogynephilia itself (much as we have demystified and destigmatized any number of victimless paraphilias), while also ensuring that therapies are available for trans adults who understand the attendant medical ramifications. We should not need to pretend that we are women (to ourselves or anyone else) in order to find relief from gender dysphoria.

Cross-dressing—or transvestism as it once was called—is more common than some imagine: A 2005 study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that almost three percent of Swedish men reported at least one episode of transvestic fetishism. Of course, this is not the same as being transgender. But since autogynephilia is associated with both the need to dress in women’s clothes and feminize one’s body, we can never fully demarcate the two. (Thus, an old joke in the community about transitioners who start out as occasional cross-dressers: “What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About five years.”)

Unfortunately, many trans advocates would prefer to shoot the messenger, and a whole sub-industry of censorship and ostracism has been created to deal with anyone who casts doubt on the gender-identity framework. As many readers will know, Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy was thrown off Twitter, and is subject to constant harassment in regard to her live speaking events, because she spoke the plain truth of biology to a vexatious Vancouver-area individual who goes by the name Jessica Yaniv. Here in the UK, Katie Alcock and Helen Watts were both removed from leadership positions and expelled from Girlguiding UK for objecting to the inclusion of boys who identified as female in their single-sex organisation.

My transgender identity has not protected me from this censorship regime, and I have been excluded and shamed for my political statements (as I regard them). Both my employer and my professional associations have been contacted by activists who claim that my political views should disqualify me from being able to work with children (I’m a teacher), or represent my colleagues...

Not so long ago, we truly did live in a transphobic society, where people like me were subject to public abuse (or worse). And there are still scattered reports of actual transphobia. In extreme cases, trans people have been physically attacked, or even killed, because of who they are.

But on an everyday basis, many trans people are now more afraid, for their reputations and livelihoods, of the opposite threat: They are afraid of saying the wrong thing—which is to say, something based in truth and actual science—about who we are. For their own emotional purposes, members of a militant and vociferous group within our own ranks have found a way to embed a lie at the very heart of our public discussion about gender.

For the rest of society to acquiesce to this lie is not only a betrayal of science, but of democracy. And we must work to restore an attitude of honesty before more harm is done to women, children and trans people ourselves. When society realises that there is no rational basis for gender ideology, the backlash may be very severe indeed."

 

Links - 7th May 2024 (1 - Canadian Budget 2024)

The Trudeau government keeps blowing past its own program expense projections - "Since COVID-19, the federal government’s budgets have cumulatively upwardly revised program spending projections in a major way. Between budgets 2021 and 2024, program spending projections for the three fiscal years between 2022-23 and 2024-25 were consistently revised upwards by a cumulative amount of $142.8 billion...   “There is a very significant, measurable, empirical shift from a smaller government under both the Conservatives and the [previous] Liberals…to today,” says Ian Lee, professor in the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University, referring to the previous government of prime minister Stephen Harper and the Liberal governments of prime minister Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin lasting from 1993 to 2006... he says the Trudeau government should take a page from the Chrétien government's playbook. During Canada's fiscal recovery in the 1990s, that government would project almost too conservatively.  “It was almost the mirror image of what we’re seeing here,” said Gray. The result, he describes, was a perceived surplus and a more favourable trading environment for Canada."

Federal budget 2024: Freeland to present new spending plan - "Remarking on the expectation of some form of individual wealth tax, and or excess profit taxes in today's budget, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge said the fiscal document is "likely to be the worst" in decades and "pointing us in the wrong direction," when it comes to economic growth... backed by his caucus and in front of a placard that read “fix the budget” — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said in so many words that Canadians can’t afford what’s coming... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was emphatic on Monday, while speaking to a business crowd about what's to come, that his government feels now is the time to make investments(opens in a new tab) in housing, job growth, and other affordability measures preoccupying the minds of many pinched millennials and Generation Z."
Left wingers see social spending as "investment". They don't understand the difference between capex and opex

Freeland to present 2024 federal budget, promising billions in new spending : r/canada - "Comparing Trudeau 1 and 2 vs every other PM ever, and no matter how spending-happy another PM may have been they all seem hyper-conservative compared to the Trudeau family.  Hopefully, Canadians will remember this when Trudeau 3 takes their turn at the plate for draining the economy."
"I'm not sure what will be left of their father's 'post-nation' by the time one those toffs is crowned king or queen of the Liberals."
"The Trudeaus have been a plague on this country. It took us 50 years for Canada to recover from his father. I think we would be incredibly lucky to get off so easy after Justin."

Pierre Poilievre, "The Budget" on April 16th, 2024 - "Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth deficit budget since the Prime Minister said that budgets balance themselves. Everything he spends money on only gets worse.  He promised that these deficits would make housing affordable. Then rent, mortgage payments and down payments for buying a home doubled.  He said that food would become more affordable. Now it costs 30% more, and one in four children do not have access to a nutritious meal.  After nine deficits, the government is rich and the people are poor... This is the ninth deficit after the Prime Minister promised the budget would balance itself, and what did he do with the money? Everything he has spent on has become more expensive. He has doubled the rent, doubled mortgage payments, doubled the needed down payment for a home and forced 3,500 homeless encampments. In Halifax alone, one in four kids cannot afford food, and now he is adding $40 billion of new debt and new spending, which is $2,400 of new inflation.   That is why common-sense Conservatives will be voting against this pyromaniac firefighter who is pouring fuel instead of water on the inflationary fire he has set."

The Hub Reacts to the 2024 federal budget - "The deficit will sit at $39.8 billion this year, with a plan for it to drop to $20 billion by 2028. No path back to balance was projected.  While the suspected wealth tax or excess profit tax did not appear, the government will seek to gain $19.3 billion in revenue over the next five years through an increase in the capital gains tax for corporations and Canada’s highest earners. The Liberals also promised to build 3.9 million homes by 2031...   “This prime minister is not worth the cost,” said Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre...
Yesterday’s federal budget showed again—as if it were needed—that this government is not serious about public finances. It was late, given that the 2024/25 fiscal year started more than two weeks ago. It buried the numbers on revenue, expenses, deficit, and debt that ought to be upfront under 350-plus pages of spin. And while the numbers themselves look serious—relentlessly rising taxes and spending, chronic deficits, and interest eating ever more revenue—we have no reason to believe them.  Why would we? The government’s first projections for the current budget year of 2024/25 were in its 2019 fall economic statement. That statement showed federal spending of $421 billion in 2024/25. The government presented no budget at all in 2020—more evidence of unseriousness—and its 2020 fall statement removed some pension costs from the presentation—yet more evidence.  But if we add those pension costs back, the 2020 statement showed spending in 2024/25 at $429 billion. That was a small sign of bigger things to come. The 2021 fall statement projected 2024/25 spending at $465 billion. The 2022 fall statement said $505 billion. The 2023 fall statement said $522 billion. Yesterday’s budget shows 2024/25 spending at $538 billion—an eye-popping 28 percent more than what the government projected in 2019.  Are other projections in the 2024 budget any more believable? The main defence against further rises in the ratio of federal debt to GDP is additional revenue from higher capital gains taxes, the digital services tax and a global minimum tax. But, the digital services tax may never be implemented, and the legislation for the capital gains tax increases and the global minimum tax is not even written. Notwithstanding rhetoric about fairness for all generations, the likely outcome is bigger deficits and an even heavier debt load on the young. Canadians need many things from future federal governments, and treating public finance as though it matters heads the list. Tax hikes, rising debt and interest charges—these threats to our already stagnating living standards would not exist if the government did not now plan to spend $117 billion more than it projected in 2019. We need governments that take budgets seriously...
A proposed increase to the capital-gains inclusion rate from 50 percent to 67 percent. For individuals, this new inclusion rate applies to all capital gains over $250,000 per year. For corporations it applies to all capital gains. The government notes that this increase will only be relevant for fewer than 1 percent of taxpaying individuals. The bigger concern is that for corporations this higher inclusion rate amounts to an increase in the effective corporate tax rate, and thus an additional disincentive for Canadian businesses to invest—at a time when Canada’s low investment rate is already a primary cause of our low productivity levels and growth rates.  Overall, though, the bigger negative for this budget is at the macro level in how the various measures all add up. The federal government is showing itself to be both lazy and imprudent in budget 2024. The laziness is reflected in the government’s unwillingness to cut spending on low-priority items as it introduces new spending programs. The obvious result is the need for larger budget deficits or higher taxes, or both.   The government states that it is continuing to find and redeploy $15.8 billion worth of spending over five years. But in an overall budget of $500 billion per year, $3 billion annually is a drop in the bucket. Instead of doing the more difficult work of seriously reviewing the many existing programs and cutting the ineffective ones, the government took the easier route of simply expanding its total spending and having ongoing budget deficits...
Budget 2024 continued a long tradition for the current federal government: increasing spending above and beyond its own previous plans. We have seen this ratcheting-up in each and every budget, year after year, both before the COVID-19 pandemic and now long after...   But regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with any particular spending decision, the ability to focus on and deliver on what the government itself commits to is clearly in short supply. That should be concerning for more than just the fiscal consequences. It may mean that the quality of public services is undermined as the government shifts its focus to rolling out one new program after the next.   And, perhaps most unfortunately, it risks undermining public confidence in the government’s own projections. After all, they’re almost guaranteed to be tossed within a matter of months...
Instead of making it easier for landowners to decide they’d like to sell their land to developers for development, they’re going to increase the inclusion rate–the portion of capital gains on which tax is paid–from 50 percent to 66 percent. This of course makes it more expensive for landowners to sell their land.  We can expect this to have a material negative effect on land transactions and a concomitant reduction in new housing development.  Given that housing in Canada is very expensive and that it’s very expensive because there’s not enough of it, this policy change will help make a bad situation much worse...
Canada arguably has very little fiscal room to buffer a recession or exogenous shock...
Budget 2024 is a remarkable document in that it continues an upward ride in federal spending that is divorced from the country’s long-term economic productivity fundamentals...  missing here are the dynamic effects of an increase in capital gains and corporate taxes on economic activity. After all, higher tax rates alone will not be enough to raise revenues, if new wealth is not created. While expenditure forecasts are likely to be revised upwards, expect to see the revenue projections scaled back as the year unfolds. After all, how can Canada expect to see federal revenues rise faster than expenditures in an environment of declining productivity and rising taxes? There really are no words to describe the ride we have embarked on."

EDITORIAL: No free lunches — even for unicorns - "Like the other costly programs Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is foisting on the provinces, the latest national school food program is long on promises, short on details — and very big on costs. The program announced last week will cost $1 billion over five years and will, according to Trudeau, deliver meals to 400,000 children per year by the 2024-25 school year. And it’s doing so, apparently, by bypassing provincial governments. Trudeau and the Liberals are chasing unicorns. Magically, they expect us to believe that by September, the federal government — which has no mechanism by which it can deliver local programs — will set up kitchens, food storage and refrigeration and employ the staff in schools that don’t already have these programs. It’s starting to look as if the government sees itself as mommy and daddy to the nation’s children. Its $10-a-day daycare, an unnecessary Pharmacare plan, a costly dental plan and now his pledge to feed all students across the country — whether they need it or not — all send the message that the government considers itself better than parents when it comes to raising kids. Do you really want to put the people who brought you the $60-million ArriveCAN boondoggle in charge of feeding your children? If so, the lion’s share of the cash will go to cozy insiders and your kids will get the slops. This government doesn’t have a good track record of getting value for your tax dollars."
Obviously, if you think this is a bad idea, you're a heartless monster

Poll suggests half of Canadians have negative opinion of latest Liberal budget - "Just shy of half the respondents to Leger’s latest survey said they had a negative opinion of the federal budget, which was presented last Tuesday. Only 21 per cent said they had a positive opinion... Almost half the respondents, 47 per cent, said they want to see the government cut back on spending and programs to get the budget balanced as quickly as possible."

Chrystia Freeland vows to find the real killer of middle class dreams - "Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is now justifying tax increases by quoting from a U.S. Supreme Court decision almost a hundred years ago. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1927 decision. Federal U.S. tax in 1927 was in the low single digits, according to the Tax Foundation, an American organization that focuses on tax policy, as opposed to Canada today where the rate is anywhere from 15-33 per cent. Perhaps the increase is because we are having to pay more for that civilization. Another explanation is that governments, particularly this Liberal one, have forgotten what fiscal prudence entails... But if Freeland is going to lecture Canadians with a 1927 quote from Wendall Holmes, she might want to see if there are any other lessons she can learn as finance minister from the U.S. budget of the same year. In his 1927 Budget Message, President Calvin Coolidge began by remarking on the large number of tax reductions that had taken place over the previous six years. Tax cuts. Imagine. The Liberals have claimed to cut taxes for the middle-class but as the Fraser Institute has noted, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Eliminating a variety of tax credits, as the Liberals have done in recent years, offsets any gains in a lowering of personal income tax rates. “Despite claims to the contrary, Ottawa has increased personal income taxes on the overwhelming majority of middle-class Canadian families,” the Fraser Institute noted in a report in 2022. The U.S. 1927 budget went on, “Our housing problems are being cared far.” A far cry from today where even Justin Trudeau and Freeland admit that the dream of affording a home is out of reach for too many people — even after, or because of, eight years of Liberal politics. In 1927, Coolidge also enthused about the balanced budget. “To jeopardize our balanced budget,” said Coolidge, “is unthinkable.” Before being elected the Liberals promised a balanced budget by 2019/20. It never happened, of course. Instead, it was one deficit after another, after another, with no end in sight. For Coolidge, a balanced budget was a necessity... “We have provided for adequate national defence,” proclaimed Coolidge... When the finance minister tells you that after eight years of Liberal policy, the deck is stacked against young people and a middle-class life beyond them, you might want to believe her because it is her government that put it out of reach. And now Freeland is pontificating about increased taxes paying for our civilization — the one where young people can’t afford a home."

A government with no priorities, no anchors, and when it comes to growth, no clue - The Globe and Mail - "“The Canadian economy,” boasts the Trudeau government’s latest budget, “is doing better than expected.” Who expected it to do how much worse is left unsaid. But as the budget notes defiantly: “Our economy is growing.” Why, in fourth-quarter 2023, real GDP grew by – wait for it – “1 per cent on an annualized basis.” Barely moving, but … better than expected!  It remains unclear whether the government is unaware of how badly Canada’s economy has actually been performing, or whether it does not care, or whether it just does not know what to do about it. Possibly, it is a little of all three.  But faced with what is now generally conceded to be a growth crisis – an economy that, in per capita terms, has been shrinking for several quarters, stagnating for several years, and losing ground to other developed economies for several decades – the government has produced yet another budget with no serious proposals to address it. Certainly, there is plenty in the budget’s 430 pages addressed to everything else. As with its previous budgets or fall economic statements, the government has seized the opportunity afforded by the passage of a few months to add tens of billions annually to spending, even as it continues to pretend that spending is under control.  The trick, as I’ve tried to show on previous occasions, is to issue a series of multiyear projections in which spending always slopes ever so gently up, hoping no one will notice when the whole curve is periodically, and violently, wrenched skyward. The chart accompanying this column shows the results. Spending over the next several years is now projected to average $16-billion annually more than the track laid out in Budget 2023, and nearly $40-billion a year more than in Budget 2022... Assume that these projections are of any greater worth than all previous. How was this accomplished? Not, as we can see, because of some new commitment to fiscal discipline. Rather, it was by the simple expedient of raising taxes... Without this windfall, I calculate the deficit in the current fiscal year would be nearly $47-billion, versus the $40-billion forecast, leaving the debt-to-GDP ratio slightly higher, not lower, than last year’s 42.1 per cent. It’s not the end of the world either way, of course. But it is hardly the sort of thing a government would do if it were actually interested in encouraging investment, productivity or growth.  (Or fairness, for that matter: The reason capital gains are not taxed at the full rate is in recognition of the tax already paid on the same income at the corporate level, a fact the budget somehow neglects to mention.)  Indeed, there is not a single measure in the budget aimed at boosting investment generally – as opposed to the usual slew of measures aimed at diverting investment into the government’s favoured sectors: artificial intelligence, “clean” technologies and so on. Whatever their individual merits or demerits (we seem no closer to becoming a world power in AI, for all the money the government is throwing at it, than we are in electric-vehicle batteries), the notion that you can put a $3-trillion economy on a measurably higher growth track – let alone the kind of radical acceleration needed, in the face of Canada’s accumulating fiscal challenges – with a handful of tax credits, subsidies and state-directed investment funds is simply comical.  A similar sense of inadequacy pervades the document. There are some useful-sounding measures to increase the supply of housing (and some not-so-useful measures to increase the demand) but nothing like on the scale required. Defence spending will get a boost, but nowhere near as much, or as soon, as the gathering world security crisis demands.  If you have a hundred priorities, it is said, you have none. Having spread itself so thin, budget after budget, on less urgent matters, the government finds itself without the capacity to act on the two or three things that really demand its attention. Assuming it even had any intention of doing so."

Armon Shokravi on X - "Bad day for Entrepreneurship in Canada 🇨🇦👎. Capital gains tax rate is increasing from a 50% inclusion to 66%.  This increases the net capital gains tax rate from 27% to 36%...  Compared to the US which has a 20% capital gains tax rate (+ major incentives like QSBS)  In my conversations with Canadian entrepreneurs, it's clear: They're feeling less motivated to build businesses here when moving just a bit south could mean saving a lot more."

Changes to capital-gains tax may prompt doctors to quit, CMA warns - The Globe and Mail - "The first $250,000 of capital gains will continue to be taxed under an inclusion rate of 50 per cent for individuals. But for corporations, the new 67-per-cent rate will kick in on the first dollar of capital gains. This is important for physicians because most operate their practices as small businesses through medical professional corporations, which leaves them more sensitive to changes in capital-gains rules than a salaried worker might be. The CMA estimated in 2017 that 66 per cent of physicians practised through corporations."

Michael Warner on X - "~60K/307K corporations affected by capital gains changes are medical professional corps typically owned by individual MDs as their primary means of saving for retirement. Irrespective of where you side on the issue it's misleading to say that only 40,000 individuals are affected. To be clear, the 250K threshold is not available to physicians and other professionals who rely on corps for retirement. The higher tax rate applies to the first and every subsequent dollar of CG earned."
Ann Rolle 🍎🍏 on X - "End result: Canada loses more doctors. We can’t afford another hit on our healthcare system."
Damn conservative governments underfunding healthcare!

Why raising capital gains taxes makes sense—yes, really - "If profits are paid out as dividends, then a complicated formula leaves about 45 cents on the dollar in after-tax income for the individual. (Notice, this is very similar to the 47 cents on each dollar in wages paid to a high-income individual!)  But if the firm buys back some shares, then, as we saw above, 54 cents on the dollar in after-tax income is received by the individual. That creates a bias towards paying out corporate value through capital gains rather than dividends.  The trick to achieving equal treatment is to set the inclusion rate so roughly the same amount will be left for an individual after all taxes have been paid. It turns out, that’s roughly two-thirds"

We all benefit from lower capital gains taxes—even if you’re not rich - "Most observers, rightly so, have framed the measure as a tax on the so-called “ultra-wealthy”. In fact, the Liberal Party’s official X account used those exact words. It has since precipitated a predictable debate about tax fairness, redistribution, and so on... This line of thinking draws on the famous tax policy idea that “a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.” Why should one dollar be taxed differently than another?  What the proponents of this policy thinking seem to overlook is how important capital is to the productivity of an economy, and as importantly—in the context of this budget in particular—to the creation of housing...   To increase taxes on capital is to invariably decrease these spillover effects and the benefits derived from secondary recipients and the economy and society as a whole.   This is particularly true when we consider the housing crisis the country is currently facing. The crisis itself is in large part a result of insufficient capital. The secondary losers are the average Canadian family who currently can’t afford a home.  Ahead of this budget, the Trudeau government received significant praise for its bold Canada Housing Plan for recognizing the problem. Yet missing from that plan was something that seemed like an unintentional omission: any mention of the fact that housing only gets built when risk-taking individuals put their own capital at risk as the equity required to finance any new development.   It’s as if the government had failed to understand that housing—like any other product or service in the economy—does not get produced without capital. This budget confirmed that lack of understanding. Previous housing strategies—including the most recent Conservative election platforms from the 2019 and 2021 elections—have recognized that capital is so critical to housing creation that they proposed policies to significantly reduce, and almost eliminate, capital gains taxes on real estate transactions (so long as the proceeds are reinvested into real estate). The intent of this policy would have been to promote the sale of land for development and to promote the reinvestment of any proceeds back into the creation of new housing. Instead, in this budget the government has chosen quite the opposite... Let’s not be surprised when less of that capital is made available. Research on the deleterious effects of taxes on capital is well established. It’s intuitive after all. It’s the same principle that underpins the Trudeau government’s carbon tax policy. If you tax something, all things being equal, you will get less of it."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes