plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20682 stories
·
19 followers

Unintended Consequences: Germany Sick Leave Edition

1 Share

So, Merz has announced that German workers will need a note from a doctor day one of calling in sick, and they must get that note in person: phone calls are no longer acceptable.

All the usual garbage: uncompetitive, high costs for employers, blah, blah, blah. (This comes after raising the retirement age.)

Here’s the actual sick leave situation:

Hey, it suddenly increased after 2020? Is anyone surprised? Bueller?

Anyway, doctors and clinics are a fixed resource. Forcing people to go in and see a doctor (normal wait times in Germany are two to three days) mean taking more time with the patient. That means pushing other patients back. So wait time will increase.

Second more sick people will go into work. Some of them will be infectious. More people would wind up sick than if you just let people stay home.

Sub voce this is “we don’t trust people, we think some of them are lying” plus “people really should work when only slightly ill. Suck it up sunshine.”

But the increase in sick time is clearly Covid related, presumably long Covid, so it isn’t likely there’s a sudden epidemic of malingering. And while you can’t pass on long Covid directly, it still means that other people who do have diseases they can donate to their co-workers will come in.

Governments rarely seem to think thru these second order effects and ask if they’re worth it. The City of Toronto has been forced by the Province of Ontario to shut down supervised injection sites.

Now if you’re a normal human person you’re probably thinking “oh no, people will die!”

And that’s true. But Premier Ford doesn’t give a damn about that. There is another effect, however, that he should give a damn about, because voters care, and the Conservaties do have seats in Toronto.

Average wait times in emergency wards are a bit over an hour thru the province. But they’re much higher in Toronto. As of this writing the closest emergency department to me has a wait time of a bit over five hours.

According to ER doctors overdoses can drive those times up significantly. Overdoses require priority treatment, after all. So if more drug users are overdosing (or their drug wasn’t what they thought it was, because the supply is so adulterated), then wait times will go up more.

And voters care about this. A lot. (Last time I went to an emergency department I waited over eight hours. I needed stitches, it was overnight, but I was in no danger, so I got to wait a very long ) People have in some cases died because of wait times, since it isn’t always obvious how bad something is, and while the number may not be large, the bad publicity often is.

This is something Ford and the Conservatives should care about, but it’s rarely mentioned. Bleeding hearts (which I mostly am) tend to lead with “drug users will die”, not getting that to Ford that’s probably a good thing. But “regular citizens will wait longer in the ER and some of them will die” is not something he wants. He may not personally care (I doubt he cares about anybody but himself), but he does care politically.

As for Merz, he’s the worst German leader of my lifetime, trying to run military Keynesianism and letting Germany’s industry be destroyed while he fiddles with marginalia. A few extra sick days aren’t why Germany’s losing its industry and it won’t make the least bit of difference. What is required is innovation and driving down energy prices, but that would require making peace with Russia and Merz is a warmonger.

Ruled by fools.

 

What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
5 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

SitRep N°058/MVB_11/07/2026 – Institut National de Sante Publique

1 Share
Activité COUSP, Actualités, SitRep

0 Partages

Read the whole story
sarcozona
18 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Canada hands U.S. toll share on fully funded Gordie Howe bridge after Trump pressure

1 Share

After years of construction and months of last-minute haggling, the Gordie Howe International Bridge is finally set to open on July 27. But the deal that cleared the way has left some Canadians wondering whether Ottawa gave away too much on a project it paid for entirely.

The $6-billion cable-stayed span, named after the Detroit Red Wings legend, will connect Windsor and Detroit with six lanes of traffic, modern ports of entry, and what officials promise will be one of the most advanced border crossings on the continent. Canada financed the whole thing—bridge, plazas, interchanges, the works—after Michigan and the U.S. federal government declined to chip in upfront more than a decade ago.

Yet under the revised agreement announced Friday, the United States will receive 50% of the bridge's operating profits for the first 15 years through a U.S.-controlled economic development fund. The Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority must also seek American concurrence on significant toll adjustments, with reports indicating Washington can effectively veto hikes of more than 10%.

President Donald Trump wasted no time claiming victory. In a Truth Social post Saturday, he wrote:

“I was able to cut a MUCH BETTER DEAL for America, and by so doing, will be allowing the new and spectacular Gordie Howe International Bridge... to open on July 27th, as scheduled. The original deal made was unacceptable to me! The new deal is great, and fair. Thank you and congratulations to the Canadian Government.”

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Minister Gregor Robertson described the opening as a “nation-building project” that will strengthen supply chains and create opportunities on both sides of the border. A government press-release highlighted “cooperative measures” on toll governance and a 15-year fund tied to bridge profits.

But the concessions stand in contrast to the original 2012 Canada-Michigan agreement. Under that pact, tolls collected on the Canadian side were supposed to repay Ottawa's investment over decades before any split with Michigan. Now, with traffic diverted from the aging Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, Canadian taxpayers shoulder the risk while American interests secure an immediate revenue stream.

The delay that forced this renegotiation didn't come out of nowhere. President Trump had threatened in February to block the opening unless the U.S. received what he called "fair compensation." Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reportedly pushed hard for a larger U.S. cut. The Ambassador Bridge's owners, the Moroun family—whose private crossing has long dominated commercial traffic in the corridor—have opposed the new public bridge for years. Matthew Moroun, whose family donated $1 million to a Trump-aligned PAC earlier this year, met with Lutnick shortly before the president's initial broadside.

“Canada paid for 100 per cent of the bridge,” former Alberta premier Jason Kenney tweeted during earlier negotiations. “If the USA wants part of the revenue, it should make an offer to buy all or part of the bridge.”

For Windsor and Detroit commuters and truckers, the bridge can't open soon enough. The Windsor-Detroit corridor handles hundreds of millions of dollars in daily trade, much of it autos and parts. Delays at the Ambassador Bridge have long frustrated manufacturers on both sides. The new crossing, with its 853-metre main span—the longest cable-stayed in North America—promises relief and redundancy in a vital supply chain.

Yet the financing reality stings. Canadian taxpayers fronted billions during a period when neither Michigan's legislature nor Washington wanted to spend. Now, after construction finished and inspections cleared, Ottawa needed Washington's permission to proceed and paid a price for it.

The 15-year profit-sharing window matters. Bridge profits in the early years may prove modest as debt service and operations eat into revenue. Any diversion slows Ottawa’s recoupment. Meanwhile, the U.S. veto power on toll increases hands leverage to a neighbour that contributed nothing to construction but now has a direct say over pricing on Canadian-built infrastructure.

Supporters of the deal argue pragmatism won out; better a compromised opening than indefinite delay amid broader trade tensions. The bridge will still deliver long-term economic benefits, they say, and the fund could support regional projects on the Michigan side. Governor Gretchen Whitmer welcomed the news, calling the span a “great deal” for her state that will create jobs and ease congestion.

But for those who watched the project overcome political resistance and pandemic delays only to face fresh demands at the finish line, the outcome feels lopsided. Canada built it. Canada owns its share outright alongside Michigan. Yet when push came to shove, it was Ottawa making the adjustments.

The Gordie Howe Bridge will open to traffic at the end of the month. Whether it also stands as a cautionary tale about negotiating leverage in an era of transactional politics remains to be seen. For now, trucks will soon roll across a span Canadian money built, under terms Washington helped rewrite.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The New York Times enabled the Gaza genocide and lost its legitimacy in the process

1 Comment

Editor’s Note: Professor Elliott Colla sent the following email to the New York Times canceling his subscription on July 6, 2026 and shared it with Mondoweiss to publish. To learn more about Adam H. Johnson’s book How to Sell a Genocide see our interview with Johnson here.

From: Elliott Colla
Subject: Goodbye
To: <a href="mailto:letters@nytimes.com">letters@nytimes.com</a>

Dear Editor,

I am a life-long reader of your newspaper. I don’t mean that as hyperbole. Quite literally, I learned to read while sitting next to my father as he read the morning paper every day. He would point out words, sound them out, and I would copy him. Eventually the sentences began to make sense. And even though it’s been a while since I buried my father at Mt. Sinai cemetery, I continue to read the daily news religiously.

I don’t remember a day when I didn’t turn to you for information about the world. When I was growing up, I read in paper form. At some point, I switched to online and it was just as good, often better. Reading the NYT has been such a daily ritual for so much of my life that it feels like it’s a part of who I am. For that reason, it’s not easy for me to write this letter to you. And while I doubt if you will take note of what I have to say, it’s important to me to say it. So here goes: I’m cancelling my subscription and encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

This decision is some years in the making—but let me cut to the chase as to why, on this particular Monday, I’m cutting my ties to you.

This past weekend, I read an most extraordinary book, Adam H. Johnson’s How to Sell a Genocide. You will definitely want to read it, since much of it is about the New York Times. Johnson makes an astonishing case for prosecuting many of your reporters, editors, and managers for the crimes of inciting and maintaining Israel’s genocide in Gaza. As you know, the legal prosecution of genocide is not limited to investigations of the military or police. As we saw with the Holocaust and Rwanda, genocide prosecutors have also typically investigated the role that media groups play in generating violence. Johnson details the role you have played—and continue to play—in producing American consent for the ongoing US-Israeli assault on the Palestinian people. I hope that Johnson’s study will become part of a legal case at the Hague, where perhaps you and your colleagues will receive a fair trial.

You should be aware that Johnson’s study makes two very clear accusations against your organization. On the one hand, you have produced many inciting claims which led directly to violence. In particular, Johnson highlights some of your most thoroughly discredited pieces, such as “Screams Without Words” and your reporting on Israel’s multiple atrocities at the Al-Shifa Hospital. Arguably, your libelous reports on UNRWA had an even more serious impact, since they led directly to months of famine and mass starvation among Gazans. Each of these reports provided flak for war crimes that resulted in hundreds and thousands of deaths. Worse, these and many other stories were sourced to Israeli agencies that have well-established records of lying and disinformation. Despite their well-documented mendacious history, you gave these stories a platform and soaked your readership with propaganda that has proven false time and time again. Multiple media critics have elucidated the many falsities in these reports for many months now—and somehow, you have yet to retract them. What gives? Are you being held hostage?

Johnson’s second big point has to do with your very consistent pattern of depicting Palestinian humanity as less than Jewish humanity. By this, he is refering to a deep-seated pattern of bias and double standards, such as:

·       Your centering of Jewish suffering over Palestinian suffering.

·       Your passive-voicing of Israeli atrocities.

·       Your silence on Israel’s use of mass detention and torture.

·       Your silence on the openly genocidal rhetoric across the entire political spectrum of Israel society.

·       Your silence on the routine rape of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

·       Your use of contorted, imbalanced wordings, such as: “Israeli hostages” versus “Palestinian prisoners”; “Israeli children” versus “Palestinian minors”.

·       Your insistence that Israelis have a right to defend themselves, but Palestinians do not.

Such dehumanization is consistent with racist, supremacist thinking on your part. To say this is not to speculate about your interior thoughts and motives, but rather to reflect on the clear meaning of your published words and the deliberateness and consistency of your editorial policies. As you will see, Johnson’s most damning claims are backed by substantial evidence and direct quotation.

Johnson’s study makes it clear how hack your organization has become. And he’s not even talking about your opinion pages, which routinely platform Israeli propaganda, incitement to violence, and encouragement for more endless, pointless wars. You took one of this country’s most august institutions and drove it into a ditch. And why? To provide cover for a genocidal apartheid state?! If you think that this makes Jews safer, or if you think this is good for America, you’re dangerously insane.

Finally, in case you’re wondering who I am, I am a Middle East expert with over forty years of experience living in and writing about the region. Since the 1980s, I have lived in Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Tunisia, and Iraq, and have taught countless students at some of our country’s top universities. I speak and translate Arabic and have family in the region. I have been a source for, and friend to, some of your most accomplished reporters in the region. I’ve even been quoted in your pages a few times, most recently a few months ago! That knowledge and experience certainly informs my evaluation of Johnson’s case against you, since it was not news to me that the NYT has a problem with representing Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims fairly. But in the last three years, your organization took the hate and incitement to a new level. 

It’s too much for me, and I cannot in good conscience continue to support you with a subscription, even though that means I’m going to miss out on some of my favorite writers, like Jamelle Bouie and Michelle Goldberg. 

In enabling genocide, you’ve wrecked the most precious thing you once possessed: legitimacy. I hope you get it back one day. 

Respectfully,

Elliott Colla
Associate Professor
Georgetown University


Elliott Colla
Elliott Colla teaches modern Arabic literature at Georgetown University.


Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
on the one hand, yes. on the other hand, I guess Iraq was more than 20 years ago and we learned nothing.
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

On Access Trauma

1 Share

I experienced a trauma that my fellow disabled people encounter on a daily basis.

It was early in the morning, and I was checking my email. I got an email from someone that wanted me to consider writing about their disabled business or whatever it was. They weren’t important, so I was just about to dismiss it, but something got the better of me and I opened the email and skimmed the first line out of curiosity.

The first thing I heard was,

"75655356878796656432190.JPG."

I immediately reeled back like I’ve just been slapped across the face. I skimmed the email some more. They wanted me to look at their website. Links were displayed all throughout the email, insisting I check out this page or that page or this other page.

I had no drive to click on any of them, at all, thanks to the unlabeled image at the top of the email. If they couldn’t be bothered to make sure an image was labeled, I didn’t want to experience their attempt at an accessible website.

I deleted the email. The next email was an email from a friend. It contained an attachment to their book they wanted me to read and enjoy, but I didn’t know what format the book was going to be in because they didn’t ask me, so I sat there, pondering the gravity of converting a, most likely, untagged PDF into something I could easier navigate through with my Braille display and screen reader. How much work was it going to be to convert this PDF? I navigated to the attachments section in question and opened it. Sure enough, it was a PDF. Reacting before opening it, because I didn’t want to be disappointed, I just immediately wrote back to the friend and said,

"Can you send this to me in Microsoft Word format or plain text?"

I sat there after sending the reply wondering if I should even try to convert this or not. I went to the next email.

It was an email from my publisher, sending me my royalty statement for one of my books. This was a PDF, but, at once, flashes plagued my mind of trying to convert the previous inaccessible PDF into something that could be easily navigated. I was terrified. I didn’t want to go through that again!

I didn’t even want to deal with this now, even the sending of the inevitable reply and telling the publisher, again, that I was blind and used a Braille display and screen reader so could they send it in a different format? I knew I was retreating, and retreating fast, and the day hadn’t even started yet. As I was navigating through my other emails, I just kept having visions of a few days ago wherein I was trying to convert an untagged royalty statement holding tables and untagged charts and no headings into something readable. That one task took me the whole day and I didn’t want to go through that again. I didn’t want to spend my whole morning trying a method that previously worked in order for the conversion attempt to fail, leaving me to send it to a friend and schedule a Zoom meeting just so my royalty statement could be read. I didn’t have anybody that lived with me that could read this, and I didn’t want to schedule a video call just yet with someone, so I just tried to focus on other emails.

As I skimmed the subject lines of emails, one singular thought kept percolating, like a restaurant that always serves burnt toast or a city that never fixes its hostile pavement designs. I don’t want to open these because I don’t want to deal with the inaccessibility of the content today.

The email subjects soon became a repeating question. What access hell would I need to endure in order to read this email? Is it worth opening just to be confronted with an inaccessible email? Probably not, so why should I even bother with this one when I already experienced three inaccessible emails today?

Thankfully, my phone rings, shaking me out of my recrimination. it’s an offline friend, and he wants to know if I’d like to go to an open mic tonight. I would, but how loud would the venue be? Would there be a lot of chairs? Was the venue going to be so small that I’d end up knocking things over like last time? I didn’t want to experience that again. So, retreating into safety, into a world where I knew things were going to be accessible because I was going to make it so, even if I was going to be at home, alone, I said, not tonight.

I was retreating into access, and he knew it because he suggested we could watch an audio described movie at his place instead of going to another unfamiliar place. I knew the layout of his house, I wouldn’t need to plan ahead, or to try to save up energy for tonight. I knew I’d be in a supportive environment with the movie and dinner at his place. I knew what access I was going to encounter and the limitations of the environment. I knew the access I was going to get, and this made things far easier for me to agree to. As I said yes, though, I was trying to pinpoint my visceral refusal of the open mic earlier. What feeling was that? Why did I have such a visceral reaction when I unequivocally love open mics and open mic style events?

As I smiled to a grateful exclamation of my company tonight, filled with an audio described movie and a place where food would be cut up for me so I wouldn’t have to worry about taking to long or holding others up, I examined this feeling I was having all morning. I couldn’t quite pinpoint it, but I could describe it.

A visceral reaction to a hostile environment. Knowingly or unknowingly.

Flashbacks of a previously inaccessible experience, putting me back into that feeling of ache and emotional pain.

Assessing an environment long before even dipping my toe into the environment based off earlier harm with the intent of avoiding a hostile environment.

I wrestled with this feeling all morning before finally going to a search engine and typing in something I’d thought I’d never type. What are the symptoms of PTSD?

PTSD came to mind because previous encounters were shaping my current feelings. While I didn’t experience all of the symptoms or causes, still, some jumped out at me starkly.

Re-experiencing

Avoidance and emotional numbing.

Hyperarousal (feeling "on edge")

These described what I was going through, but nothing tied it to being disabled in a world that was never designed for me. Some academic papers, like this one, identified this exclusion but didn’t put a succinct word or phrase onto this. On some days, I was willing to tolerate it, to even push past it, but today, I just wasn’t having it. While spoon theory didn’t quite match up with my feeling, it was tangential. I had absolutely no more energy to fight with an inaccessible world.

At that moment, I was extremely grateful for my offline friend that immediately suggested a safe space. I guess he could hear the utter exhaustion and frustration in my voice so wanted to do his part. I wished more of my friends did that.

I then began looking up something strictly related to accessibility. Accessibility trauma. Disability related PTSD? Spoon exhaustion. I didn’t have a good word for this feeling, and none seemed to exist. After contemplation, I think I have a phrase for this feeling.

This was the opposite of Access Intimacy.

I tried on a phrase, like I was tasting the words.

Access trauma.

In truth, I think it fits perfectly. While I have a different kind of access trauma than, say, my Deaf friends, I think we can all appreciate and understand the feeling of the world constantly reminding us that the world we’re forced to participate in wasn’t designed for us.

The important thing about access trauma is that it isn’t a thing I can leap over because it will creep up again or ram smack dab into me again when I least expect it. It will be relentless, unforgiving, and not at all surprising. Throughout my whole life, I’ll be forced to confront access trauma daily, even with friends that are temporarily abled. Access trauma, or accessibility PTSD, or whatever term ends up defining this feeling, isn’t something we’ll be able to just brush off like a pernicious crumb. It’s going to remind me, over and over again, that I’m adapting to a world that isn’t designed for me and it’s going to remind me that my tricks for skirting around barriers won’t always work the next time I try a trick to get around an inaccessible world and it fails.

I don’t have a solution other than to surround myself with people that understand inadequate access and who just understand that community care can help ease the pain. Will it be perfect? Of course not! Nothing is perfect. At least, though, with community care, and interdependence care, we’re building off other’s knowledge and resources and skills. Temporarily abled people can help strengthen community and interdependence care. In fact, I wish more would, even if they’re not perfect at it. Even if they mess up the first time, they’ve got my support even if they don’t always get it right.

I haven’t figured out a good way to combat access trauma because it’s embedded into society, and I know there will be days where I don’t have the spoons to leap over the inadequate and inaccessible society I must battle every day. As of right now, I’m taking small steps that will cultivate spaces where I don’t have to battle access trauma. I don’t expect everybody to understand my hesitation when they invite me to an unfamiliar location, but I am making them listen and pay attention.

I think, when it comes right down to it, that’s the best way I can think of to really combat access trauma. Professional, personal, or sexual. While I can’t battle every inequity that comes my way, I can stop and make people understand why I’m refusing to experience access trauma again. I think that’s a form of self-care we all should take. My true friends will listen and act. I don’t know what I’ll do with the friends that refuse to hear or listen to my pain.

If you enjoyed this blog post, you might enjoy the fiction podcast Tales After Dark: Erotic Audio Dramas

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

FCC Approves Reflect Orbital's Giant Mirror Satellite That Astronomers Hate

1 Share

Despite a flood of objections, the Federal Communications Commission has approved a startup's plan to launch a controversial satellite that’ll use a giant mirror to reflect sunlight to Earth after dark

On Thursday, the FCC granted the California-based Reflect Orbital permission to launch and operate the satellite in low-Earth orbit using the requested radio spectrum. The reflected light from satellite is supposed to span an area of about three miles wide on the ground.

The approval is only for one satellite, dubbed Earendil-1, which is meant to test Reflect Orbital’s technology to shine the sunlight back to Earth. The satellite will boast a steerable thin-film reflector measuring 18 feet by 18 feet, with the goal of creating a way to power solar farms at night, or illuminate disaster-struck areas after dark to help rescue teams. 

But to expand the technology, Reflect Orbital envisions operating over 50,000 satellites by 2035, effectively surrounding the Earth with a fleet of mirrors. The proposal has faced stiff pushback from environmental groups and astronomers concerned that the satellites will unleash intrusive light pollution. The opposition has been so strong that the FCC received over 1,800 public comments on the application, many of them objecting to Reflect Orbital’s plan for Earendil-1.(FCC/Reflect Orbital)

The concerns included the “potential for eye damage to amateur astronomers looking through reasonably sized telescopes; temporary ‘flash blinding’ of drivers and pilots; and negative impacts on the scientific research, being carried out by federally funded astronomical facilities” said the American Astronomical Society, which called for its denial. 

However, the FCC decided to approve the satellite, noting the grant is only “for a single demonstration satellite” to test an innovative technology that could advance American leadership in space.  

“The Communications Act states that it is the policy of the United States to ‘encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public,’ and Reflect Orbital’s demonstration satellite is an example of a potentially groundbreaking technology that the Commission has found is in the public interest to support,” the order says. 

But on the most controversial aspect of the satellite, the FCC said the concerns around Reflect Orbital’s solar reflector are "unrelated to the Commission’s role in authorizing use of radiofrequency spectrum, and even if the Commission had authority to review and condition these operations (which it does not), these harms are unlikely to occur.”

“Independently, we find that any such risks are outweighed by the public interest benefits of authorizing communications to support testing of the technology in a limited, short-duration manner to inform whether there are longer-term benefits from an expanded use of this technology,” the FCC added. (Reflect Orbital)

In addition, the Commission said that US courts have blocked the FCC from using “a generalized public interest requirement beyond its statutory authority in regulating communications. Accordingly, the operations of a solar reflector in space would not be reviewed as part of the Bureau’s public interest analysis.” The regulator also noted that conducting an environmental review for the satellite went beyond its authority. Even if the FCC did have the power, the Commission emphasized the grant is for a single satellite, rather than 50,000 satellites. 

“The majority of these comments focus on a hypothetical plan to deploy tens of thousands of satellites, and those who argue the single satellite will harm the human environment do not demonstrate with specificity the potential harm will be caused by the single satellite, but rather rely on the same studies as the commenters objecting to a larger constellation,” the Commission added.

To critics, the issue might highlight a gap in how the US regulate satellites when some groups have been calling for the FCC to conduct environmental reviews of large satellite constellations. In the meantime, Reflect Orbital said it plans on launching the Earendil-1 later this year. "The mission will provide real-world data that shapes the design of future satellites, the markets Reflect Orbital serves, how the company engages communities and the operational practices it puts in place. The company expects this to be the first of several test missions," the startup said.

"The license grant follows extraordinary global demand for Reflect Orbital’s lighting and energy services, including most recently numerous requests to assist search-and-rescue efforts in the aftermath of the tragic earthquake in Venezuela," the company added. Reflect Orbital says it's also commissioning "independent, third-party research on the impacts of its technology through both independent researchers and federal partners. This includes working to develop a coordination agreement with the National Science Foundation." Another priority is to avoid reflecting the light near observatories or other protected areas.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
4 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories