Why economics is the answer

And why Stephane Dion should consider a similar approach to priority-making.

The Copenhagen Consensus, far from jumping on bandwagons and joining senseless scaremongering tactics, groups several prominent economists in order to determine global priorities. The peculiarity of this exercise is the focus on the economics of intervention, rather than other considerations. Cost-benefit analysis may sound insensitive, but it does yield a very commonsensical priority list. They're back, for CC2008.

The outcome of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus can be found here. This year's topics are Disease, Water & Sanitation, Education, Women & Development, Global Warming, Air Pollution, Malnutrition, Trade Barriers, Conflicts and Terrorism. You can make your own ranking on the Times website.

What's so special about the Copenhagen Consensus? Its 2004 ranking sent the Kyoto accord rock bottom in the priority list, dismissing current climate change strategies as too costly for no benefit, whereas tackling diseases, malnutrition and trade barriers monopolized the top five. It is a politically unbiased recommendation for enhancing development while minimizing the costs associated with it. Rather than feeding dreams and delusions, the Consensus crunches numbers, which are less opinable than the IPCC's scaremongering.

The Times presents some of the criticism aimed at the Consensus:

Further criticism has been directed at the merit of considering these issues purely in terms of cost and benefit. Factors such as social justice, ecological stewardship and political acceptability are also important, but are exceptionally difficult to price.

These factors are also highly irrelevant. The best social justice is not dying of an avoidable disease and having food on your table, not being arrested for no reason and being free from the threat of conflict. Political acceptability, instead, relies on appeasing lobbies which currently set public policy, such as the farm subsidy and CAP lobby. Money speaks louder than politics, thus cold hard data from the Copenhagen Consensus is more likely to ring the right bells in the heads of policymakers than half-baked political arguments that stand no chance against the lobby powers.

Dion should get a bunch of Canadian economists together and let them set his priorities. Maybe then he wouldn't be committing the Carbon Tax political suicide.

Further reading:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com

Where's (Bin) Waldo?

Al-Arabiya claims that public enemy and soon-to-be urban legend Osama Bin Laden is hiding in the areas surrounding the K2. Despite talks of military operations in the area, I have genuine doubts regarding its feasibility.

Firstly, the area is not easily accessible and comprises God knows now many possible hide-outs. Needles in haystacks are suddenly more attractive options. Secondly, the mountain is split between Pakistan and China. The chinese side is not accessible because, apparently, it's just impossible to climb it. If I were Osama I would've snuck into China at the first available opportunity, and kept very quiet.

We have been fed information regarding bin Laden' whereabouts for nearly seven years. All these trails have ether gone cold or revealed themselves to be hoaxes. Why sould we dedicate any more attention to what is clearly an excruciatingly complex manhunt filled with politics and (mis)calculation?

I want bin Laden's backside on the defendant's bench of a federal US court (no way he is handed to the Hague). In the meantime, not advertising the complexity of the task and the failure to perform it would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to absorb the leftie ironies regarding the entire US intelligence service being out-witted by a nuthead. Because they are sadly true.

Iran pledges to bankroll murder

Iranian leaders are reassuring Hamas that it will continue receiving weapons and funds even if Syria strikes a deal with Israel, provided the masked thugs in Gaza do not negotiate with either Israel or the Palestinian Authority.

The article proceeds to examine reactions to Israeli-Syrian negotiations in Teheran, which are generally negative. The flow of weapons to the armed Palestinian faction are set to lose a key transit port, and the ayatollahs are upset.

Unlike the PA, Hamas is an international pariah. The funds ready to be poured into the PA's coffers outnumber Teheran's at least 10:1. What it does show, however, is that Syria isn't as stupid or as butcherous as many portray it to be. Maybe the latest round of talks won't yield much, but it certainly sends a cold shiver down the spines of the Jewish State's avowed enemies.

If there ever wasn't a sufficient case to rally our support behind Israel, now there is a compelling one. Iran's assasin rhetoric isn't just words: they systematically subsidize rockets that kill innocent Israelis. If, God Forbid, appeaser Obama entered the White House he'd better be ready to take the O'Bomba nickname if the time came to defend our only staunch ally in the Middle East.

So much for a classless society!

I was prompted to write about this by Crux-Of-The-Matter's post about the classism and deference encountered while in England.

Academics usually lean left, and New Labour with its social engineering schemes can provide a perfect tool for any crazy idea of perfect society to be experimented with the entire British populace as unwitting guinea pigs. The recent outbursts of classism from Newcastle University's Bruce Charlton, however, go against the tide and the wrong way (I wonder how that's possible).

According to Dr Charlton students from working-class backgrounds have inherently lower IQ's than their higher-class counterparts, therefore higher uni intake from more expensive or more prestigious schools is therefore just a natural consequence of meritocracy. Being no believer in affirmative action I am, however, also no believer in social class as a valid defining characteristic of human nature. A factory worker can exhibit more elegance, wit, wisdom and intelligence than a snobbish toff, given the chance. The principle of meritocracy can be made to work without the needs for quota and target tinkering by improving the standards and quality in the education system. Labour on this record have consistently proven themselves as incompetent as on defence policy in the 1980's.

Dr Charlton's comments are not only an indictment of his own narrow-mindedness and snobbery, but of Labour's failure to bring down the notion of class as a caste, as well as the failure to create a public education system that enabled disadvantaged children to succeed through their own efforts and motivation rather than by government-dictated quota mathematics. To sadden it all, Newcastle upon Tyne is a ridiculously Labour area (judging by 2005 election results). For such classism to come from a bastion of New Labour - the champions of a classless society - is truly disheartening.

It's not the class, it's what we do with it that counts.

Debunking the Global Peace Index

Compiled by the Economist, the Global Peace Index ranks countries based on 24 indicators of what the panel considers as key contributions to a peaceful society and country as a whole. Canada ranks 11th, with Iceland topping the list, the US close to the 100th place and everyone else in between.

However a mere look at the ranking rings a few alarm bells, which the index's creators do acknowledge. Israel is rock bottom, while brutal regimes such as Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma are higher. Dictatorial Belarus, meddling Syria and human-rights-abuser China are "more peaceful" than the United States. Something is wrong here, these countries in no way can qualify as peaceful nations (most of them) and certainly not as peaceful societies. What went wrong?

The number of police servicemen and jailed population proportion are given the same weighting as non-UN troop deployments, ease of access to weapons (assumingly including sales) and possibility of terrorist attack. Military sophistication is a handicap, as are UN deployments, army size and weapons trade transactions.

All this leaves the indicators of political stability, relationships with others, external and internal conflicts and human rights respect belittled compared to their actual true weight. Furthermore, the human rights indicator is fetched from Amnesty International's yearbook, which implies that being open to scrutiny is not a good thing (Zimbabwe has the same value as Israel on the human rights indicator). Other critics point to the GPI's ignorance of such factors as violence against women. David Suzuki would probably argue that adherence to Global Warming dogma should be included (but seriously, care for the environment is completely ignored).

Healthy free-market trading democracies rarely go to war with one another, a well-trained army and police force with sophisticated equipment can protect the peace of the country and the citizenry, while UN involvement denotes a commitment to international cooperation in hot spots. The GPI seems to promote the idea of a society that has a pre-historic army and police or none at all, does not participate in UN missions, sucks up to Amnesty International and is a general left-wing utopia where 100% of the population votes and is full of young people aged 15-35.

In its current form the Global Peace Index places excessive weight on factors which do not affect a country's peacefulness or functioning as a healthy society, but rather seems to promote a partisan view of how peace is to be achieved. I wouldn't expect anything different from an index endorsed by Jimmy Carter.

My verdict: good attempt. Now tinker with the weightings and factor in the many true indicators of peacefulness that have been missed.

Privatization still on the move!

The Nigerian oil giant is to be privatized. (AFP). After being a tool in the hands of corrupt bureaucrats and incompetent managers, the country's main oil company is to be restructured, split in five and privatized.

Wrestling such an enormous centre of power away from the hands of politicians is definitely a key toward decreasing corruption in the only country whose credit cards are not an accepted form of payment by the Education Testing Service (SAT, GRE, GMAT, etc) and whose business reputation earned it an IgNobel. In the wake of a landslide victory, the current President seems to have a few good things in nmind to put his country back on the track of economic progress that brings genuine development. Furthermore, the current oil price boom may create a nation of small shareholders with profitable stakes in one of the five companies.

This process is to be watched closely. If the usual habits prevail the privatization will be a sham and the companies will be swallowed back into the bureaucrats' influence area. If, instead, Nigerians actively engage in this sample of popular capitalism they have well deserved they'll ask for more. Nigeria could become another success story. Makes me pray for high oil prices this time round.

A carbon tax alternative that smells

Edmonton Journal (via Canada.com) posts a proposal that would allow the government to hit non-efficient use of fuel without necessarily imposing a carbon tax. I happen to agree with the author that setting a low limit on the price of fuel and offsetting the artificial imbalance by cutting other taxes would definitely avoid the stalls in efficiency developments we saw during earlier fuel price hikes.

It still remains, however, a government meddling. Minimum prices are first and foremost against consumers. Good intentions regarding the environment do not justify imposing a system of values upon the defenceless citizen who has to fill up at the pump. Coming from Italy where certain goods have a government-imposed minimum price I fume at such aberrations being exported elsewhere. Expensive fuel encourages user efficiency, while cheap fuel should encourage efficient extraction. With environmental legislation as it is, cutting corners by polluting more to produce gas cheaper isn't an option anymore.

Where does this leave us? A carbon tax is a con which will further endanger the economy. A minimum fuel price, however, will have subtler effects causing the same damage. If the price of fuel never comes down this piece of legislation would be useless (a Liberal specialty). Set the limit too high and the tax cuts in other areas to balance the grab would divert all government money towards compensating Canadians being defrauded at the pump. If the Liberals dare impose such a threshold their pet boondoggles would be starved of tax dollars.

Where does this leave Stephane Dion? In a bind. Persisting in carbon tax advocacy is political suicide, while pulling the plug on the policy will further portray him as a feeble leader. Switching to a minimum price, however, will only make matters worse, for high minimum prices will starve the government of money (or the consumers) and low minimums will be so useless hiding the policy failure would be a challenging task.

UK Labour PM Gordon Brown voted out

This in from my alma mater's Tory society (UCL Conservatives). Shows how the public doesn't perceive Gordo as their legitimate prime minister.

The info can be retrieved here as well.

Obam-ology bashed

The good old Times cautions against placing excessive hopes on Barack Obama and bestowing virtues and laud upon him before seeing the goods. I will not lie, I like the guy. The policies he proposes are as sure to miss their targets as American missiles are of missing Bin Laden when there's no US election coming, but he gave the heir presumptive Billary the roughest ride of her life, and maybe the boot out of politics.

In a recent reply on his "Italians" blog, Corriere Della Sera journalist Beppe Severgnini argued that an Obama nomination would ensure the grassroots and "new electorate" he galvanized will come out and vote Democrat in November, while Clinton on the ballot paper would suffice to disillusion them, securing a Republican victory. This is possibly true, and it would be a sad reality. It would indicate an Obama personality cult of sorts, an "Obama or nothing" mentality that would damage the Democrats far beyond the drawn-out nomination race we are witnessing.

Hailed as the breath of fresh air with a bit of anti-establishment feeling, Obama has charmed many to the point that nothing seems to sink his ship. From reverend Wright to Hamas-entangled aides through blue-collar insults, his campaign does not seem to suffer.

This is worrying. He hasn't been the subject of the kind of scrutiny most presidential candidates go through, and hasn't been held to account for his weaknesses as a person aiming for such high office should. He may be inspiring and charming, but I fear for his ego.

The premature sanctification of St Barack of Chicago (or Honolulu if semantics is important) is consistent with the savior ideology many Dem fans adhere to. This kind of thinking is likely to give President Obama a power trip, which can only result in ill-thought measures being rushed through a blue Congress in the wake of popular (or factional) enthusiasm. Hoping for a messiah weakens people's perceptions of their liberties as well, as they entrust the newly-come prophet with any authority he may demand to carry out the promised "Change We Can Be Duped Into".

It would be interesting to investigate how the party that champions civil liberties (but also statism) can be the egg that hatches the biggest threat to American freedoms and Americans' love of them since the Patriot Act. For my part, I'd stay safe with McCain and a weak Democratic majority in one of the Houses.

Funding IVF gives greater benefits

Interviewed by the CBC, Dr Jeff Nisker from UWO argues that the costs of funding IVF cycles for couples having trouble conceiving will be offset by the savings in neonatal care resulting from multiple births caused by fertility drugs. Maybe, but there are more benefits.

I am not aware whether Canada funds IVF for couples carrying potentially debilitating genetic diseases, but it definitely should. The cost of the IVF cycle would be offset by the saving in healthcare provision for a condition that could have been avoided without incurring the ethical contradictions of eugenics. No-one wants Huntingdon's, Tay Sachs, Haemophilia or other conditions that can be reliably detected by genetic screening.

As with many ethical issues, IVF cannot be considered a lifestyle choice (I am against using it as a routine procedure). I would, however, advocate the following:

1. Genetic screening for both parents who want to have a child, in order to check for the possibility of severe genetic disorders being passed on
   
2. IVF and pre-implant screening of the embryo to ensure the baby is healthy for couples identified as at-risk
   
3. Limiting pre-implant test result disclosure solely to the health of the embryo, leaving out any other possible sources of discrimination such as gender
   
4. IVF in all cases of proven difficulty in conceiving

All in all a healthy Canadian-born population is in the national interest, therefore IVF in the aforementioned cases and non-discriminatory genetic screening are justifiable expenses in the healthcare budget. Unlike Ontario's recent decisions on the matter.

Sex changes before needed care

Ontario is to cover sex change surgery expenses again. Pardon? Other areas of the healthcare system are underfunded, waiting lists for certain kinds of procedures and surgeries (e.g. MRIs) are ridiculous and all the provincial honchos can cook up is spending millions to cover sex change? By all means I'm not against such surgeries, one's body is one's own, but I cannot understand this re-routing of public money to a strictly private matter, to a surgery that is not life-saving nor a true emergency.

Ontario's trustees of government should re-examine their priorities. This isn't care for the people, what the Liberals claim as their bastion. This is healthcare by Publicity and Public Relations. I pass more sensed strategies every morning.

When the blame hunt goes too far

This would be funny if it wasn't sad: blame the world's problems on fat people. Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have suggested that obese people are to partly blame both for the global food crisis and global warming, because they need more calories (thus requiring more food) and because they are more likely to use transport, thus causing emissions through private car use or by placing an additional strain on public transportation systems.

I have the highest respect for LSHTM, and some of my friends hold degrees from that respectable institution. However this demonstrates that either their recruitment standards have hit rock bottom or economics and climate aren't their cup of tea.

The association between higher calorie consumption and reduced food supply to the world's poor is as far-fetched as linking global warming to pirates. Taking certain parts of the southern US as a case study, high rates of obesity are caused mainly by high fat content due to frying everything fryable, a legacy of poor food supply that required addition of calories in order to ensure survival. The food "crisis" is due to rising prices of staples such as rice and wheat, not frying oil. Claim dismissed.

Moreover, the influence of agriculture on rising fuel costs is certainly not due to obese people eating unhealthily, as most of the unhealthy diet is processed food rather than crops. If we compare increased agricultural fuel demand to the increased demand in China and India in general, the contribution of increased agricultural production (if any) is negligible. Costs of fuel used to feed obese people are NOT causing higher food prices for the world's poor. Claim dismissed.

The next claim, that obese people cause greater strain on transportation systems, is just as miscalculated as the previous one. Although morbidly obese people might place higher strains on small private cars but not SUVs, the additional weight of several obese people on a BUS is negligible in proportion to the total weight of the bus itself and its average-weighing passengers. If we got obese people off public transport the total carbon savings wouldn't justify such discrimination. Claim dismissed.

Obese people place a strain on healthcare systems, that's the problem. The LSHTM should focus more on helping the world by aiding the fight against diseases such as malaria, cholera, dengue and other ailments that afflict the world's poor.

The bumpy road to economic liberty

A very humorous piece by the Globe and Mail, which could also be titled "Lessons from Dion". No, I haven't become a Steffi fan, but am referring to the G&M wandering from the topic of the Celine Dion visit to France and the economic reforms tabled by France's finance minister. The lesson can be summarized by the closing line:

Ms. Lagarde's challenge is persuading more French that a workhorse like Celine didn't get the bling by punching out after 35 hours.

The French labour laws and general mentality have stuck the country in a rut. Regulatory hurdles (lessons about which India should have well taught) force the flagship retailer Carrefour into expansion abroad rather than in the home country, while the President himself meddles with the economy by espousing a view of development as a function solely of factory work. It is outdated and counterproductive. A country without factories can have a blossoming economy through the services sector. A bank, a software engineering consultancy or a services centre are as good as a factory in creating wealth.

One of the reforms involves exempting small businesses from the bureaucracy by requiring only a statement of activity from them. Where's the catch?

In Ms. Lagarde's own words: "Someone who wants to sell flowers, design websites or give singing lessons will have only one document to fill out to declare their activity." That is, as long as that voice coach doesn't earn more than €27,000 ($42,750). At that point, the state's tentacles start squeezing again.

27K in Europe is a very small amount. If we include the taxes in the calculation the overall scope of the legislation is merely symbolic, because no-one can live on THAT income alone. Therefore this law would apply for small businesses that are part of a multi-job life, for those struggling to keep their lives free from the state's regulations and the labour unions' stranglehold. Opposition to such a symbolic move denotes granitic staleness in the French approach to work and economic growth in general.

Liberty is definitely coming to France. But it is excruciatingly slow. Maybe, though, this is the right path: the last time they went through sweeping change guillotiners had to work overtime. A 35 hour week surely wouldn't have sufficed!

Bush gets it right, sort of

Whatever we may think of President G.W. Bush, at times his straightforwardness and stubborness are a virtue. Speaking to Israel's Knesset, he linked the desire of many politicians to see dialogue with terrorists and hostile nutjob leaders to the delusion of appeasement that plagued the 20th century. CNN reports this, focusing on his major slip that involved mentioning the Nazi buildup and invasion of Europe. The notion of argument losers mentioning Nazism should have come to the President's attention during his eight years in office. It apparently didn't.

Talking to terrorists is appeasement, whatever Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter might think. Talking to Hezbollah, Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not make them come to their senses for they lack such an attribute in the first place. Negotiating involves two parties in full possession of common sense and willing to come to an agreement. As the aforementioned organizations and leaders lack both, no agreement can be reached. They can be controlled and kept in check at the table only until their firepower is overwhelmingly outnumbered and they haven't got a place to hide. To paraphrase a notorious expression, they will only accept offers they can't refuse.

I once saw hope in Hamas' electoral success, a hope for change. With the responsibility of government, the armed group would need to learn statecraft and open up civilized talks with Israel. Those hopes were shattered as rockets kept pouring into Israeli land. Ahmadinejad was hopeless from day one. America's true vowed enemies seem to lack the ability to learn and reason beyond the language of fire and blood. You'd need armed bodyguards at the negotiation table itself!

More climate scaremongering

A report by Reuters environment correspondent Deborah Zabarenko, taken on by the Globe and Mail today, cites a "vast global study" matched in proportion only by its falsity.

"When you look at all of the glaciers and all of the snowpack and all of the birds laying eggs earlier and all of the plants having spring earlier across a continent, then we see we can detect anthropogenic signals," said Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

I don't see it. Weather is warmer (maybe). So the local flora and fauna adapt, in order to exploit the favorable conditions. Nothing anthropogenic so far. Among the quoted changes due to global warming we find the following:

-- SOUTH AMERICA: Glacier wastage in Peru; melting Patagonia ice fields contributing to sea-level rise.

If all of Patagonia melted down the combined sea level rise would be negligible. If the whole of Antarctica did, that'd be a problem. The report merely uses notions we have been pre-programmed to be alarmed by to convey a very weak argument.

Climate is changing, we don't know for sure why. Scaring us with weak or inexistent correlations is not contributing to reducing the so-called global warming. Hiding this weakness under veils of vastity, inclusiveness, data pool breadth and confusing language (read the quotes in the report, they're insane) does the cause of climatologist advocacy no good.

Totalitarianism seen through the propaganda

In Naples an exhibition titled "The Song of Evil" will show Nazi and Stalin-era Soviet propaganda posters side-by-side to deliver a strong and true point: the two ideologies were strikingly similar in their communication strategy (and other areas as well, sadly).

Pictures available from the website of the Corriere Della Sera here.

Check it out.

What the other side thinks

Al Jazeera brings sometimes overlooked news to the curious Westerner. Today they brought us the Palestinian perspective on some historical events that have shaped the Middle East.

I cannot deny that there have been tragic mistakes on both sides. However, the Arab nations kind of started it... And as far as I know the proportion of rockets that have flown IN to and OUT of Israel tilts towards the IN side. Although George W. Bush's visit will indeed immerse him mostly into one partial reading and interpretation of regional history, one cannot fail to notice that the major fault lies with the Arab nations that so vehemently claim to protect Palestinian rights.

By all means Al Jazeera has all the right to convey an alternative viewpoint on Palestinian history. However it fails to note how regional politics and the short-sightedness of the thugs who invaded the State of Israel the day after its creation have caught the Palestinians in a cross-fire they would have gladly stayed out of.

Classics from across the pond

David "the man" Cameron termed Labour's policymaking strategy "government by management consultant and policy by PowerPoint". He strikes a painfully sensitive nerve there, as the current British government has grown so big it is tragically out of touch with the ordinary citizen. No wonder they get a drubbing in the local polls.

Although some of the policy proposals the British Conservatives outline may seem a little too interventionist or unfeasible (microgeneration isn't cheap to install), their approach puts citizens first and government last. Independent schools, locally accountable police forces, microgeneration and incentives for small business are set to erode the power of central bodies.

As I have maintained previously, the Tories have realized that the British system is too socialist-ized to be dealt one deadly blow that would allow its sitizens to breathe freely. A slow erosion of the mammoth nanny state erected by Labour would be, however, set in motion. Hopefully, given a little freedom to run their lives, greater numbers will demand even more.

Red tape can kill!

This is why the government should cut it. Producing generic life-saving antiretroviral drugs for specific countries with patent owner consent proved an odyssey for Apotex. (Globe and Mail)

But under Canada's legislation, the African country's interest was not enough for Apotex, the only company to express interest in selling the medication at cost, to produce and ship the drugs.

Apotex had to get permission, or a voluntary licence, from brand-name pharmaceutical companies Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. and GlaxoSmithKline Inc., which together hold patents for the three components in Apo-TriAvir in Canada.

It then needed to get a compulsory licence from the federal Commissioner of Patents before it could formally submit a bid to the open tender process by the Rwandan government that is required by the WTO deal.

Why isn't interest by both parties and patent owner consent sufficient? Why all the paperwork, delays and civil servants? I don't get it.

An Industry Canada report tabled in December said the government had no plans to change the process.

They bloody should!

How to wreck Ontario

That's the title the Ontario job strategy concocted by labour unions should bear. (CBC)

A new provincial job strategy focused on green industries and unionization of low-wage jobs could play a major role in replacing Ontario's disappearing manufacturing jobs, says a new report by local anti-poverty and labour groups.

Imposing MORE costs on Ontario consumers (that's what a Liberal environmental policy is anyway), ripping out their purchasing power, transmitting some of the causes of the manufacturing sector illnesses on other provincial jobs will only deepen the plight of some of the province's already suffering areas. The labour advocacy groups are trying to capitalize on the hardship of manufacturing workersby aiming to expand their influence and slip their tentacles into more areas of the job market.

NEVER!

Is Al Gore drooling now?

I like John McCain. However his latest courting of environmentally-concerned voters is a little too much territory conceded to the scaremongers. (Reuters)

In remarks he prepared to give at a wind technology firm in Portland, Oregon, on Monday, the Arizona senator said he would seek international accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would offer an incentive system to make businesses in the United States cleaner.

"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington," McCain said in remarks he planned to give at the Vestas Wind Technology plant.

"Good stewardship, prudence, and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly," he added.

Thinking of cutting worldwide greenhouse gas emissions is delusional, and McCain shouldn't feed the delusions of people duped by Al Gore who are generally trying to find answers to questions they can no longer ignore. Advocating clean technology is a sound policy without the "global warming" and "worldwide challenge" bells and whistles. The Cap and Trade system he proposes is workable, nuclear energy works just fine and no international accord can stop China's or India's emissions, if anything because they have the world's two vastest populations to spare on the altar of tiger growth.

Don't get carried away with the appealing to America-loving Democrats.

British court sides with terrorists

Does anyone have more news on this? A British Court apparently removed a terrorist group from the British watchlist. Searching Google News I came across mostly Iranian sources, with only one from the UK.

The Mujahedin Khalq Organization has been accused of (and sometimes taken responsibility for) several attacks against Iranian establishments, including embassies. They are also accused of Helping Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and helping him suppress internal dissent. The group is on most terrorist group lists compiled on this planet, as well as being a sketchy bunch who do not hesitate to harm their own country's interests by collaborating with its foe.

The IRNA report is not exceedingly vitriolic, although it does criticize the British Government strongly.

The Britain government is held responsible for such a ruling, he said and urged the UK ambassador to convey Iran's protest to his country's high ranking officials.

Fortunately on this side of the Bosphorus we do have something called "separation of powers", which means courts can be a Government's biggest pain in the butt. Despite the bungles I do hope it stays this way.

The Council of Foreign Relations has some more info on the MKO or MEK:

MEK was founded in 1963 by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists—supporters of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq—opposed to the country’s pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group participated in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But MEK’s ideology, a blend of Marxism, feminism, and Islamism, put it at odds with the post-revolutionary government, and its original leadership was soon executed by the Khomeini regime. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini’s Iran

Not a good starting point and not a good tactic. The British court system should know better.

Ronald Smith must face US justice

Revelations that the governor of Montana was considering transferring Ronald Smith, the Canadian on death row in his State, to Canada with guarantees of minimum five years imprisonment do not alter the perspectives on the issues at hand. (Gazzette)

As I understand, Smith went into the US and committed a felony punishable by death in that State. He was caught, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. Repatriation (with consequent release after the minimum guaranteed term) would send the wrong signal to any ill-intentioned Canadian: you can go and commit crimes that would get locals hanged, because Canada, no matter how blatantly guilty you are, will kick up a fuss and get you repatriated and released on parole.

This is not the ideal of justice this country espouses.

Cocoa Puff Conservatism

What a great comment in the National Post network on the unintended negative effects of well-intentioned government regulations. Focusing on Quebec's ban on advertising aimed at children, William Watson makes a striking case for conservatism and non-interventionism in the market.

Cocoa Puff Conservatism - a highly recommended read, also because he teaches at my same university :)

Intentions aren't evidence in a Court of History.

Murky Liberal lobbying money

The Chronicle Herald provides a very interesting article on the relationship between unregistered lobbyist Dingwall and Canada Post. The Crown Corporation will not reveal why it paid in excess of $200k to a lobbyist, and it excised information from databases that could be accessed via Free Access to Information law.

An agreement between a State company and a shadowy unregistered lobbyist that states "As per our discussions of last week, we would like you to advise us on the political and social implications of . . ." is fishy.

In 2005 testimony before the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship program,
Mr. Clermont testified that Mr. Dingwall’s political adviser at the time, Warren
Kinsella, repeatedly called Mr. Clermont to request that the Crown corporation
hire certain Liberal law firms and advertising companies. Mr. Kinsella has
disputed Mr. Clermont’s claims.

They've been hiring each other, cheating the Canadian public out of money and covering their tracks, non?

"You’ve got two deans of the Liberal party," Mr. Williamson said. "One is hiring
the other. It looks awful, particularly since, at least in the public eye, they
were both forced out of their positions because of inappropriate actions. In
both cases, their careers did not end on a high note in terms of transparency
and accountability."

Who's naughty now?

Let's all move to Greenland

Terrific Timesonline article on the road Greenland has embarked on. Secession from Denmark is now a prospect, but not only is this the most commonsensical secession I've ever contemplated, but Greenland would be shielded from some of the hottest enviro-fascist arguments we are peddled everyday.

The plan, which has been drawn up by a committee of politicians from Denmark and Greenland, envisages the phasing out of subsidies from Copenhagen as the huge island makes increasing use of its rich mineral and oil resources under a thick layer of ice.

Under the terms of the plan the country would eventually keep all the revenue from mineral and oil exploitation. To begin with the islanders will be allowed the first €10 million earned each year from the country’s resources. When it starts to earn more than that – if and when multinational energy companies invest – the Danish subsidies will be capped. By the time Greenland earns €800 million a year, the money from Denmark will stop. There would then be no obstacle to independence.

Doesn't this sound like one of the most enlightened independence paths ever? No animosity, no rampant blind nationalism, no nonsense. Just nplain economics and development. The two parties cannot agree on some key policy aspects, e.g. seal hunting, therefore it's best if they began to part ways.

Not only Greenland is a good experiment in commonsensical nation-building, but the new-born nation may be quite exciting to live in.

when Greenland makes the final break it will rank as one of the most politically incorrect states in the international community.

Whalemeat figures large in its traditional cooking and its hunters enthusiastically track down some of the cud-dliest animals on the planet, including polar bears, seals and walruses. Even the seats of the lounge at Nuuk airport are covered in seal skin.

As for global warming, Greenlanders cannot get enough of it. [...] “It will improve fishing and above all make it easier to drill for oil and gas. The US geological survey calculates that the greatest unused oil reserves on Earth are in the Greenland waters – and they are in the east, where the ice is melting fastest.”

A nation that drills holes in its own sea to exploit its natural resources, agrees to phasing out government subsidies, hunts whatever it wants to hunt and actually likes the idea of ice melting?
I Love It!

Russia and Georgia at war? Never.

Christ Georgia is nuts! If Russia wanted a war with them there would be Russian troops marching through Tbilisi between the time Medvedev woke up and came down for breakfast.

Abkhazia and Sorth Ossetia are breakaway regions that have virtually administered themselves for years, with their own unrecognized governments and Russian peacekeepers keeping the Georgian troops out. During the collapse of the Soviet Union virtually every autonomous entity, of which Abkhazia and Sorth Ossetia were examples, could legally declare independence. They just chose not to, and remain part of the SSR they were arbitrarily assigned to during the usual border redrawing. That SSR happened to be the Georgian one.

However, Abkhazia and Sorth Ossetia have an overwhelming Russian population, and within their borders the Russian ruble circulates much more easily than the Georgian lari. The current Georgian government has no ambition but to brutalize these provinces into submission to Tbilisi.
What's curious, however, is Georgia's hypocrisy. First they adamantly recognize the controversial independence of a Serbian province that after years is still incapable of governing itself without a bloodbath. Then they balk at the prospect of losing control over two provinces where their own authority has been all but superseded without any major disturbance to public order or liberty.

The current spat is a storm in a teacup. Both sides will bark and them come to some arrangement. Despite the US siding with Georgia, even Saakashvili is perfectly conscious a Russian tank's cannon up the backside will hurt, even with the lubricant. If Georgia fires the first shot the current government is done with and exiled before teatime. Russia has learned the Afghanistan lesson, I hope. It has too much to lose if it starts a fight with an unruly midget.

McGuinty on a sales trip

Globe and Mail reports that Dalton McGuinty is popping into Turin for a chat with the Fiat big honchos, to discuss the possibility of the company "making at least one model of the Alfa Romeo sports car before 2012". This choice is unadvisable for several reasons:

1) Fiat is in troubled waters anyway, with closures throughout Italy
2) If Italians don't buy Fiats, there's a reason. They blow.
3) Demand for sports cars is restricted, more so in Canada where snow isn't exactly a rarity
4) The timescale of this investment is too long to save the auto industry in Ontario

Leaving aside these considerations, McGuinty is also (according to the report) in talks with China, India and "folks in Germany". VolksWagen, however, already narrowed down the choices of its North American plants to three US locations. That should sound a few alarm bells, there's something wrong in the way the Ontario auto industry and labor are regulated.

Furthermore, why talk to the same China that can build the cars at virtually no cost (with contributions from Laogai slave camps) and cram them into a ship? Who in their sane Chinese mind would open up shop with higher wages, labor union bother and a meddling provincial government? Talks with India can lead somewhere, but the same considerations about labor price, unions and regulations come into play.

This makes no sense.

CBC misleading on CAIRS

I have nothing against the way the CBC reports stuff, except what common sense point to as plain wrong. Reporting what you want to say instead of what actually happened is quite an art. However, this piece of reporting takes the biscuit! The title itself is ambiguous, suggesting that the Government has actually SHUT the CAIRS database. The article continues:

The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable.

Although searching other people's research efforts can help people find documents, I do not see how keeping a database of requests for information is any more transparent than the actual acts allowing access to the information in question.

But did the government actually kill the database? Certainly not!

Last week, a notice to civil servants from Treasury Board stated that effective April 1, "the requirement to update CAIRS is no longer in effect."

What's there remains there. But civil servants will have more time to dedicate to actually serving the public rather than playing around with gimmicks. Of course the CBC distorts reality in its first lines in order to mask the truth.

They interview and quote their own journalist, David McKie, who also runs onlinedemocracy.ca, an information endeavor I actually commend. However, on the website itself the following "limitation" is posted:

Some large departments do not enter all requests which they have received into CAIRS. Consequently you should not assume that this is a comprehensive list of federal ATIA requests.

CAIRS is already incomplete. It will just get less updates, but the information will still be freely available. So why all the fuss?

Now, users mine the database to do statistical studies, fine tune phrasing on new requests and discover obscure documents — often using the information against the government.

What difference does it make for the CBC how the information is used? The info will still be publicly available, the various scandal-hunters will however have to toil a little longer and do a little more research to get their info. Maybe they'll also have time to think whether their story is actually a story.

The CBC should whine less about useless gimmicks and actually push for electronic indexing of all documents that are covered by the Access to Information legislation. And, if they're so concerned, get off their butt and create a database themselves.

No-one truly cares about solving the food crisis

Thailand abandons the nonsensical idea of a South-East Asian rice exporting cartel in favor of stimulating productivity (CBC).

Thai officials had proposed the idea of a cartel earlier this month in an effort to gain more control over skyrocketing rice prices

The day a cartel strives to keep prices LOW pigs will fly. The naivete (or slyness) of the Thai government amazes me. Such a syndicate would only drive producers into bankruptcy (unable to sell at market prices and afford derivative products), hardly a solution to the food crisis.

At the same time, farming subsidies in the US and the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU are still in place and nearly never called into question, the food aid agencies with overpaid employees have to buy the food on a distorted market and so the vicious circle continues. No wonder Senegal's President, Abdoulaya Wade, called on the FAO's abolition (Corriere Della Sera). Headquarters in Rome and the highest-paid employees in the entire UN roster are unmistakable attributes of a body genuinely committed to relieving the suffering of the hungry in Africa and Asia.

South-East Asian governments consider clenching the rice market with an iron fist. The always adamant EU and US pledge aid and whatnot while maintaining a perverse system of pricefixing. The embattled FAO perpetuates the vicious circle. Demand for food genuinely grows worldwide.

Meanwhile leftist anti-poverty anti-WTO anti-capitalist anti-GMO and anti-intelligence protesters deny the African nations (among others) the unmistakeable benefits of Genetically Modified crops that can actually reproduce, forcing those who starve into buying batches of seeds that can grow every year or into the fairtrade delusion. Organic farming, with its gross inefficiency, further steals agricultural land that could be used for producing more food more efficiently.

Who will care for the needy instead of their own backyard, privileges, comforts or sad delusions?

While people starve...

The UN is to get some sort of $1.877 billion repair and makeover on the inside. I wish it were the right "inside" though, and I really wish Reuters made a typo when quoting the figure.

The building housing the Secretariat is to be improved because some nasty stuff has been going on:

It has water dripping through its roof, toxic asbestos lining its ceiling tiles, no sprinklers in case of fire and erratic heating and cooling systems, leading to friction with New York City authorities.

The building epitomizes what's inefficient about the organization. Its decision-making process leaks from a million holes punched by vetos and old-style consensus politics, it has close to no means of intervening in a crisis, the cooling can't cope with the hot air (read: nonsense) the Organization's watchers have to endure and it can't heat up and be ready for action until a disaster is already consummated.

Ban Ki Moon shouldn't be inconvenienced by the "inconvenience" of moving his overpaid staff to some other overpriced NYC space. Having the entire bureaucracy scattered might actually give him some breathing space to reform the blue-clad behemoth he has the onus of heading.

The tough life of a skeptic

The Heartland Institute sent an educational package to over 200 Canadian schools, with material detailing the other side of the global warming debate. Without delving into an analysis of the content (because I haven't seen it), the words of a school teacher, interviewed by the Gazzette, kind of upset me:

"It took me a while to figure out what they were up to," said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School in Ottawa.

"I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn't been aware of what the general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, 'Wow, somebody's giving me the wrong story here.' "

Being afraid of losing people's minds unless they had been exposed to your arguments first is an unequivocal sign of weakness. Furthermore, the reference to consensus among climatologists (add an -ology to anything these days and you've got a PhD in it) is eery. Basically students in schools are expected to conform to a consensus of fallible mortal beings just because it's a consensus.

Global warming IS the wrong story. If the world's getting hotter, why does it snow in Baghdad? If this consensus tyranny wasn't enough, the Heartland Institute actually provides the letters schoolkids were encouraged to send to them by their teacher. They make a disturbing read indeed. Heartland's comment is simple:

Particularly troubling about the students’ letters, in light of the principles outlined in the official Science Framework for California Public Schools, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve, by the California State Board of Education (2004), is the children’s utter certainty that they know everything there is to know about global warming, that there is nothing left to learn.

One wrote, “We’ve read article about global warming. And we know all the facts.”

Another said:

“Natural disasters have quadrupled in 20 years, 53 bird species face extinction, World must fix climate in 10 years, Air pollution shrinks fetus size. THIS IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING!!!”

'Nuf said!

Wait 'til the hangover kicks in!

Introducing prohibition helped an Innu community in Northern Labrador cut its crime rate, in particular violent crime such as sexual assaults and domestic abuse. Parental involvement with children's lives seems to be improving too.

Kudos! But frequently human beings love to point the finger to anything and anyone but themselves. Alcohol is usually a mere catalyst, albeit a potent one. Now that the community has sobered up, maybe it's time to dig into why people actually drink and why when drunk they get abusive. Do they drink to forget the misery of joblessness or to drown their own failures in personal relationships? Do they get abusive because they were taught little respect for their peers in school or because they lacked positive parental role models?

These questions need to be asked and answered if the community is to progress and recover. Banning doesn't solve problems or cleanwash the cauldron brewing the trouble, it merely cuts the heat supply. The hangover will be nasty but it has to be dealt with.

Good luck to these communities sorting out their problems, and may they serve as examples of true eradication of the troubles that plague them. If they manage to find and cut the roots of their situation they can truly begin their journey to greater prosperity. I'll drink to that!

Bill C-10 should have more balls!

Bill C-10 is to be a confidence issue, and sure as sunshine leftie film industry pressure will not be sufficient to grow the right attributes on Stephane Dion that'd make him vote the bill down. But C-10 doesn't go far enough.

I've seen my fair share of great classics and utter crap films. If you've watched Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point" you know what I mean by boring crap. Non-boring but utterly useless crap is epitomized in the latest "Rambo". But let's remain on topic.

The argument that Canadian film-making is mostly independent and thus dependent (oops) on government funding may well be correct. Comparing Bill C-10 to censorship is, however, wrong. Independent creative expression frequently has the task of provoking, challenging, questioning current lines of thought and current boundaries, including decency boundaries. How is a government supposed to discern between what's acceptable and what's not? Why, furthermore, should the government use its coffers to subsidize what's plainly not in its mandate? If the people wanted provocation and challenges they'd elect anyone BUT an incrementalist Tory.

Perks for film-making should be scrapped altogether. The evolution of thought and perception have no place in a Government's portfolio; its course should be left for the people themselves to decide. Whatever you're filming, if it's good someone will see the opportunity and finance it. This would further encourage independent directors to explore topics that actually appeal to the public or are likely to generate elevated interest. With a private source of finance the director will find not only a moneybag but also a fervent promoter of the movie (he will want to make money!). Where's the trouble?

Independent film-makers should cherish bill C-10 because it cuts into the interests of the great production industries, who have for too long relied on cheap and superficial effects and contents to provide us with dumb movies good only for pizza-and-beer communal procrastination.