Taxpayers' aid for Scrooge McDuck

With public agencies and public employees like at LAO, no wonder Ontario had to close shop on Fridays once upon a time. Some sections of that province haven't learned their lesson though.

Legal Aid Ontario squandered over a million of taxpayers' dollars helping defend a millionaire murderer. Both CBC and CTV report on it (and countless other media that don't come into my RSS, yet).

Thankfully someone is giving them the rap they deserve, so kudos to the Ontario Ombudsman for identifying the leaks and giving both LAO and the province the instructions to fix them. The ease with which Ontarians have been cheated out of a million beggars belief, as does the pervasive carelessness and lack of monitoring that go on whenever public money is spent.

Dirty tricks and negligence cannot go unpunished, thus as much as recovering part of the money LAO should ensure that those responsible for this bungle get nowhere close to a taxpayer's dollar again.

Our freedom is not secure

I am one to mind if a corrupt loser government shuts off its own people's access to information. I am also one to really mind if that meddling touches half the globe.

Pakistan's telecoms authority evidently wanted to pull an enormous joke on us, since their zeal outed YouTube not only within the confines of the piece of land cursed by the rule of that congregation of mediocrity and idiocy, but on half the planet.

This SNAFU is a very worrying sign of the vulnerability of the world's information highways to the arbitrary whim of any dictatorship. Today it's Pakistan, tomorrow it could be anyone from Uzbekistan to North Korea. I would appreciate our communication providers secured our access to what is rightfully ours, from funny videos to anything one (but not me) might define un-islamic or contrary to any sort of faith precept. Failing to safeguard our freedoms will bring nothing but misery in a very foreseeable future.

Nature meddles with politics. Badly.

CBC's eager reporting of the journal Nature lambasting the Conservative government prompted me to read the full editorial in question, which I find extremely disappointing and a total blunder, let alone inappropriately politicized for a journal of Nature's focus and calibre.

The most visible objection one can make on the spot is the fallacious assumed correlation between enthusiasm for climate change doom-peddling by self-proclaimed messiahs and genuine interest for science. Dismissal of unattainable targets (Kyoto) and exploitation of natural resources (oil sands) are the duties of a responsible and accountable government. While emissions from tar sand processing should raise the public's eyebrow Nature's ill-advised conclusion that they are symptomatic of government disregard for science elicits ridicule. Research into cleaner processing is ongoing, and I for one am sure these technologies will be implemented once their technical and economic feasibility is proven to the general market.

Moreover, Nature argues that the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) will be less able than one person (with a vague mandate) to discharge a duty of valid scientific advice to the Government. The principal motivation of such undeserved criticism of the STIC is its presumed lack of independence, for "several government administrators" have the honour and privilege of membership. What Nature fails to acknowledge, however, is that the appointment of Arthur Carthy by Martin's government was as good as any Liberal boondoggle: a colossal waste of a person's potential coupled to an abjuration of commitment. The composition of the STIC is the best recipe for finding a convergence between scientific, business and political interest, because all these seemingly discordant viewpoints are brought together for the purpose of producing coherent and consensus-based advice. The STIC is a practical alternative to Martin's propaganda stunt.

As an employee of the science, research and development sector I covet funding for projects aimed at advancing human knowledge and Canadian competitive advantages in technology. I fully share Nature's concern over the inability of federal bodies to fund all the grant applications they receive yet I refuse to join in the journal's insinuation that the Conservative government doesn't care for science just because it doesn't shower the sector with taxpayers' money.

As a last objection to Nature's attack I wish to draw everyone's attention to the simple fact that re-routing media enquiries to Environment Canada via Ottawa is a legitimate Government prerogative over its own agency. Freedom of speech and freedom of association have been granted in this country exactly to enable any member of the public to deliver any kind of message to fellow Canadians, thus if members and advisors of Environment Canada feel the Government is not acting in the interests of the country they should find like-minded peers and form an advocacy group in lieu of illicitly exploiting an artificial prominence. Nature's ludicrous pretence that the Government should not exercise its prerogative is nothing short of a flirt with anarchy. Considering the article's tone, however, this divide and rule approach seemingly befits the general editorial board's agenda for a world in disarray where a few organized insiders can determine public policy.

Nature appears to advocate a Government whose eagerness to defer to a special interest group (as climate change apocalyptics are) is equalled by its disregard for due democratic process. Let there be no doubt that the day we base our policies and decisions solely on the whim of the most vocal scientist advocates we will have denuded our democratic institutions of their power.

If white coat power is what Nature's editorial board envisions I seriously worry for the journal's reputation. Science belongs to all parties and to none, and Nature's evident partisanship is for me a source of great disappointment.

Arab governments conspire against freedom of speech

They are at it again, in the name of their own style of social cohesion and obscurantism as we haven't seen since the times of the Inquisition.

Governments of several Arab countries have voted in favour of a media code which stipulates that broadcasters should conform to Islamic rules and values, "not threaten public order" and plenty more of such nonsense. Al Jazeera (of all!) has been banned from several Arab countries and is one of the most vocal opponents of such moves, and if one googles the words "arab media code" this article comes up top.

Kudos to Lebanon for not giving in to such mediocrity. Information, despite what those oil-drunk pseudo-leaders of the Arab League may think, is about opinions, facts, reporting and above all: Information is about the TRUTH. Which in the Arab world seems to be more inconvenient than Bacardi 151 and Jenna Jameson put together.

Team Franco' strikes again

Words failed me then, and words still fail me. Quebec's government-subsidized franco-fascists have taken a shot at one of my favourite Montreal drinking establishments, McKibbin's Irish pub, with the accusation that many of its signs aren't in French. This matter becomes laughable when this apparently includes vintage Guinness advertisements, and some outside menus as well.

As far as the menu goes the language street gang might have a point, but their actions make a laughing stock of the entire province, all with the Quebec administration's blessing and tax dollars. Furthermore, this does nothing to foster a positive attitude towards the French language in Quebec, portraying it instead as an imposition by an evil and insensitive overlord, which Charest's government isn't as far as I know.

Monsieur Charest, get rid of your zealot beating squads, stop the rampant ostracism against Anglos and institute some real positive incentive for speaking French. Even the silliest of brownie point systems would be better than the intimidation we have now.

I propose that all intelligent, hard-working and commonsense Montrealers of all races, religions and language show the OLFQ rottweilers some well-deserved middle finger, go to McKibbin's to imbibe in the liquid goodness of their pleasing and merrily intone "The Maple Leaf Forever". Both the good old-school version and the new bilingual one.

Ou' est ma Guinness?

"Bend the rules" - team Hillary says

A great comment by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago tribune regarding the confused squabble chez les Democratiques about the rights of Florida and Michigan delegates, chastized for being elected in a primary before super tuesday without proper party authorization. After having frightened candidates off the ballots in those states and having given Hillary several hundred delegates on a silver plate, now the party is debating (prompted, obviously, by Hillary aides) whether these delegates should be allowed to sit or not after all.

The same nonsensical and punitive rules that the Party endorsed, de facto creating an internal committee dictatorship, are now being set on by their most influential insider. I am no admirer of the Democratic Party in its present state, but nevertheless the current bickering offers nothing but a pitiable clown spectacle. The thought of a potential US President emerging from this muddle sinks my heart.

Smoking permits at first, then what?

Suggestions in UK government offices of introducing a 10 pound ($20) yearly smoking permit bring back flashes of 1984. Honestly words fail me, for the country where I left a big chunk of my heart churns out more and more nonsensical news by the day. Read the story here.

To add insult to injury, the responsible individuals also plan for it to deter smokers on the grounds that 70% of them want to stop smoking anyway and filling out a very complex form will deter them even further. Not only the government infringes on your personal liberty, it also brags about how complex it will be for you to exercise it and how you really WANT your liberty abolished.

Is this really what Britons want? Or it is just people's complacency that allows state officials to get away with such drivel?

For the want of two grand!

Just when someone has a great idea, it yields good results while costing pennies it is endangered by short-sightedness in government offices.

From CBC: full article here

---------------

A Prince Edward Island program that placed infant simulators with teenage girls to convince them early motherhood was not a good idea was shut down last week because it can't find a home.

[...]

the chapter can longer find anyone willing to store the "Baby Think It Over" dolls.

[...]

it would take about $2,000 to keep the program going and the Department of Education will not fund it.

-----------------

A mere two thousand dollars do not seem to be a great investment into the lives and careers of potential teenage mothers. I am not one who knows about welfare systems in PEI, but wouldn't a single mom receive more than that in benefits each year if those were in place? Even without benefits, the human potential development hindered by early motherhood is always a hit on Canadian human resources. Two grand is pennies to PEI, the federal government and taxpayers. Let's keep this scheme alive!

Thought crime or curiosity?

Anti-terrorism efforts frequently tread on the fine line between busting real crime and chasing guys who are curious but would never put their lives or careers in danger. The recent case of five UK students whose terrorism convictions were thrown out by the Court of Appeal is a prime example.

They visited terror-related sites, downloaded and shared material and in a letter to his parents one of them appeared determined to undergo terrorist training. None of them had explosives nor was there any proof of criminal intent. Where do we draw the line?

Clearly these students are a potential threat to the UK and the general public and must be watched 24/7 from now on. But (il)legitimate human curiosity cannot be prosecuted, lest we institute an index of forbidden opinions and statements, setting our countries back five hundred years.

My humble opinion on this issue is that visiting and downloading terror-related material must be sufficient reason to place someone on a watch list, including phone tappings and surveillance. As for the sharing, we have to tread carefully. Although the distribution of such material is very dangerous, should sharing such material be a crime in every way I would be in the same pot with those wackos if I ever reported something publicly to my fellow Blogging Tories.

In this case one should advocate for application of concealment law, or any name such legislation goes by. Sharing and distribution of potentially threatening material should be a crime if it is not reported to the police or the relevant authority at the same time. We have a right to dispose of what we own in any way we please, but we also have a duty to denounce what can threaten the peace of our country.

These guys might have knowingly spread incitement to criminal behavior and hidden it from the police. If this is so, they should be prosecuted for concealment, as should everyone who doesn't report terror literature being spread in their neighborhood. Regarding other charges that may be laid against the individuals concerned I would stand by their right to read what they like, make their own decisions and face the consequences.

In this story, however, some aspects deserve mention as a beacon of common sense and civic duty. Firstly the speaker for the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain (God where has Britain gone) auspicates that this case warns other Muslim youth against entertaining themselves with extremist material. Secondly, parents of one defendant alerted the police when their son left an unambiguous letter declaring his intent to become a terrorist.

Good and moderate Muslims exist in our society, they are good citizens and their priceless contribution to ensuring the safety of our societies (and those close to them) has to be acknowledged and emphasized.

Bring on the outsourcing!

All too often we hear many economic woes blamed on China, with its cheap and limitless workforce. Western trade unions in those professions threatened by outsourcing and moving jobs become the most vocal advocates of protectionist policies and government bail-outs, at the expense of the taxpayer of course, who is inevitably presented with a heftier tax bill and artificially engineered consumer choice patterns. We pay more to obtain less.



At the student seminar in Montreal hosted by the Fraser Institute the participants were treated to an insightful presentation by Germain Belzile on why we should NOT fear China, as well as how frequently we are the cause of our own problems. Government and advocates turn a deaf ear, as blame-passing is an art human beings have mastered in its totality. The failure to broaden one's perspective, however, is not a luxury a responsible government can afford in the long term: globalization expands the opportunities for positive outcomes but also exacerbates the consequences of short-sighted choices.



Today the progress from primary economy based on agriculture and natural resources towards tertiary service economy is nothing short of an axiom. In this optic, the gradual death of the manufacturing industry is a sign of progress if it is counterbalanced by an increase in tertiary skill, which few politicians seem to emphasize. On the contrary, trade unions and sympathetic administrators pretend to serve the nation's interest by holding the economy in an artificial time-freeze, averse to change in the name of the common good.

Job losses due to outsourcing overseas are a tragedy for many families. Bail-outs and welfare are, however, a greater tragedy in the making due to the consequent increased reliance on government rather than hard work and skill progress. Cars produced in China may justify one-off shipping costs, but every technological item will someday require maintenance which cannot be outsourced completely. Notwithstanding maintenance, at any given time every country has a skill deficit, be it in plumbing or software engineering.

Simplistic as it may sound, consider the case of automotive servicing. Manufacturing workers should ideally be cogent in the mechanics and nitty-gritty of car functioning,according to their speciality. Would it not be advisable for them to pool their individual skills together and open up a car servicing station when their plant closes down? Would it not be beneficial to the consumer, whose expense for vehicle maintenance would be reduced due to increased competition?

The provincial and federal governments have the duty to recognize market failure as a necessary step in capitalist progress, which punishes inefficient resource use and attempts at economic engineering. Thus current expenditure for agonizing industries should be immediately redirected to skill programmes that would allow workers to have a job when the industry dies. A manufacturing employee whose job is at risk should have the opportunity to re-train for free in his (little, admittedly) free time in a skill that cannot be outsourced. I can't send my leaking sink to China, can I? And plumbers are expensive!

Skill re-training instead of stagnation, dignity of work instead of the burden of welfare and, above all, an ultimate benefit to all consumers and the economy.